This Section provides arrangements for the voluntary acquisition and operation of transport undertakings. I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister in connection with it. We have a number of transport undertakings in this country, and I should like to know from the Minister whether they will be able to enter into an agreement with Córas Iompair Éireann for the voluntary acquisition of their services or whether the provision in the section relates to compulsory acquisition.
Transport Bill, 1949—Committee (Resumed).
Sections 23 to 25 inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 26.
Question proposed: "That Section 26 stand part of the Bill."
It will be a voluntary arrangement, I should say.
We are somewhat handicapped in discussing this Bill because we have not had from the Minister any details as to the present Government's policy in relation to transport. I am specially interested in a particular service and I understand that negotiations are going on at the present time for the acquisition of this service by Córas Iompair Éireann. Whether these negotiations are of a compulsory or a voluntary kind, it is very hard to know. The Bill makes provision for the acquisition of certain undertakings and such acquisition according to the Minister's reply will be of a voluntary nature. In order, however, to have a voluntary acquisition achieved, there must be certain negotiations and both sides must be quite satisfied. So far as I understand in connection with the service in which I am interested, which I do not want to name at present, the Minister has made some advances but these advances are not being accepted by the board of directors of the particular company. I want to know from the Minister if that particular company will not accept the recommendations or the advances of the Department of Industry and Commerce or of Córas Iompair Éireann what will be the result? Will the company not be acquired, apart from the fact that, according to the Minister's ideas, it is in the national interest that the company should be acquired, in order to give service to the people concerned? If agreement cannot be brought about between the board of directors of Córas Iompair Éireann and the company, what is going to be the result?
Captain Orpen
I should like to ask the Minister to clarify the meaning of the section, which is not quite clear to me. This section gives power, I take it, to acquire voluntarily transport services. Once they are acquired, do they have to be maintained in some form or other? If, for instance, Córas Iompair Éireann acquire a transport undertaking within the State, can it then dispense with this service without going through all the procedure provided for in the sections dealing with the closing of branch lines, etc.? As I read the section, Córas Iompair Éireann can voluntarily acquire a service of a private nature. Then does it become incumbent on Córas Iompair Éireann to maintain that as a service that cannot be dispensed with without going through all the procedure of going to the tribunal? It is not quite clear to me.
The importance of this paragraph in the section becomes obvious from reading it. A certain undertaking which consulted me in regard to it felt that there was no ambiguity in the clause so long as it was literally interpreted. It simply states that no private undertaking may be taken over except on terms to be agreed upon. We may take it then that it is a permissive clause, which gives power to the board of Córas Iompair Éireann to acquire a private undertaking. In other words, no private undertaking can be forcibly absorbed in Córas Iompair Éireann. That is the way we interpret it. I think Senator Hawkins has done a good day's work in focussing attention on this matter. Had he not spoken I would have accepted the clause as it is drafted and that would be my interpretation of it.
There is no doubt about that. This section deals with undertakings which may be acquired on the basis of a voluntary agreement. I think Senator Hawkins was concerned with the Galway-Aran service.
Quite right.
There is no question of acquiring it compulsorily. It will all be a matter of agreement. As the Senator is aware that service is maintained very largely by State assistance. There is a sort of annual agreement between the Department concerned and the Galway Bay Steamship Company. I do not think he need have any fears in relation to that particular service. With regard to the point raised by Senator Orpen, any lines which may be acquired by Córas Iompair Éireann cannot be closed without going through the same process of approaching the tribunal as is necessary in the case of existing Córas Iompair Éireann services.
I should like to have more definite information in relation to the particular service in which I am interested. In the course of my presentation of the case, I did not mention the name of the particular service but the Minister has mentioned it. Seeing that it has been mentioned there can be no harm in further developing the case on behalf of that particular service.
May I ask if the Senator is going to argue the merits of the case, or the basis on which it should be acquired, if it is to be acquired?
No, I do not propose to go into the merits or the demerits, but I do propose to put before the Minister the importance of the service and its maintenance. I believe I would be quite within my rights in suggesting to the House that in Section 26 we are giving power to a particular board to acquire transport undertakings. It is only right when we are giving power to a board to do such a thing that we should have from the Minister a clear and definite statement as to how the undertakings will be acquired.
The service I am interested in has been carried on for quite a number of years under the directorship of quite a number of persons interested in various aspects of national life. If, by the mere passage of this section, we are going to empower the Minister or the board to acquire that service without some recognition of and making some provision for the persons who have in the ordinary way catered for this particular service—making provision for the compensation of such persons—I think that is one of the things this House should not do.
May I relieve the Senator's mind? We are not exactly falling over ourselves to acquire this service.
This service?
Yes, this particular service, and if it is to be acquired under this section, then it will be by agreement between the two parties. So far as we are concerned, our only interest in acquiring it is to ensure that the service shall be continued and, if possible, improved, as between the main land and the islands. We have no other interest. It is not making any money and I doubt if we will make any money out of it.
It is a private concern.
Quite.
While we talk about the nationalisation of transport undertakings, we must remember that this service has served the people of the islands, and during a very difficult period those people maintained that service. If, by the mere passage of this section, we are now going to give authority to a Minister or a board to take over from those people who have maintained that service through the years, without giving them some recognition or paying some tribute to their services, I say that is one of the things the Seanad should not be called upon to do.
I agree with Senator Summerfield as to the interpretation of the section. The section provides for voluntary acquisition. It is also clear that the Bill does not provide for the compulsory acquisition of anything except the services mentioned in the Bill, that is, the present service under Córas Iompair Éireann, plus the Grand Canal Company.
I do not understand from Senator Hawkins whether he desires that there should be compulsory powers in the Bill to acquire transport undertakings. He did not make that clear. I thought at first he was in favour of that. I may say I am not.
With regard to the particular service under discussion, I am not a Galway man, but I am interested in it because it serves islands which are in the main Irish-speaking. It is a service which I would like to see preserved for reasons which have nothing to do with ordinary economic considerations. I know from experience in public life in the Dáil for a number of years that it is a long time since there were questions asked with regard to a State subsidy for this service. I do not know what the Senator wants to get from the Minister beyond what he has got, namely, further consideration for helping the people who live on the islands.
In this case there is a special interest in them—because of linguistic reasons it is desirable to continue the service. But I do not know what else the Senator wants. This service is an unsatisfactory one and has been for a long time because of economic reasons over which, I think, the people running the service have not very much control. The Minister desires to continue the service for the benefit of the people on the islands and, if possible, to improve it; but that must be done in a voluntary way, and I do not know any method by which we can make any provision legislatively for the acquisition of a private concern on more favourable terms than Córas Iompair Éireann is prepared to give.
That is what Senator Hawkins wants and I do not see how in a Bill he can get what he wants. The most any of us can get is the assurance the Minister has given us, that it is the desire of the Government and, therefore, will be put up to Córas Iompair Éireann, that this service should be maintained and improved. If that can be done it is not possible for us by way of legislation to prescribe the particular conditions under which it will be done.
It seems to me there is a principle involved here which we should maintain. I do not think any legislation should give, even to a State company, the right compulsorily to acquire private services. If they are to be acquired compulsorily it should be by another Act as the deliberate and considered act of the Oireachtas. We are not accepting the principle that all transport should necessarily be run by the State. The reason Córas Iompair Éireann are being acquired is because of circumstances and not because of a desire to acquire private interests. While that is the policy, not only of the present Government but of its predecessor, we should maintain the principle that there will be no compulsory acquisition of a private company, of private transport or other private interests except it is done by means of legislation brought before the Oireachtas.
For my part I realise it is very difficult to frame questions on this section to elicit information that we would all desire to get. Even if it were possible to frame the questions I am still in doubt whether we should ask the questions at all or not. There is one particular undertaking, and I think the Minister has it in mind, about which we would like some information, but I am quite willing to concede that this may not be the opportune time to seek information in regard to it.
With regard to the Galway Bay Steamship Company, which is the one in question here, since the particular service that it runs has been mentioned, I would like to raise one or two points. The word "voluntary" has been stressed in connection with this section. We know the meaning of the word "co-operation" and I think we all quite understand that you can get co-operation in a normal, reasonable way and if you do not you can force it. Equally so with regard to this company. It is possible by a certain procedure to make the position unduly difficult. Firstly, we have to realise that the service is an essential one. It may not be a paying service, but like economic development, like some of the questions we discussed on other sections, here is a case where it will be genuinely in the national interest that, the consequences being what they may, that service should be maintained.
When the Transport Act of 1944 was before the House I made the plea that something should be done to take over the Aran Islands service. I had hopes that in due course, with the development of Córas Iompair Éireann, that service would be taken over. I still have hopes that under this legislation we will reach the stage where that service will be taken over by the National Transport Company. If negotiations are entered into between the two parties, the Galway Bay Steamship Company and the Government, it is possible for the company to indicate that this is a service that will impose a burden on them, that by taking over this service they will be handicapped in achieving the aims that we prescribe for them in Section 15, which we debated at considerable length the last evening. Then we may be able to reach the position where we could convince the Minister that, notwithstanding the attitude of the board, something ought to be done about this.
Negotiations are proceeding and the Minister or Córas Iompair Éireann will say: "We are prepared to take over this service at a price," and the price may be such, it may be arranged at such a level, that the company could not consider it at all. The price could be fixed so low that the company might say: "There is no use in going on with this matter." In that way, while we would like to see the thing settled voluntarily, it is possible to introduce an element of compulsion to the extent that you would prevent the achievement of the aim that I would like to see achieved, and that is the absorption of that service by Córas Iompair Éireann.
There is very little point in pressing the matter because time and again, on three or four relevant sections in the Bill, I have done my best to get from the Minister an indication of what he as Minister for Industry and Commerce visualises in regard to this reorganisation of transport and its development. I feel from what I have heard here and from what I have read of the proceedings in the Dáil that there is very little point in pressing the Minister for information, because he will not give it.
There does seem to be some substance in the remark of Senator Hawkins with regard to the attitude that may be adopted towards the Galway Bay Steamship Company which controls the service to Aran. A difficulty could arise due to unreasonableness on the part of the new board, if that is the board that will be responsible for the negotiations, or on the part of the Minister, if eventually it can be brought home to the Minister that he ought to take some action in regard to it.
I will repeat that I have no uneasiness with regard to the wording of this paragraph.
You can read English.
At the same time, because of the doubts that have been raised in the minds of some Senators, I suggest the Minister should make a statement. I know that it is like asking him to push an already open door. I ask him to repeat that the Bill does not confer and is not intended to confer on Córas Iompair Éireann the power to take over compulsorily the business of any private operator. I have no doubt about this matter at all, but it is an important matter and because of its importance I suggest the Minister should do that. Such a statement will allay the doubts that exist in the minds of some people who, perhaps, have not been here to listen to the debate and those doubts may exist in the minds of some who have even read the debate. I hope the Minister will give us a straight, simple and categorical statement.
If anybody had any doubt in his mind about the purpose of Section 26 he had only to turn to the Bill and read the marginal note to the section which says: "Arrangements for voluntary acquisition and operation of transport undertakings." I, like Senator Summerfield, would not have spoken on this section but for the doubts that were raised. Doubts were raised, and it is now suggested that Córas Iompair Éireann should be practically compelled to buy certain hand-picked concerns such as the Galway Bay Steamship Company. Now, I know nothing about the Galway Bay Steamship Company. I believe it is a service that should be maintained, but if the service be one that requires a State subsidy, and has required it in the past, to suggest that we should compel a company that has been reorganised because it is bankrupt to buy other bankrupt concerns seems to me to be bad economics. If you are merely to compel Córas Iompair Éireann to buy without compelling others to sell, it may be in a worse position than ever before. It was rumoured in connection with another Transport Bill it was made obligatory on the Dublin Transport Company to buy up rival concerns. That is where the obligation began and ended. It was forced to buy them up, and, since they were not forced to sell, they made their own price.
May I assure Senator Summerfield that there was no necessity to compel me to use simple language? As a matter of fact I do not know any other. May I say to Senator Ó Buachalla, in reply to his charge that there is no use in asking me for any information because, as he said, I will not give any, that I only regret the Senator did not discover that earlier in the debate—not that I am admitting that I am not giving information. I know very few Bills introduced into the Oireachtas which have been so exhaustively discussed as this one. May I say further that, unlike some Senators, I think I understand what is worrying the Senators from Galway. I have no desire to acquire this company compulsorily. There is no obligation on me. I am not concerned with the Galway Bay Steamship Company. I am concerned only with seeing that there is a service between the mainland and the Aran Islands. Córas Iompair Éireann can themselves provide that service without going to the Galway Steamship Company at all, or Córas Iompair Éireann or the Government can enter into an arrangement with any other company to provide a service.
You can get a few canal boats now.
I would not like to see Senator Colgan on a canal boat trying to get around Black Head. I think if he tried that he would find that it was not in Ringsend Basin he was. I have been there myself on a few occasions and I think I know something about it. I wish Senators would accept this from me that there is no desire or intention to be unfair or unjust to anybody, to any company or to any section. I understand that there have been certain talks between officers of my Department and the Galway Bay Steamboat Company. We will not exercise any pressure, unfair or otherwise, on the Galway Bay Steamboat Company, and, on the other hand, we are not going to allow anyone to exercise any unfair pressure on us. The position in connection with this is quite simple. The board of the new company, as Senator S. O'Farrell has pointed out, has nothing to gain financially by taking on this service. We are concerned about the service because we believe that the people on the islands are entitled to a decent service and we are anxious to give it to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: That Section 28 stand part of the Bill.
On that question I would like to say a word or two. A few minutes ago, when we were dealing with another matter, I mentioned that there were three or four sections of the Bill which I considered to be of outstanding importance: that is, as far as securing an efficient and an economic transport service for the country is concerned. What I said a few moments ago about obtaining information goes still. Nevertheless, I do not want to allow the occasion of this section to pass without again making an effort to get some indication from the Minister as to what he visualises by way of a scheme or a plan or by way of a policy to achieve the aims which we all so much desire. Under Section 6 there was the question of the type of board and the retention of the right by the Minister to appoint the chairman. I wanted to know why that right was sought, but we did not get the answer. Then we had a long discussion on the general powers of the board which was equally futile. We had a long discussion on Section 15 which deals with the duties of the board and which, by the way, became specific after we had got away from the first subsection.
Section 28 deals with the question of finance. The important sub-section in this section is, in my view, sub-section (2), paragraph (b), which prescribes that the total amount of money borrowed shall not exceed £7,000,000. I do not know why the Minister put in £7,000,000. Perhaps, in view of what has gone before, and in view of the discussions we have had, it might as well be 7d. or £7 or £70,000,000 instead of £7,000,000. The words in the sub-section seem to me to have no significance unless the Minister is prepared to take us into his confidence and indicate to us what has been the result of such study as he has made of the difficulties that were there in the last few years, and of the shortcomings of the ex-chairman and of the present board, and unless he indicates to us what steps he hopes the new board will be able to take and how they are going to achieve such aims as they may have, and what he thinks those aims are.
The Minister has indicated to us the difficulties that confront Córas Iompair Éireann at the moment. Like other people, he has indicated to us the fact that the troubles of Córas Iompair Éireann arose mainly out of its running of the railway section. That is the crux. On the last day the Minister indicated to us that since 1937 not one new carriage has been built. In 1937 there was considerable uneasiness with regard to the future of the company. About that time there was a special tribunal appointed to consider the difficulties of the transport system. Almost immediately we had the great war with all the difficulties that arose out of it, especially for transport undertakings, so that if between 1937 and 1947 no new carriages had been built, one could quite understand that. I would say that as one who realises the industrial difficulties there were during the war and post-war periods. In the light of our experience, we could say that we had no hesitation in agreeing that there had been difficulties, and that we must forgive those who were not able to achieve greater results because of those difficulties.
During the last 12 months there has been a new chairman. I wonder were materials more easily got during that period than in the period before that? The personnel has been retained, the gear was pretty well intact, and it would surprise me if considerable strides had not been made in the last 12 months in the provision of new carriages. That, however, is not my point. We all know that the whole railway system requires overhaul. The carriages require to be renewed, and the rolling stock, if that means trucks and bogies of all description, requires to be renewed. In most cases they require new stock. We had indications the last day of a deterioration in the condition of the permanent way, and an indication from the Minister as to the enormous cost that will be involved in any effort to bring that up to a proper standard. We know that the stations require a complete overhaul; we know that the cabins and the signalling system have deteriorated and require to be replaced by a newer system.
There is the question of the branch lines, the standardisation of engines and so on. Does the Minister visualise that £7,000,000 is sufficient to achieve that overhaul? My point is that he must have had some idea in his mind when he decided on this figure of £7,000,000. Some technicians must have advised him, and said that £7,000,000 was the sum required to put this service right. How is this money to be expended? In what way is the service to be improved by this expenditure to the extent set down in Section 15? As far as I am concerned Sections 6, 13, 15 and 28 are the ones in which I am particularly interested. I have tried to find out whether there has been any consistent principle running through those sections. I have tried to find out from a study of them what is visualised in order to achieve what is aimed at—really good efficient and economic transport service. I have failed to find that out. This is the last time that I am going to make an appeal to the Minister to indicate to us, as the result of his studies, and of the advice that has been tendered to him with regard to this company, how he has arrived at this figure of £7,000,000, and how he thinks it is going to achieve all that we hope will be achieved. It is all very well for the Minister to say: "Well, if there is not enough in it I will come back again and ask for more." That seems to me to be the wrong way to approach this. It is of no assistance to those of us who have made a study of economic problems to tell us to try and work out, as on a chess board, the position of this and the position of that, and to relate all these things to each other in order to see what the result is going to be. Maybe I am asking or expecting too much, but in any case I feel that I should not let the section go without again making this appeal.
It struck me, when listening to the Senator on this provision of £7,000,000 and telling us how interested he was as one who studies economic problems, that his speech might have been more appropriately delivered on the 1944 Transport Bill when it was before the Seanad. I do not know if the Senator put to my predecessor many, or any, of the questions which he has put to me to-day when my predecessor was providing in the 1944 Act for £6,000,000 and not £7,000,000. I am putting in £7,000,000 because I am advised by competent advisers that that is an adequate sum, and because I know that that £7,000,000 will be devoted to the provision of an efficient transport system, and that its expenditure will be confined very largely, if not entirely, to the purchase and provision of vehicles which will earn money, rather than be expended upon propositions which are merely avenues for the expenditure of money. I do not know whether I can help the Senator. May I assure him that I am not deliberately withholding any information from the Seanad? I have no desire to do so but fortunately, perhaps, for the Senator as well as for myself, I am not a transport expert——
Nor a prophet.
Nor a prophet. I am neither a transport expert nor a prophet, and not having one or the other qualification, I am prepared to take advice from people competent to give it to me. I can only assure the Senator that he is not entirely right when he says that it might as well be £700, £7,000 or £700,000 as £7,000,000, as the figure was not picked out of the hat like that. Whether the Senator can accept it or not, there was very considerable attention given to the drafting of this Bill. If the Senator has failed, up to this point, to grasp the purport of the Bill, and the intention behind it, and what we hope to do with its machinery in relation to the national transport system, then I regret that I am unable to help him further. The £7,000,000 is there. I am assured that is a sum that it is thought would be required. Therefore, I do not want to ask the Oireachtas for any more or any less.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 29.
I move amendment No. 10:—
Before Section (4) in page 25, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
No stamp duty shall be chargeable or payable on any instrument by which a transfer of transport stock is effected.
The purpose of this amendment is to make a minor concession to the stockholders of Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking. On the Second Reading of the Bill I made some general observations about the relation between the amount of compensation and what I considered the amount should be, and I hope to make some further observations on it when we deal with that matter again on the schedule to the present Bill. This amendment is simply a request to the Minister to consider making a minor concession on the cost of marketing these shares and stocks when they come into the market later. These will be full Government stocks. They will not be like Córas Iompair Éireann debentures, which are simply contingent liabilities of the Government. They will be full Government stocks, giving full Government security. Therefore, I suggest that they should be treated from the point of view of stamp duty as other Government stocks are. In particular, I would draw attention to the fact that Land Bonds, which are in many ways parallel with these stocks, are free from stamp duty on the Dublin Stock Exchange. The Land Bonds have been issued by the Irish Government to people in compensation for their landed estates. These stocks are issued by the Irish Government to people in compensation for their railway shareholdings, and I really cannot see why one class of Government stock should be free of stamp duty and the other class subject to it. I would like to quote the example of the British transport stocks on this matter. The Minister has quoted the example of the British Transport Board against me in relation to other matters I dealt with on the last amendment I proposed and I do not think that he can complain if I quote it against him now. I understand that the British transport stocks, which are on all-fours with these stocks, are free from stamp duty on the London Stock Exchange, and I suggest to the Minister that he might consider making what, after all, is only a minor concession to the shareholders of the present undertaking.
I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment. It may be only a minor concession that would make the stocks more attractive to purchasers and to that extent benefit the stockholders, but it might create a very dangerous precedent. I am not prepared to agree that these stocks are Government stocks in the ordinary sense of the word, and I would not be prepared to accept the amendment, because I think it would be extremely difficult to draw the line in relation to other stocks which I can think about at the moment. It would be opening the door a bit too wide. I am sorry.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 10a:—
In sub-section (6) (d), line 19, page 25, to delete "transfer of".
Amendment No. 10a is a purely drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10b:-
In sub-section (6), line 23, page 25, to delete "apply to transport stock" and substitute ", in relation to transport stock, apply, with or without modification,".
Amendment No. 10b is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 29, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.
Sections 30 to 34 inclusive put and agreed to.
SECTION 35.
I propose amendment No. 11, standing in the names of Senator Hearne and myself:—
In sub-section (2), before paragraph (e), to insert the following new paragraph:—
The board shall by special rules provide that shed and shop clerks who have had a minimum of four years' satisfactory service shall be eligible for promotion to the clerical grades of the service of the board.
I ask the Minister to accept this amendment, having regard to the facts of recruitment of labour for such a service as Córas Iompair Éireann or the transport services generally. We already know that there is a certain provision made whereby sons of employees of the transport company have already got certain preferences. What I want to achieve in this is that those people who enter the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann in a particular grade will have an opportunity, because of their abilities and service to the board, to look forward, after giving of their best services, to the time when they will be put into the category of being eligible to sit at those examinations. We have, at the present time, people who are referred to in this section as shed and shop workers. The main occupations of these persons are of a very clerical nature, and because of the fact that they enter into the service under this particular category they are not allowed to sit for any examination that might give them an opportunity of improving their positions.
That is not so.
I would put it to the Seanad and to the Minister that, arriving at the stage we have reached in this country, it would be well that the most lowly person who enters into an occupation should be given every opportunity of advancement. It is in that belief that I put down this amendment, and I hope the Minister will accept it in order to give such persons in the employment of Córas Iompair Eireann or any other organisation in this country every opportunity, if they are competent, of improving their positions. I ask that they be given that opportunity.
I am afraid that acceptance of this amendment would create very serious reactions apart from the fact that it would be in conflict, not only with the main provisions of the section, but with the statutory position which prevailed since 1924. The clerical staffs of the principal Irish railways have been recruited by open competitive examination since about 1905. The old Irish Parliamentary Party, having opposed certain private Bills promoted by the Irish railway companies, induced or compelled these companies to give a guarantee that they would recruit at least a proportion of their clerical staff by competitive examination. I know I entered the railway service some 40 years ago by open competitive examination. The companies always retained 25 per cent. of vacancies to which they appointed existing non-clerical employees or the sons of such employees. There was no examination for that particular section; it was merely a question of appointing whoever was considered best. This gave rise to a whole series of complaints on the grounds of favouritism. It was alleged that it was not what you knew but whom you knew which decided your promotion.
The Railways Act of 1924 was the first statutory enactment compelling the companies to recruit by competitive examination. That enabled a proportion to be reserved for existing employees or their sons. It laid down for the first time the principle that this 25 per cent. would, on the grounds of common equity and common justice, be by limited competition between the various competitors. Apart from the shop and shed clerks, there are numbers of other non-clerical people, such as office assistants, office tracers, timekeepers, parcel porters and others of that type who come within the 25 per cent. category. There is, therefore, first of all the open competitive examination for which anybody who complies with the statutory conditions can compete and, secondly, there is the limited competition between the existing employees or the sons of employees.
This amendment would suggest that we should superimpose on that statutory arrangement a special class who need pass no examination but who would be simply promoted from the position of cleaner, labourer or mechanic to the position of shop or shed clerk; having served four years in that particular category, provided they were satisfactory, they would then automatically pass into the full clerical grade. That would be entirely inequitable from the point of view of other people having equally good claims. All railway companies have this type of employee. They are always attached to the headquarters of locomotive departments and running sheds. They have special qualifications because of the fact that they are around these works and sheds all the time, and the ordinary clerical staff appointed by competitive examination would feel they were being reduced in status if these particular employees were appointed in the manner suggested. As a result of trade union action we have been able to get a special agreement which lifts these people above the wages grade from which they have come, but keeps them just a shade below the competitive clerical grade.
As late as June, 1948, the Labour Court issued a finding fixing the salaries of these men. I think it would be extremely unwise for the Oireachtas, without more information, to do anything that would disrupt or break up a finding of the Labour Court made at the instigation of the unions catering for these people. Every single one of these has the right up to 25 years of age to sit for a limited competitive examination, and the railway company, as has been stated, gives them considerable facilities for attending special classes at the technical schools and in the High School of Commerce in Rathmines to permit them to prepare themselves for that form of limited competition which would bring them finally into the fully graded clerical staff. If we accepted this amendment—I know it is well meant—it would undoubtedly confer a special privilege on these people and react most unfavourably on their competitors with similar rights. In the circumstance I do not think we should accept this amendment. Certinly, I would have to vote against it.
I am in sympathy with the purpose of this amendment, but, like Senator J.T. O'Farrell, I, too, wonder if it is wise. Instead of doing what might appear to be justice to a small section one might create a sense of injustice in a very large section. If I could be assured that promotion is open to everybody in the railway service who can qualify for it I would be satisfied. If I thought there was a system in operation at present which would debar a man from promotion because he entered by a particular door I would be very much opposed to that system. I know that some of the best stationmasters that the railway company ever had rose from the grade of porter. I think it is still possible to go from porter to the grade of relief stationmaster and ultimately to stationmaster. I do not think there are many people in the railway service who went in at 16 or 18 years of age without an examination and who afterwards became clerks of one kind or another. I doubt if there are any of those who had any ambition to go further in the clerical grade who could not have done so had they so wished. Although I am opposed to closed shops, I think there would be danger here in taking out one small section and giving special facilities to it. I can imagine that thousands of others could claim to come in too, such as ticket checkers and parcel porters. All these have to keep returns and accounts. They have quite an amount of clerical work to do, but they are not graded as clerical workers. I do not think they would want to be graded as clerical workers. Very often a certain kind of clerical work is done by a goods porter, but that does not mean he is dissatisfied with his particular grade or that he wants to be transferred. If I am assured that the company will give promotion where it is due I will be quite satisfied with that. If it is the object to open the door merely to one or two clerks we may create considerable dissatisfaction amongst those who do clerical work but do not come within the definition of this amendment.
I think both Senator J.T. O'Farrell and Senator S. O'Farrell have stated the position very clearly. A similar amendment to this was tabled in the Dáil and I stated my views on it at the time. Quite frankly, I do not think it is any part of the Minister's function to intervene or interfere with the company or the board with regard to the recruitment, grading and promotion of its employees. All those who are employed in Córas Iompair Eireann are members of trade unions. They are fully protected. Their interests are safeguarded. No man, as has been stated, is debarred from entering for an examination. No man is debarred from promotion provided he meets the conditions laid down. In nearly every case all these men have secured promotion to their present positions from those in which they first entered the service. If they desire to go for the limited competitive examination or the open competitive examination up to the age of 25, not only are they not debarred but they get certain facilities which are not made available to those with whom they are competing, facilities which are provided, as Senator J.T. O'Farrell said, by the company. This in my opinion is a matter entirely for the company. The present limit is 25 years. I am not advocating that it should be either increased or reduced. So far as I know, that would be a matter for the board. However, in my opinion, it is not a matter for the Minister and I do not think it should be a matter for the Oireachtas to determine a question of this kind when we are discussing this legislation, particularly as I say when the competitive examination is there. There is also a limited examination as explained by Senator O'Farrell and we know, further, that all the employees of the company are members of trade unions and their interests are pretty well looked after by these unions.
The motive that prompted me to move this amendment was the fact that the majority of young people are frequently, through circumstances over which they have no control, compelled to leave school at the very early age of 14 and are obliged to find employment as best they can. Many of them become employees of a transport organisation such as Córas Iompair Eireann. The object of the amendment was that we might open up other avenues of employment and of promotion to these young people. However, taking into consideration the fact that we have in opposition to this amendment to-day the spokesmen of the two Labour movements in this country, I do not think there is anything more we can do about it except to hope that the various trade union organisations will cater particularly for such people as I intended to cater for by the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 35 to 50, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 51.
Question proposed: "That Section 51 stand part of the Bill."
Captain Orpen
In connection with this section, the rate, "for any other animal £5", does not seem quite in conformity with present-day prices for pigs, for instance. In the case of cattle, we have multiplied the rates by three, and, in the case of horses, by two. The new rate, as I say, does not seem to be in conformity with the present price of pigs.
Section agreed to.
Sections 52 to 54, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 55
I move amendment No. 12:—
To add at the end of sub-section (2) the following words: "Provided that no exemption order shall be applied for in respect of a railway line serving a town where cattle fairs are periodically held.
I should like to point out that an abandonment order for a railway line serving a town where fairs are held means also an abandonment order for the fairs in that particular town. No buyers of any importance will attend fairs if they cannot get the cattle away by rail. In such circumstances, the farmers living around that particular town will take their cattle to the next nearest town which is served by a railway. That will inevitably mean that the trade of the particular town which is no longer served by a railway will go to the town which has captured the business of its fairs. Most people attending fairs, when they get paid for their cattle, expend a good deal of that money in buying their requirements in that particular town. That means that the trade of a town in which the fair is neglected must inevitably fall into decay.
It is an extraordinary fact that the Government of this country are trying to abolish railways while other countries are endeavouring to establish railways. I see that a British Minister has said that his ground nut scheme was a failure because there were no railway facilities to develop Tanganyika. Similarly, the Australian Government have stated that they could not develop their beef trade with England for 15 years because they will not have the railway to the northern end of the continent constructed for that period. They therefore cannot produce the beef which they require for their English trade until they have a railway to serve that part of the country. That I think is proof positive that railways are essential for the development of any country, and that no industry of importance can be developed where an adequate railway system is absent.
I should like the House to consider the position of the roads in any area where there is no railway to serve fairs. We may take it that about 5,000 cattle would be sent by rail from a fair in an area where railway facilities are available. Five thousand cattle would mean the employment of 500 wagons. The average lorry will carry about the same number of cattle as a railway wagon, and you can imagine the chaos where you would have to employ 500 lorries to carry these cattle. Can anybody imagine 500 lorries starting on the road from some of these fairs? The smallest fairs in the country, I suppose, would mean 400 cattle sent over the railways. The 400 cattle would mean 40 wagons. There are numbers of these fairs held every day. The roads are congested enough at present, but if those branch lines are closed where fairs are being held the congestion will increase tenfold in a very short time.
I do not want these railways to be kept open for passengers, but I suggest they should be kept open for the conveyance of cattle, beet, coal and other produce. The branch lines can be closed down from the point of view of passenger trains if the Minister likes, but he should very seriously consider the matter before closing down any of these branch lines for the heavier type of traffic—that is, if he wants to keep the country going. I say that lorries will never replace railway wagons for the cattle trade. What I suggest could easily be done. He need not have a big staff to every train. Every train could take its own crew for loading the cattle and it would bring back that crew. It could be done very economically if the Minister will consider it. Leaving it to the directors or the members of the tribunal—well, we know what these people are. They have not the practical experience which some of the cattlemen and businessmen have. If you leave it to the members of those boards they might be out for economy, and I suggest it would be false economy to do that. I appeal to the Minister to accept my suggestion. I know he has no intention of closing down any of those lines, but it is what is in black and white here that will count. Unless we have some definite instruction here I am certain a good many of these railways will be closed in a very short time.
I am very sorry that I cannot accept Senator Counihan's amendment. It is tantamount to deleting all the sections dealing with the tribunal. Let me say to Senator Counihan and to Senators generally that there is not the slightest fear that the cattle trade will be neglected by any transport company set up in this country. The likelihood is that the members of the board and the members of the tribunal will have as much knowledge and perhaps as much interest in the cattle trade as the Minister might have. It must be remembered that any national transport company, and particularly any company dealing with the railway services, must look to the live-stock trade as one of its best money spinners.
I think the Senator's fears are groundless. It will not be left entirely to the company. The company cannot close any branch lines without going to the tribunal. Any such proposal must be publicised and, whether they are local or national interests, every party interested will get an ample opportunity of making a case. The Senator is hardly fair when he says this Government is trying to close down branch lines. This Government, through this Bill, is hoping to keep the branch lines open, as well as the main lines. That is one of the main reasons why the Bill is before the Oireachtas.
We do not want to close any branch lines. I would like to be in a position to say to the transport board that I hope they will be able to reopen some of the closed branch lines. That will be determined, not by the company, but by the people who are using transport. Perhaps if there were not so much live stock being carried by road there would be fewer of the branch lines closed, and those that are open would be earning more money. There is far too much of the live stock of this country being carried from fairs and markets by roads. I agree with Senator Counihan that it would be a horrible thought that 500 lorries would be lining up at an ordinary provincial fair.
There would be at least 5,000 cattle at Ballinasloe fair twice a year, and if the lines were closed down you can realise the position. The smallest number would be 400 animals from any fair.
I am not questioning the Senator's figures. I am agreeing with him on that. That was one of the arguments which I used to the former chairman of Córas Iompair Eireann when the question was put up of closing down all the branch lines. Having some knowledge of what happens at a fair in a provincial town, I asked how you would clear a fair where it might take anything from 12 to 20 railway specials—cattle wagons —to clear it. I have often seen it. I was told it could be done easily by road. I did not accept that then and I do not accept it now. If you had 500 lorries to send out to a fair to clear it, or 400 or 300 or 200, and if it were physically possible to clear the fair with that number of lorries, while they would be clearing it nobody else could use the roads. Again, the roads would not last under that sort of traffic for 12 months. Our roads were not designed or constructed for that type of traffic. This country cannot do without a railway service. It will have to be accepted also by the community that, if they agree that we must maintain, in the national interest, a railway service, the community must pay for that service either by using it or subsidising it.
Before any line is closed down must it have the sanction of the Minister?
No.
Will the Minister be consulted at all?
No.
If the Minister was consulted I would be satisfied, but if it is left to the tribunal or to the directors I think it is a hopeless proposition.
I am sorry I cannot agree with the Senator there. I would prefer that these matters would be settled by a completely independent tribunal. I cannot visualise any board, much less an independent tribunal, that would be so completely negligent of the national interests, much less the transport interests, as deliberately to take a decision to close lines that would paralyse certain of our provincial fairs or markets.
In the case of branch lines already closed down for some years, will the people get an opportunity of appealing to the tribunal that will be set up?
In relation to branch lines that have been closed down, that matter will be examined by the board. Speaking for the Government, let me say that so far as we are concerned it would be our wish that every branch line that could be economically run should be run. It cannot be emphasised too often that whether a branch line will remain open or be reopened and maintained depends upon the community in the particular district concerned. People cannot have it both ways.
Will the community get an opportunity of appealing to the tribunal?
In the case of lines closed.
They will get every opportunity of making their case and, if there is a case for reopening, the lines will be reopened.
Lines closed already, but closed in accordance with the law as it then stood—that is, on the authority of the Minister—so that they are legally closed.
I know, Sir, that in a few cases in the past, certain branch lines in the West of Ireland were closed down, and when the people locally protested against the proposal to close them down, they were assured by the company that adequate substitute services would be provided. Now, whatever may be said about adequate substitute services, as far as passenger transport is concerned, the substitute service provided for the transport of live stock was not adequate. It meant a very considerable loss to the people who produced the live stock and anyone who happened to visit fairs serviced by road transport could see that there was a difference, in so far as the value of the stock exposed for sale was concerned, compared with those sold where there was a railway. I can fully appreciate Senator Counihan's doubts on that matter, because I have had the experience of promises being made of adequate substitute services that were not fulfilled.
Are we to take it from what the Minister has just said that it will be purely a matter of economics as to whether a line is to be kept open or not? He stated that if people were prepared to use the lines they would be kept open. Would that not apply generally? The position we find ourselves in is that the railway system is not a paying concern. It has not been for many years. The community has not been using it, but why specify a community in a certain district where the lines are running at a loss? Why should they be told, that unless they are prepared to make the railway line in that particular area an economic unit, it will be closed down?
No, no.
That is the impression I got. I think it would be unfair to ask the Minister, but I think the general public would like to be assured. This tribunal, I take it, will be divorced absolutely from the Minister and the company. They will be independent people who will have no concern with the company. What will influence those people as to why a line should be closed down? Will they take into consideration, not alone the economic conditions, but also the national interests and, if necessary, local interests. After all, we people in the city are fairly well served. The people in the towns are fairly well served, but people in villages throughout various parts of the country, and in backward places, are vitally dependent on the railways. I suggest, that the tribunal ought to consider it from the point of view of the general amenities of the community, social and otherwise, as well as taking into consideration the economic position of the line. A point has been made as to lines already closed down. It should not be forgotten that many of these branch lines were closed down, as a matter of policy, during the emergency when they could not be kept open. They did not get an opportunity of justifying themselves, from the economic standpoint, as well as from the point of view of utility to the people concerned. If you get the opportunity they should be reopened. Let the tribunal deal with them separately. They should not be left closed simply because they were closed during the period of the emergency. I suggest that the Minister should seriously agree, that there are other factors to be taken into consideration in connection with the branch lines, than economic factors, There is the question of keeping people on the land and keeping them in rural areas. These are all bound up with the railway system. After all, the railways are part of the very lives of these people, and it is a very serious matter to shut them down. I do not, at all, like the idea of this independent tribunal. There is much to be said possibly for its being independent, but it means, in fact, that it is responsible to nobody. It is not responsible to the Minister, and the Minister has delegated certain powers to the board. This independent ad hoc tribunal is to be put there without responsibility to anybody and, I suppose, whenever it makes a recommendation to close a line, invariably, the line will be closed. I think the whole thing is lop-sided. These people have no responsibility to anybody. They may take factors into consideration that the company would not take in, if they deal with the thing on its merits.
Of course, I did not say at any time that unless a branch line was fully economic, and paying its way, it would not be kept open or reopened. If we are to apply that test, every branch line would be closed down, because none of them is economic. We have the obligation to see that they must come as near to the point of being economic as possible, and I think it is a bit late in the day to be talking now about responsibility to nobody, and of the Minister shedding his own responsibility, and so on. May I ask Senators again to refer to what is contained in Sections 14 and 15, particularly Section 15. There are certain obligations laid down for the company. In the first place, the company cannot even apply before the tribunal for the closing of a particular branch line, without adverting to the obligation which this Act will impose on it. The tribunal, in investigating any request which is put before it, in relation to a branch line by the board, must itself advert to its responsibility under Section 15 of the Bill. I do not know whether it is quite fair to say that this is a sort of ad hoc tribunal, that is set up without responsibility to anybody, and that it can come to any decision it likes irrespective of its effect, from the point of view of the national interest, or the local community. One might as well say that the Supreme Court of the country is in the same position. This is a board which will be established for a specific purpose, and it only comes into operation on a request being made to it. It must hear both sides, and that imposes the obligation of adverting to the policy laid down in the legislation which will emerge from the Oireachtas here, and of coming to an independent decision. Frankly, I think, it is quite wrong that matters of this sort should be determined by a Minister. I think it is quite wrong, and there is no use in pretending innocence or anything else. Ministers, Deputies and Senators are open, in respect of all these matters, to extreme political pressure and influence. There is no question about it. Ministers of all Governments, and Deputies and Senators of all Parties, would be in that position. I think it is entirely wrong that matters such as these should be determined or could be open to the suggestion that they should be determined, by the amount of political pressure or influence which can be brought to bear on the members of any particular Government at any particular period of our history. I think—again I have to remind Senators to try to keep it fixed in their minds—that we are not now dealing with a private board or a board that will be antagonistic to the national transport policy of this country. This organisation is in process of being acquired by the State. A board selected by the State will be appointed to run that organisation in the interests of the State. We ought to keep that constantly before our minds. That board will be charged with that responsibility and that board alone. That is what they will be required to do. If the board flagrantly or if the tribunal flagrantly flouts the wishes of the Government or of the Oireachtas expressed through the Government or a Minister, then, there is a way of dealing with it. I do not think that is likely to happen, but I do suggest to Senators that it is a very very fair way of imposing certain obligations on the company, by giving, shall I say, a railway slant to the whole of our legislation, an indication that the railway system of the country must in the national interest be maintained here.
Their appeal must be based on the railways rather than on the roads. In order to safeguard the community against even a national transport board we are appointing an independent tribunal. I think there is no better machinery than that for ensuring that the national interest and the local community interest shall be safeguarded and that matters will not be determined, or decisions taken, purely as a result of political influence or political pressure.
Earlier to-day the Minister presented himself with a bouquet. He assured us that one of his great qualifications was simplicity in stating what he had in his mind. I think it must be clear to him now, and clear to the Seanad, that that is a qualification he does not possess. His whole trouble has arisen because of a lack of clarity and because of the inconsistency that has been running through the Bill and through Section 15 to which he has specifically referred. He sets out in sub-section (1) of that section that the board must provide an efficient economic and properly integrated transport service. The trouble is to find out what do the words "an economic service" mean. I have tried to find out whether they mean that the board is to be a profit earning institution, but when I raised that question there was a chorus—in fact two choruses—on the other side of the House, one to the effect that it was to be a profit-earning institution, and the other that it was not. I could not find out either from the people on the other side or from the Minister what was intended.
The second thing is this question of national economic development. The Minister sees now the views people are taking on that. We indicated to him the difficulties that were going to arise out of the interpretation of the term "national economic development." He did not indicate to us what he has in mind about that, and we are left in the dark as to what he thinks. I suggest that he cannot get away from his responsibility of informing us of what he has in mind with regard to this matter of national economic development. He talked about reasonable conditions for the employees and that, of course, must involve cost. He then went on to other things, the needs of the public, of agriculture, commerce and industry and said that these must be attended to. Senator Counihan, and those for whom he speaks, do not understand what that means, nor does anybody else.
That is not true.
Then we come to sub-section (2) of Section 15 which says——
I thought we were discussing the amendment that is before the House, but this is a Second Reading speech which the Senator is making.
We are discussing an amendment to Section 55. The Minister, in the course of his reply, made certain remarks, and referred Senators to Section 15. He spoke to some extent on that section.
I did not.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister simply made a passing reference to the section.
He referred to the responsibilities of the board as imposed by Section 15. I want to mention now that sub-section (2) of Section 15 provides that:—
"It shall be the duty of the board so to conduct its undertaking as to secure, as soon as may be, that, taking one year with another, the revenue of the board shall be not less than sufficient to meet the charges. properly chargeable to revenue."
In other words, this board is to be a business board. This board will have to pay its way, and is going to have regard only to such services as will enable it to carry out that duty of paying its way. How that is going to be done is what is worrying Senator Counihan and many other Senators, especially when they consider what is implied in sub-section (1) of Section 15. It must be clear now to the Minister that his Bill is creating a great deal of confusion in the minds of Senators and in the minds of the public.
Apparently, it was not a difficult task to create confusion in the mind of the Senator. He has been completely confused from the first moment the Bill came to the Seanad. I do not know whether the Senator is completely confused, or whether it is part of the tactics that he has chosen in the debate on this measure, that is, to pretend that he is confused. He has accused me of a lack of clarity and a lack of simplicity. He regrets that I have not seen fit to develop in detail what I mean by national economic development. I would like to discuss that, particularly in relation to some speeches that have been made by some of his colleagues within the last few days, and of some articles which have been written in a newspaper which I am sure he reads, and how helpful these are to national economic development. I would like to go into the question of how helpful it is to the national economic development of this country to have a deliberate campaign of sabotage of the credit of this State in advance of national loans, but this is not the place to do it. I wish it were, and if it were, I can assure the Senator that I would have no reluctance whatever in entering into a full discussion of that.
We are not an argumentative body here.
So I was informed before I came here, but I am afraid that I have had reason to change my mind altogether about that. I can only assume it is so because the Senator is so happy to be sitting behind Senator Ó Buachalla instead of in front of him.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think we had better get back to the amendment.
If the Minister is anxious to have a full discussion on that we will give him every facility for it.
As far as sabotaging the national position of this country is concerned——
To talk about sabotage comes very badly from the people who organised the Blueshirts in 1932.
As far as sabotaging the national position of this country is concerned, the first person to cast any doubt on the credit-worthiness of this country was the Minister for Finance.
May I remind Senators that it was not I who introduced the subject of national economic development here. It was dragged in as a red herring for some purpose which I do not know.
Is not that expression in the Bill?
Of course it is, and it is a pity the Senator did not discuss it on the appropriate occasion.
In Section 15 we find the words "the encouragement of national economic development."
If the Minister wants to have a full-dress debate on the past we will give him every opportunity for it.
On a point of correction, I was not the first person to introduce it. The Minister introduced the words "the encouragement of national economic development," and he does not know what they mean.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We had better get back to the amendment.
It is a pity we ever departed from it.
In the last six months when they had Bills in this House, the only people who engendered heat here were the Ministers who came here.
I resent that remark.
It is a fact.
It is not a fact.
A question has been raised about the validity of the reference to Section 15. Section 54 provides that "in exercising their functions the tribunal should have regard, amongst other matters, to Section 15." Therefore, it would be impossible to discuss the functions of the tribunal without referring to Section 15.
That is so, and I should say to Senator Hearne that was the only reference that I made to Section 15. I should say, too, that we are a long way now from the closing down of branch lines in places where fairs are held. I think I answered Senator Counihan's point on that. I think—at least I hoped—that I had assured the Senator and satisfied him that I was fully conscious of the point he was trying to make. I tried to assure him that his fears in regard to that were entirely groundless and, having made myself as clear as I possibly could, I thought we had finished with the amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Better not.
It is withdrawn.
He is withdrawing it.
Let the Senator speak for himself.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
Before sub-section (4) to insert a new subsection as follows:—
Before making an exemption order under this section the tribunal shall submit the terms of the proposed order to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who may direct that such modifications in the conditions as he considers necessary to meet the reasonable needs of the public in the districts covered by the order be inserted therein.
During the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage of this Bill, we have had much discussion on this point, but I must say that inside the last five or ten minutes we have certainly got from the Minister more information than we had ever obtained during the two or three days that the Bill has been before the House. Speaking the last night on the Committee Stage, I directed the attention of the members to Section 22, which made provision that where the board is empowered to make certain by-laws that the by-laws made by the board must have the approval of the Minister before they become effective. With that I expressed my agreement. We have been discussing the setting up of a board and I will admit this at the outset, that probably some of my contributions on this particular section would have been more appropriate on Section 54, because Section 54 provides for the setting up of a tribunal. We have not had from the Minister, either in this or the other House, any idea about the personnel of the new tribunal, or how he is going to choose the personnel or what are the qualifications necessary for the Minister to appoint a particular person. When we examine the Bill in detail, we find that it makes at least three provisions. One of them is that we must have a board. The board is to be composed of not more than seven persons, and not less than three, but on top of that we are going to have a tribunal, and we are empowering the tribunal to carry out very definite functions. The most important of these, so far as the rural community are concerned, is in relation to the closing down of branch lines. We have had from the Minister here to-day, and in the Dáil, and on several other occasions, an expression of opinion that it would not be right to expect that any undertaking, whether it be national or otherwise, would engage in a service that would not be a paying service. But when we come to ask ourselves the question what the Bill proposes and what are these things in the Bill, the answer to that question very definitely is that we are setting up a board to give to the people of the country a particular service. We are asking them, too, to the best of their abilities, that they would try to ensure that that service would pay year by year, but while we are asking them to do that particular thing, and placing them under that particular obligation, we are also prepared, at the same time, to make provision, in the event of their failure to accomplish what we would wish them to accomplish, by saying that the Dáil and the Seanad, in the name of the Irish people, are prepared to make certain contributions to maintaining this general service. Having admitted that much, and having come to the conclusion that the maintenance of a rail system is of very grave national concern, one of the things we must maintain, we must, if we are prepared to pass this Bill, also accept that, side by side with the importance of the main lines there is a matter as important, if not more important, to the rural community, in which the members of this House must certainly and should be most interested, the question of the branch lines, the importance of which is borne out by the fact that in times gone by, when it was a question of establishing a branch line, or the maintenance of a particular line, the local council, taking into consideration the importance of that particular service, were prepared to levy on the ratepayers a charge in order to maintain that service. The provisions of this Bill, I might say, arise from the fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce saw fit to appoint, what he termed at the time, an expert in railway business and organisation, a person whom he thought would be capable of giving him advice. And what do we find? We find in paragraph 226 of the Milne Report the following:
"The paramount consideration in investigating the question of closing branch lines should be whether their retention is necessary or desirable in the public interest. They are part of the national system of highways, and if they provide convenient access to outlying districts their retention may be well justified, even if the railway is unable to earn sufficient revenue to cover the full cost of providing and maintaining the tracks and the service of the particular services."
The Minister appointed the particular expert and I have directed the members of the Seanad to his report. We also find in paragraph 231:
"In all circumstances it is considered that any proposal to close branch liness solely on the grounds that they are at present unprofitable, should be rejected."
Hear, hear.
"It is recommended that, before any such branch line is closed, there should be a public inquiry and that the governing consideration should be whether the retention of the branch as part of the country's highway system is necessary or desirable in the public interest."
We have, as I have already pointed out, made provision in Section 54 for the setting up of a tribunal. We have not got from the Minister any indication of what the personnel of this tribunal is going to be, but we know that it is going to have an overriding authority over the Transport Board, that they are the persons who will decide, that this House and the other House are placing in the responsible position of deciding, whether a particular service should or should not be closed down. It is true, of course, that that decision will not be arrived at without certain formalities being gone through. It is quite evident, regarding the composition of this particular tribunal, that we have not yet got from the Minister on any stage of this Bill in this House or the other House, any clear idea or indication as to the personnel or qualifications of the people who will have the right to decide such important national issues. We do know that once they make a recommendation to the board the board must carry out their decision. As representatives of the people who provide the money, we believe and are convinced that it is essential in the national interest that a rail service should be maintained. If that service is to be maintained I think there should certainly be an appeal to the person charged with responsibility, namely, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In the 1944 Act there was a provision under which certain formalities had to be complied with before a branch line could be closed. An inquiry had to be held.
The Minister is, after all, responsible and he should answer to the Dáil and the Seanad if any member seeks information. Ultimately he must answer to the people. He is charged with responsibility for sanctioning the closing down of a branch line. At least that was the position under the 1944 Act. Of course at that time we were dealing with a private concern and the only person who could give effect to Government policy was the chairman. With the passage of this Bill we shall find ourselves in the position of having nationalised the railways. Not alone is the Minister appointing the chairman but he is also appointing the board. I am sure that he will fully investigate their qualifications to take charge of such an important concern as this. Under Section 22 he further arrogates to himself responsibility for looking over the day to day activities of the organisation. I refer to the by-laws. He will examine such items as the time the trains should leave Westland Row for Galway.
That is not a by-law. That is a time-table.
The Minister must do that under this section.
No.
The Senator should not confuse time-tables with by-laws.
For Senator O'Farrell's information, the Minister may under the powers he confers on himself make by-laws for all or any of certain things; he may make by-laws for regulating the times of the arrival and departure of vehicles or craft.
But that has nothing to do with time-tables. That is dealing with general principles.
If Senator O'Farrell wishes to intervene I am quite prepared to give way to him.
Keep to the section.
Senator Hayes pointed out in the early stages of this Bill that it was what was in the Bill that mattered and not what was in the Minister's mind.
You made a tremendous effort to find out what was in my mind.
Senator O'Farrell is an expert and he acts as adviser to the Minister.
I do not claim to be an expert on anything.
I have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister is taking on himself the responsibility of deciding what time the trains should leave Westland Row for Galway. After all, Galway is only a small place; the fact of the matter is that the Minister is taking on himself that responsibility. But there is another responsibility he is not prepared to take. Senator Counihan—I am sorry he is not present at the moment—mentioned Ballinasloe fair. He pointed out that it is one of the largest fairs held in the West of Ireland. I am interested in another area served by a branch line. Now the Minister has not seen fit, for one reason or another, to give us any indication of the personnel of the proposed tribunal which will be charged with the responsibility of closing down branch lines. My amendment is a reasonable one. I am sure if it was left to a free vote of the House the present difficulty would be solved. At one time we hoped there would be freedom in this House.
There has always been a free vote in this House and there always will be.
The Senator cannot stomach that. It takes a little digesting.
After our experience last Thursday, it is a little difficult to believe that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We are not discussing free votes.
Senator Hayes borrows the answers to his own questions. I remember being elected to this House in 1938. At that time the present Minister for Education was the leader of what is now the Government Party.
As a matter of fact he was not, but we will let that pass.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That has nothing to do with this amendment.
If I have hurt Senator Hayes' feelings by suggesting that General Mulcahy was the leader of the Party, I apologise. To my mind he certainly was the leader at that particular time.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Would the Senator keep to the main section now, and not go off into branch lines.
It is sometimes well to throw our minds back to what happened here in the past particularly in view of the suggestion made by the Minister on another amendment that certain things would be accomplished were it not for the opposition with which the Government and the Minister have to contend. However, I shall not go into that. If anyone wishes to have a full dress debate on the past we shall give him that opportunity.
The people heard the debate and decided.
We will table a motion if necessary.
My complaint is that the Senator will not keep to the present or to the amendment.
Perhaps it is better that we should forget the past. Before the new board can make a by-law in relation to the arrival or departure of a particular train at a particular station it must be sanctioned by the Minister. He divests himself of all responsibility for the more important decision, important as far as the community in that particular area is concerned, namely, the closing down of a branch line. I know full well that the Minister will tell us that a number of branch lines have been closed in the past. I admit that, but I should like to direct the Minister's attention and the attention of those associated with him to one very important episode, a small one if you like so far as the people opposite are concerned. There was a big world war and arising out of the difficulties of that was these regulations were made. I am sure that the majority of the members of this House will agree with me that this was a Ministerial decision to close down branch lines. In all fairness to the people, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce should accept the responsibility I am trying to place on him. That is that after the tribunal has examined a proposal and before the board gives effect to their recommendation, the Minister, who with the Minister for Finance on behalf of the people is going to supply the money to keep the concern going, should at least be the person to decide whether it is in the national interest that a particular line should be kept open. That is all we ask.
I do not think there is very much more we should say on the amendment beyond asking the people on the other side to make this admission. It is no harm that we should make it at this stage. We on this side of the House fully realise that although we may press the amendment and put it to a vote, owing to the peculiar make-up of this House at present, we can never hope that we shall arrive at the decision that we should like to arrive at. We cannot hope to achieve anything except to ventilate what we think are grievances of the public and to bring our point of view before the House. I should like to ask the people who support the present Government to consider what exactly this means. We heard during the last general election campaign much criticism of the closing down of branch lines. Here is a proposal to give to a number of unknown people—we have not got from the Minister yet any indication of what type of person is going to be appointed to this tribunal—the responsibility of depriving the rural community, particularly that section of the people whom Senator Counihan might claim to represent, of their rights by closing down branch lines. The Minister is going to wipe his hands of every responsibility in connection with that matter.
Senator Hawkins threw very little light on his amendment but he did throw a flood of light on the mentality of the Party for whom he spoke, when he said that in the present peculiar make-up of the House he could not get the House to arrive at the decision which he hoped for. The peculiar make-up of the House is peculiar in the Senator's eyes only because it does not give Senator Hawkins' Party a majority. The make-up of the House is entirely the responsibility of the Party for whom he speaks. This House is their product but the people, peculiarly enough, did not return a majority of Fianna Fáil to the House that Fianna Fail built. That is what he speaks about as being peculiar. He will have to get used gradually, and perhaps painfully, to more and more peculiarities of that kind. He also wants to know why the Minister will not tell him who the members of this tribunal are going to be. Did he ever know a Minister who did say, in the course of the passage of a Bill, who the people were that he was going to put on tribunals or committees provided for in the Bill when it became an Act? Of course he never did. That is part of his objection to the Bill and part of his argument is that he wants the names of the people to whom the Bill is going to entrust this responsibility. He wants to give the Minister more power and he wants to forget the past, naturally enough, because we shall have to forget the state the railways got into when the Minister—the Fianna Fáil Minister —was all powerful. I can understand the Senator wanting us to do that.
Surely this is a Bill which might very properly and very adequately be called a Bill to make further and better provision for the preservation of the railways. That is what the Bill is. It is a Bill for the preservation of the railway system, to keep it from being smothered by other kinds of competition. One would imagine from Senators opposite that the Minister and the House were being invited to close the railways. As a matter of fact, we are discussing a Bill, every provision of which, and this section in particular, is for the purpose of preserving the railways, including the branch lines. A constant effort has been made to establish that the only consideration in the mind of the board or the tribunal is to be whether a service is a paying service or not. No matter how steeped one is in Fianna Fáil propaganda, no reasonable person — and Senator Hawkins is a very reasonable person— could possibly believe that. It is not true to say that the only consideration in the mind of the board or the tribunal is to be whether the service is a paying service or not. That is where—I say it with all humility— Section 15 comes in. There are other considerations apart from whether the service pays or not. There is no such principle in the Bill and the Minister never affirmed any such principle as that the only consideration with regard to the closing of a branch line is to be whether it is a paying proposition. As he said a moment ago, if that were to be the only consideration, then all the branch lines would be closed down.
And the main line.
And perhaps the main line also. Therefore, out of the mouth of Senator Hearne, Senator Hawkins is completely refuted. The Bill is a Bill for the preservation of the railways. If the board does not want to preserve a certain branch line, it cannot of its own action close down one branch line. It must make application to the tribunal for permission to close down that branch line. Then the tribunal will take into consideration all the relevant factors at a public inquiry. One of the relevant factors is the public interest and national economic development. They must, therefore, have due regard to the public interest.
What does the amendment want? It wants that when, on a question of exemption, the tribunal has considered publicly, taking all relevant matters into consideration, whether a branch line ought to be closed or not, whatever decision the tribunal arrives at should be subject to review by the Minister. That means, ultimately, debate, and, if necessary, decision by the Dáil, so that the question of whether you will close down a branch line from Baile i bhfad Síos to Sceichin an Rinnce is going to be decided by a vote of the Dáil. That is absurd. The proposal in the Bill is to avoid that, while the proposal in the amendment is to allow the Minister, whoever he is, to be pilloried.
This Minister, although I hope he will be long spared in his office, will not be the last Minister for Industry and Commerce. It might happen, by some extraordinary miracle, that the Minister would not be a member of the Fine Gael Party. That may seem strange to Senator Hawkins, but it could happen and, if it did happen, I would not like him to be embarrassed by his political opponents saying: "Ha! there is a branch line in your constituency and you are closing it down." Does not Senator Hawkins know, as a resasonable, extremely intelligent and practical politician, that these matters are never rationally decided in the Dáil but are decided on purely political considerations?
That is what this section does and the amendment wants to throw the whole thing back into branches of political Parties, resolutions, debates on the adjournment, motions in the House, talk on Estimates and talk at general elections. We should adopt, if not Senator Hawkins's amendment, some of his extremely good advice— forget the past and get on with the work—and we should leave the section as it is; that is, leave the tribunal to consider whether a particular branch line that the board of Córas Iompair Eireann wants to close, should or should not be closed. Let them make the recommendation and do not give the Minister power over that recommendation because, if you do, you will bring questions of public interest and of business interest into Dáil debates —a very undesirable thing.
If you were a complete Socialist— which I am not, which the Minister is not, which the Government is not, and which the Party opposite claims not to be—then you would want to give the Minister power over everything. Even where they have completely Socialist Ministers, as in England, one of the things they are most concerned about is to provide that the House of Commons will not be able to discuss matters of this kind. I do not know how they have succeeded, but we should make the effort contained in the section and reject the proposal contained in the amendment.
I want to correct a remark made by Senator Hayes. He stated that Senator Hawkins was looking for the names of the people who will compose this tribunal. I do not think he asked for anything of the kind.
He did not ask for the names; he asked for the types of people who will be selected.
Yes, he asked the types who will form this tribunal, whether they will be three-county councillors or trade union officials or business or professional men. The Senator was altogether wrong also in saying that names have not been mentioned in a Bill. There were names in the Industrial Authority Bill; the people who compose the Industrial Authority Council were definitely named in the Bill. Senator Hawkins merely asked what types of people they would be. He was anxious to know if they were types in whom the public could put their faith, and could they do the job well, or would they merely be people selected for political considerations— would they be people like Cæsar's wife and would they be above reproach.
Let me point out to the Senator that the industrial authority was established before the Bill was introduced—the names had already been published.
How could they be established before the law was passed?
That will happen.
As a Minister said in the Dáil: "Sin ceist eile." I apologise to Senator Hawkins for suggesting that he asked for the names of those people. I accept it that he asked for the types who would be appointed, but the types of people would not inspire any more confidence. Suppose you said they were trade union officials.
Or university professors.
If you said they were university professors there are people who would rise up and yell.
I was confused before Senator Hayes spoke of the powers of the tribunal, but now confusion has been made worse confounded.
You are now hazy.
It was not suggested by Senator Hawkins who, I am sure, accepts Senator Hayes' apology, that the only reason for closing down a branch line would be purely economic, financial considerations, but that is one of the reasons. My difficulty in dealing with this section to which the amendment is put down is that, if I were appointed a member of this tribunal, out of the depths of my ignorance of transport problems I would find that my functions were as set out in Section 15. An application would come before me as a member of that tribunal that such a branch line should be closed down and how would I reconcile what are to my mind two entirely conflicting directions? One is that it shall be the general duty of the board to exercise its powers to secure an efficient, economical, financial and properly integrated system of public transport.
That is the board, not the tribunal.
In exercising their functions the tribunal shall have regard, among other matters, to Section 15. This is where I want enlightenment. I find that there are two entirely conflicting directions, one of which is that the general duty of the board shall be to provide an efficient, economical, financial and properly integrated system of transport for passengers and merchandise, with due regard to the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment. On the next subsection I was twitted on an earlier amendment and I was sorely tempted to ask what is the difference between a general duty and a duty. The next sub-section says that it shall be the duty of the board so to conduct the undertaking as to secure that the revenue of the board shall not be less than will meet the charges properly chargeable to revenue.
There is no doubt that one of the things that will have to be taken into consideration by the tribunal is whether the undertaking is economical or not. How one can reconcile these two utterly conflicting duties, I find it extremely hard to understand. I say that in all sincerity. One must consider this aspect, that the tribunal, when this Bill becomes law, will have the final say as to whether a branch line will close down or not. They could say: "It is our duty and, because this branch is uneconomical, we will close it." There is no redress and that is an end of the matter. It is because of the possibility of such a situation arising that I believe the Minister would not be at all practical about it. No matter what Minister is there or to what Party he belongs, even if this amendment were accepted no Minister will interfere unduly with the recommendation of the tribunal. I think that there has been undue stress laid on the possibility or probability of political considerations being paramount in this. We have all had the experience amongst our own Government, and those supporting the main Party in this Government, know of their own experience of Ministers in their own Party, and they know that there has been no undue weight given to what might be described as purely political considerations in a matter like this. I do not believe it is true. I would be sorry to think that any Government that would govern this country would give undue weight to political considerations on a business matter like this. It is because of the possibility, to my mind, that there would be an unsatisfactory ruling or finding of a tribunal which would be binding, because of the conflict there is, as I say, between the two directions given to them there that, I think, it would be advisable for the Minister to have the small power that is offered to him in this amendment. Beyond that, I would not go.
I must say that I think Senator Hawkins has attempted to argue this amendment in a reasonable way, but listening to the discussion, and I have not taken part in it so far, listening to it up to the present moment, one would imagine that the powers the Minister was seeking all through this Bill were powers to close down branch lines. If one had any impression from the kind of discussion going on, one would think that that was the sort of thing the Minister was seeking to achieve. The fact is, that the first thing he had to do when he came into power was to consider the whole position, and to put down his foot, to prevent branch lines being closed down. Surely the people opposite are not the only people concerned about closing branch lines. Those of us who have continued to live in the country, who have come up from the country to-day, are very much concerned that branch lines would be kept open. Senator Hawkins quoted something from Section 15. He said his doubt was about conflicting directions given to the board, that they would be taken into consideration by the tribunal in determining whether or not a particular branch line should be closed down. I find it very difficult, and I know many branch lines up and down this country, I find it very difficult to try to picture what is in the minds of Senators when they are thinking of branch lines. If you are thinking of the branch line from Mullingar to Cavan, are you thinking just of the line to take goods from Mullingar to Cavan and from Cavan to Mullingar? Just consider that on its merits, and the cost of running that service, in regard to the flow of the supplies in that tiny stream into the wider arteries, the expenses of which have to be maintained out of the goods that are carried or alternatively out of the subsidies provided by the people of the country. Surely it is all these small arteries that flow into the great main system that will make up the whole traffic and the revenue of the railway system. It is very difficult to segregate one small branch and determine that it is not profitable to keep that in itself going, because the flow of trade over that is going to add to the total trade. Earlier in the discussion on Senator Counihan's amendment I think the Minister stated his outlook and his point of view very clearly. He definitely wants to see the railways maintained. They are essential to our economic life. They have a place in our social life, and in our national life, and he is attempting to ensure their maintenance and their success. He says the people in the different districts, especially in the districts served by branch lines, will either have to make up their minds to support the branch lines or the branch lines will be closed or, if they have to be kept open, they must be maintained by subsidies provided by the taxpayer. I think that is a straight and clear declaration of policy and of the point of view of the responsible Minister. I think it is the right thing to do, to put a great share of the responsibility on to the local community, as to whether they want their branch line kept open or closed. There has been altogether too much of this thing, right along over a great period of years, of running up either with your hat in your hand to a Minister or making a great clamour or great shout about something a Minister was going to do that was not in the interests of the local people, of getting the Minister to reverse his action, of having a political decision on an economic question. There is altogether too much of that in the life of this State, and the sooner we open our eyes to that fact, and change, the better it will be for our political and economic life and the purer and the sounder one will be with the other. Take the branch line from Mullingar to Cavan or from Clones to Cavan. If it is going to be closed, it is a matter for the local people, in the main.
It is a matter of considerable concern for them, and the sooner they stir themselves to a consciousness of their own responsibility, instead of relying on the local Senator, if he still continues to live amongst them, or their Deputies, to lead a deputation up to the Minister to ask him not to close the line, and the sooner they take action to organise themselves economically, to organise the dispatch of their goods out of the district and to organise the bringing in of the necessary goods they require, the sooner they do that jointly amongst themselves, the stronger will become their economic life. It is true, that you may have a particular branch line, and at the moment there does not seem to be enough traffic going over it to justify it being kept open, if you measure the costs for the particular branch line against the goods being carried. At the same time you have probably a certain number of private hauliers who have got licences in the last ten or 12 years, drawing a considerable quantity of goods in and out of that area. In my opinion, it is time for the local people in that area to get together and to see for themselves what is the position. If they want to keep their railways, they will have to support the railways by giving traffic to the railways, and not taking traffic from the railways. I believe that it is the local people who have the extra responsibility in this. If there is a question of any branch line being closed, they are the people whose interests are intimately concerned and bound up with the transport system in their local district. I believe myself they will organise themselves all the quicker, and they will produce people who will be competent to go before the tribunal and make their case, who will be prepared to say this: "Yes, we are going to see what we can do with this way of hauling cattle in lorries from the fairs, and of hauling artificial manures with lorries into our district. We are going to see how we can so organise our economic life, that there would be a means of transport kept open for the area." In my opinion, it is a far sounder proposition to go and argue that before a tribunal which, if I may say a word about it, I hope any Minister who will be charged with the responsibility, will face up to his responsibility, and appoint competent people to discharge their obligations in that respect. These people, if they have to make their case, if they have a case to make, the onus and the obligation will be on them to prepare their data, make their case, and undertake their own obligations to keep a transport system open for themselves. I think there is everything to be said in favour of the section as it stands. It is a far saner approach, and I would beg the Opposition to realise that the Minister, in the first place, is more concerned than any of us that the branch lines of the railway system will not be closed. They, of the Opposition, are not the only people who are concerned to see that branch lines in rural Ireland will be kept open. We want these matters determined on their merits, from the point of view of the economic, social and national advantage of keeping them open, and not on the amount of political pressure we are able to exercise.
It seems to me that the amendment raises an important but relatively simple issue, rather than the whole question of branch lines. As I understand it, the amendment challenges who is to have the final say as to whether a branch line is to be closed or not. That, surely, is a matter on which there is room for an honest difference of opinion. I was impressed by the speech of Senator Hearne. I think he is quite right when he says that there may be conflicting interests, and that a decision of this kind is a very responsible one. It is largely of a judicial character. Whoever makes it will have to take into consideration a possible loss as well as the public interest in the particular district concerned. One would have to be set against the other in coming to a final decision, and it is certain that conflicting interests will arise. Where you have a problem of that kind, you have to ask yourself who is the best person to have the making of that final decision. I was much impressed by the idea of giving it to an independent tribunal, but I do not think it is possible to give it to two people. If the House were to pass this amendment, the real decision would be with the Minister which means that he would have to be advised by his officials. They would have to get the facts and make the investigation. No doubt, the Minister would receive political representations in connection with it. I do not think that is wrong. But, in making the decision, the Minister would have to be advised by his staff. It is not enough to say that the tribunal should make the investigations, and that on top of that the Minister, who has not heard or investigated the matter, is to put in something of his own which is virtually what the amendment proposes. I do not think Senators can have it both ways. The decision should be placed either with the Minister and his Department or with the Tribunal, or left to the Board.
Personally, I think the tribunal can be a valuable experiment. I think a tribunal is the best way of getting an important and difficult matter in which many interests may be involved, decided. There is common agreement that we must provide adequate transport services. These branch lines are very important for the transport of cattle and other things. That position may change in the future. We do not know. If there was no tribunal, and the new board had to take full responsibility, it is probable that it would be found very difficult to close branch lines except in exceptional circumstances. Now, the responsibility will be on the tribunal. It must make a full investigation before reaching a decision. If you were to add to the amendment the proposal that, after the tribunal had made its investigation, the matter should go to the Minister, there would be the danger that the tribunal would pass on the responsibility to the Minister. The present Minister, having examined this whole problem and having regard to public feeling, would probably be very much opposed to the closing of branch lines. We all agree, of course, that he may not be there indefinitely. It does not follow that a Minister, representing the Government, with a Minister for Finance behind him and the possibility of having to provide a subsidy to keep these lines open is the person who would not want to close down branch lines. It does not necessarily follow that he is the person who would be most opposed to that. I think that an independent board having heard all the facts, would be far less likely to agree to that than a Minister, particularly in a time of financial stringency. On the whole I think that what is proposed in the Bill is worth trying. As I have said, Senators cannot have it both ways, and for that reason I am opposed to the amendment.
I gather that the proposer of the amendment would prefer that the Minister should deal with this question rather than the tribunal. I do not agree with that. I am very much interested in branch lines. We had reason to fear that the branch line to Ballaghaderreen would be closed down as it had been almost closed down during the emergency. At that time there was a fuel shortage. The Department, however, guaranteed to supply fuel in the form of turf, and so it was not closed down. I can fully realise the serious position in which surrounding districts are placed when a branch line is closed down. I certainly would have had a great deal more to say on this subject earlier were it not for the fact that I listened to the Minister's introductory speech. Personally, I am perfectly satisfied that there is no immediate danger. We have been assured by the Minister that, before the new board can close a branch line, it will have to make an application to do so to the tribunal which is to be set up, and that every interest concerned will have an opportunity of putting its case before the tribunal. For that reason, I felt that it was not necessary to waste the time of the House in putting up any points on this earlier. We have again been reassured by the Minister on this point.
There is a question as to whether it is the Minister or the tribunal that should make the decision. If the tribunal is to consist of three or seven members, one may say that three or seven heads are wiser than one. That is why I favour the tribunal. I feel that any sensible Government will take care in appointing sensible men as members of the tribunal. I am sure that, in the case of any application that comes before them, they will give a fair hearing to all interests concerned. If, however, they should prove not to be desirable men or were to act in a reckless way, the Dáil is given power under the Bill to remove them, if necessary. I cannot conceive anything of that kind happening.
I want to say to the Galway Senators that I am keenly interested in branch lines, and that if any steps are taken for the reopening of the Galway-Clifden line—it has been closed for a number of years—I am ready to give them any help I can.
In the light of such knowledge that I have of the problems relating to national transport, I think I should be opposed to the idea of a tribunal altogether. However, the tribunal is already in the Bill, and that is that. I take it that, under Section 55, the initiative will come from the board and the chairman. That being so, I would prefer if the tribunal were out of it, and that the appeal from the chairman and the board, as regards the closing or reopening of a branch line, should go to the Minister. The whole difficulty arises out of this reference back to Section 15. It is clear now that this section is creating a fair amount of confusion. There will be the question of economic development, of the needs of the public, of agriculture, industry and commerce.
The tribunal is being endowed with the power and the authority to decide what is to be done in regard to these matters of closing, or in certain cases opening of branch lines. My feeling in regard to this is there is going to be on occasions —I expect rare occasions —public anxiety and public dissatisfaction with the decisions of the tribunal. The board will make its case for the closing temporarily or permanently of certain lines. I expect it will make a strong case, in view of the fact that it will be expected to pay its way within a reasonable time. The public will feel dissatisfied, and for that reason, I am in favour of the right to make an appeal to the Minister. I would rather that this should be simplified so that the application for an order would come from the chairman of the board, and that the Minister, without any reference to a tribunal at all, would decide the matter. But, if this is considered to be an advisable piece of machinery so that there may be public investigation of the reasons why the order is sought and so on— if that is conceded, I still think that in certain cases there should be a reference back to the Minister. I do not for a moment visualise that every time the tribunal is appealed to for an order, there will be a public outcry and that there will be public anxiety and agitation. Such a condition of affairs will arise only very rarely, but in cases where it does arise, I think it is only right and proper that there should be a reference to the Minister before the order is made. That is my feeling on this matter.
I want to be perfectly frank with the Seanad on this. I do not want the Minister in the Bill, and if I had my way, the tribunal would not be in the Bill either. I want to remind the Seanad that as originally introduced, the Bill proposed to leave entirely to the new national board of this new national transport company the powers charging them with the full responsibility of operating a transport organisation providing for the national and local needs of the country in transport, and leaving it to that board to determine—the board that was simply acting on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the State—these matters for themselves.
It was with a considerable amount of reluctance, and under pressure from all sides of the Dáil, that I agreed to introduce an amendment myself to set up this tribunal to provide that there should be some check on the board, because it was quite clear to me that there were obvious misgivings and genuine fears among representative people in the Dáil that the board might not be as considerate of local interests as would be thought desirable. If you are going to have the Minister appearing in this Bill at all, then the tribunal should not be there What this amendment seeks to do is to set up the Minister as the final Court of Appeal. As far as I am concerned, I want to keep the Minister away from the operations of this board. I think that in setting up an independent tribunal you are providing what are thought to be the necessary safeguards. There is no doubt that the sections to which we have been referring have a very definite bearing on this whole matter, but I think it is equally clear that the first obligation on the board will be to provide for the services and the needs which are set out in the earlier part of that particular section. I do not think there is anything so terribly inconsistent in asking the board so to manage their business and organise the transport system that it will not only give an efficient service to the community but will endeavour to do that, taking one year with another, as early as possible, without incurring a loss, but the emphasis all the time is on providing a really first-class service for the community. All through the Bill, even where it is not clearly stated, it is implied that the national well-being, the national requirements, must receive first consideration. There is no doubt whatever that if there is an application made to have a branch line closed down, even though the branch line may not have been used for a period of three years before, there will be an outcry. An agitation will be organised and the people who will shout loudest, and who will be the most vocal, will be those who never used the line and never would use it.
We know that.
We know that, against their own wishes and desires, local representatives, whether they are members of county councils or members of urban councils, Senators or T.D.s, will be pulled into the protest meetings as they are called. They will be forced to attend against their will— forced to seek interviews with the Minister and to lead deputations against it, and they will be compelled to act even against what they know themselves to be the position. We know that there is no use in trying to fool ourselves—most of us are too long in politics for that. I think it is entirely undesirable. I quite agree that a Minister would fully understand the problem and would arrive at a right decision but I suggest that it is hardly fair to put any Minister in that position. I am not trying to shed any obligations or to divest myself of any responsibilities, but I do suggest to Senators that it is not fair, because Ministers have not at their disposal the means or the staff to go into all the pros and cons as to whether a railway line should or should not be closed.
You will have your own appointed chairman and your own appointed board continuously on the job of the transport service.
But may I remind Senators that the initiative in this matter might be taken by the board? May I again direct attention that even that first step will not be taken unless there is a very strong or almost overwhelming case? Again, I want to emphasise, and I apologise for repeating it so often, that this board is set up to run a national State organisation, not a private organisation. The board will know what they are expected to do. The board will know unquestioningly what the desires of the Government and the Oireachtas are. The board will know, as Senator Hayes has said, that this is a Bill for the preservation of the railways and the board will know that they cannot close any branch line without going to the tribunal, and may I remind Senator Hawkins of this, that the tribunal in itself will be the public inquiry to which Sir James Milne refers in paragraph 231? That is the way you can have the public inquiry so that all interested parties, whether local authorities, groups of traders, organisations representing farmers or trade unions, and all such people will have the right to make their cases before the tribunal. In the full knowledge of all that, and of the full publicity which will follow such representations, no board will lightheartedly ask for an examination, or ask to go before the tribunal. That is with regard to the closing down of a branch line, and if you look at sub-section (1) of the section you will find that even in relation to the branch lines which were closed under Emergency Powers Orders, closing Orders were made on the condition that the closing would not continue permanently. That means that these lines cannot be kept closed without going before the tribunal. I would like to give Senators an assurance that, so far as I am concerned, my desire is to see the railways of this country used to the absolute maximum, and anything which I can do, any suggestion, advice or direction towards that end, will be given free and it will be the desire of the national transport Board to do that also. Remember I do not know that the new board will be very much interested in road transport. They will be interested only in so far as they are forced into road transport for either passengers or freight, and I would suggest to the Seanad that it would be the desire of the transport Board to attract to the railways the maximum amount of freight and passenger traffic that it is possible to get and that it can only do that by using the branch lines to the fullest extent, and so far as they do operate road freight services, that they will be operated as feeders for the branch lines. Again, the community itself must realise when this Bill becomes law and the appointed day arrives, that the national transport service is now their own personal property and that they are concerned in a more intimate way than ever before with its success or failure.
Unless we get from the community that support for the organisation to which I think it is entitled, and unless we get from those who are employed in the organisation that co-operation and help that we should get in all the circumstances, there will be complaints if it cannot make a profit or operate as successfully as it otherwise would. But I could not under any circumstance accept the principle laid down in the amendment. I think it would be entirely wrong and I say that it was with reluctance that I was prepared to go so far as to accept a tribunal. I would ask Senators to accept my assurance that their fears in relation to any desire to close or to keep closed branch lines are entirely groundless.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment being pressed?
Put the amendment.
Question—"That the amendment be agreed to"— put and declared negatived.
Question proposed: "That Section 55 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that the board will not avail of the definition in sub-section (b) as allowing them to keep a branch line closed on the grounds that it is not permanently closed for passengers or merchandise under the particular Order that was made. I would like to be assured that the board will not seek to avail of the word "permanently" by saying that because a line is closed for a time it is not intended to close it permanently. Will the Minister give that assurance? What I want to get from him is this: will he give an assurance to the House that at the earliest possible time every service will be reopened and that afterwards the appeal will be made to the tribunal, if it is required, for the further closing of the branch line.
That is certainly the intention and I gave whatever assurance I could give to the Dáil on that.
On a point of order, in view of the fact that amendment No. 13 was defeated, I take it that the principle applies also to Section 56.
That is so.
Question put and agreed to.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
SECTION 56.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Section 56 put and agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That Section 57 stand part of the Bill."
On Section 57, might I suggest a little alteration in the wording? The section says that public notices shall be in the Irish language but may be in both the Irish and the English languages. Would it be better if we said that the notices shall be in the Irish language but may be in other languages as well? I do not think we should tie ourselves to the English language. There might be occasions when it would be necessary to use French or German in notices indicating certain directions and so on.
The Senator will remember that these are the two languages mentioned in the Constitution and in various statutes. I think it would be as well to leave the matter there.
There is nothing to prevent them publishing notices in another language, if necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 58 to 65, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 66.
Question proposed: "That Section 66 stand part of the Bill."
Section 66 says:—
"On the establishment date, Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) and the Grand Canal Company respectively shall, subject to the provisions set out in the Seventh Schedule to this Act, be, by virtue of this section, dissolved."
I feel that these cannot be properly dissolved until certain conditions are fulfilled. In this instance the State is acquiring a private company for the benefit of the public. The Grand Canal Company is definitely a private company. It might be difficult to assess the degree to which Córas Iompair Éireann is a private company at the present moment. But the State is acquiring these two companies for the public benefit. Now the difference in the acquisition by the State of private property in a Christian State and in a Socialist State is that the Christian State is obliged in conscience to compensate fully all those who suffer any loss by their action. In this case provision has been made to compensate all the parties concerned in these two companies with one exception. That exception is the directors.
It was proposed in the original Bill that these directors would be compensated. That particular section was deleted in the other House and never reached this House. A very small amount of money was involved in that proposal in proportion to the amount being spent in other directions. But, though the amount involved was small, the principle is a very big one.
Senator Mrs. Concannon suggested that our new coinage should bear on its face some Christian symbol—she suggested a cross—in order to make our affiliations quite clear. I agree with that suggestion but, if we wish to demonstrate clearly that we stand for Christian principles here, we should remember that deeds speak louder than words, auguries or signs. Though it may be a good idea to put a Christian symbol on our coins it is by our deeds we shall be judged. I do not think the State is behaving in the best Christian tradition in this instance in so far as compensating people who suffer loss is concerned. When this section was included in the Bill originally the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann, and of the Grand Canal Company were lumped together. If they had been subsectionalised there might have been a very different result. I have read the debate and I have spoken to members of the other House on this matter. I got a variety of opinions but in practically every case it was agreed that the Grand Canal Company was on a different footing from Córas Iompair Eireann, inasmuch as it was a private company successfully carried on over a period of years and which was now being taken over, through no fault of its own, in the public interest. The directors of that company have given a long period of continuous service. It has been argued that the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann were only there from year to year and, because of the state of the company, they might not have been re-elected at the end of this year. That was not the case with the directors of the Grand Canal Company. They had a definite prospect of continuity of service in the future. They are, therefore, at a positive loss.
We are obliged in conscience, because of the Christian principles which govern this State, to compensate anybody whose property we take over. In this instance we are taking over private property for the public good.
I should like to put these points to the Minister to see if we can have something done even at this late hour in this matter. I think the majority of Senators would agree with the principle which I have enunciated. In the other House Deputies stressed that they agreed with the principle—that is with one or two exceptions, notably Deputy Larkin who said that he did not see any principle in the matter at all. His words were: "Frankly I do not see any principle involved at all." He went on to say that the workers had to go before arbitrators to establish their claims and he asked why should the directors be compensated without going before arbitrators. In fact what happened in this case was while the workers had an opportunity of going before arbitrators, the directors were summarily dismissed without anything. The amount involved in the case of Córas Iompair Eireann would be about £5,000. The directors were to get two years' salary as compensation. In the case of the Grand Canal Company the amount involved was only £1,750.
It was something more.
The Minister said, in regard to the Córas Iompair Eireann directors, that speaking from recollection, the compensation would amount to £10,200 for two years. In the other case it was only £1,715.
Three thousand odd.
Speaking in the other House, the Minister said:—
"With regard to the Grand Canal Company, the chairman had somewhere around £550, the deputy chairman approximately £340 and the three remaining directors £275 each."
The totals in one case are £5,000 odd and in the other £1,715.
There would be two years' salary to be paid.
Then it would be roughly about £3,500 odd in the case of the Grand Canal Company. The main point I want to make is that a grave injustice is definitely being done to the directors of the Grand Canal Company. As I said, there may be some doubt about the Córas Iompair Eireann directors inasmuch as it might be said that, since the reorganisation of the company some years ago by Deputy Lemass, they were merely directors in name and that, in fact, they did not exercise the full powers of directors.
Some doubt might also rise from the fact that it was difficult to say how far the company was a private concern or a public concern but in the case of the other company there is no doubt that it was a private company and that the directors were in fact full directors. I feel that we in this State should maintain the principle that a person deprived of private property is entitled to adequate compensation because it is a matter that affects the rights of every single individual. It is a question of a railway or a canal to-day but it may be a question of your house, your field, your room or whatever private property you may possess to-morrow. I think, therefore, that in the case of Córas Iompair Eireann at least a token payment should be made to the directors just to vindicate the principle and in the other case I feel that it is very small compensation for these directors to give them two years' salary.
I was rather surprised to find that the case made by many people in the other House for depriving these directors of compensation was that they were wealthy men. I think that is a most pernicious principle. I happen to know two of the directors but I am merely concerned with the principle involved in this question. The amount of wealth a man has is not what really matters but rather how he acquired that wealth. If he came by his wealth justly and legitimately he is fully entitled to compensation if deprived of any of the sources of his income. It is just as wrong, just as much robbery, to take money from a rich man as it is to take money from a poor man. There may be different degrees in the amount of injury done to the individual concerned but certainly the crime is the same in both cases.
We have heard of many proposals for taking over various undertakings in the country. Perhaps, there is a lot to be said for carrying out big projects but many of these projects will involve the taking over of private property. If in the beginning we are going to make these fundamental errors, I feel that they will have very serious reactions in the case of any future project of this kind. I am glad to see that in the Dáil the Minister himself stood behind this principle but the matter was left to a free vote of the House. However, I feel, judging by the tone of the debate in the other House, it really got on the wrong track altogether.
Very few people talked about the principle involved. They merely spoke of how badly the Córas Iompair Eireann directors carried out their functions and, having worked up that atmosphere of incompetence, nonworking directors and wealthy men, they proceeded to put them all in the one basket and throw out the proposals for compensation.
I would just like before concluding to quote one typical statement made by Deputy Maguire, an Independent Deputy, as reported in Volume 119, No. 5. column 744. He said:—
"If the business were being taken over as a going concern, as a concern which was paying its way, it would be quite understandable that the men who had assisted in the successful management of that concern over a number of years and who were being removed from office through no fault of their own should be compensated."
That is the reason he voted against this particular section. Every word he says there applies actually to the Grand Canal Company.
I should like to hear some views on this matter from other members of the House, because I know there are various views on it. I know that the deletion of this section has had a most disturbing effect on people who have property in this country. I have met many people in the last few weeks who have talked about this matter and who have felt most disturbed about what has happened. Although in this case we are dealing with people who can afford to be deprived of compensation, I feel that we should establish a right principle. There are some people who have been rather amused because some wealthy directors are not being paid compensation, but I think they will not be the slightest bit amused if they find the same principle applied to themselves at a later date in the case of any small private property which they may possess.
May I intervene to ask if the Minister can give us the figures for the profits earned by the canal company for the four or five years up to 1949? I should like if I could get these figures divided into two parts; firstly, what the company would have made on its ordinary transport business, and then what it might have got as a result of any investments it might hold. I think that information would be very valuable to us before we come to any conclusion on the matter introduced by Senator McGuire.
A great many of us have sympathy for what Senator McGuire has said. If the principle he lays down is entirely watertight, he deserves complete support, but I wonder whether he is quite right in saying that the directors are the owners of this particular property? I speak open to correction on this point, but surely the owners are the shareholders and the directors, in a sense, are the employees of the shareholders? They are there to administer the affairs of the company in the interests of the shareholders, and unless the Senator can establish the point that the directors are the real owners and are being defrauded of their own particular property, his principle falls to the ground.
I do not know whether I can give Senator Ó Buachalla all he really wants. Would the dividends paid in certain years be of any use?
That information would be useful.
I think the Senator has Sir James Milne's Report. I will refer him to pages 74 and 75. He will see a financial statement on those pages, particularly on page 76, which will probably give him the information he requires.
On the point raised by Senator McGuire, in view of Senator Stanford's interjection I would like to give my view. I wonder is it right to suggest that because directors are not actually the owners they have not a vested interest in the continuance of their office? In the ordinary way these men who were directing the affairs of the Grand Canal Company were peculiarly fitted for the position. Had this property not been taken over they might have continued in office and would continue to get a fee for their services. That is what they are being deprived of and the principle is there.
The only thing I am concerned with is whether, under this Bill, they are going to be adequately compensated for the deprivation of their directorships. Senator Stanford is hardly correct in inferring that they have not something for which they should be compensated. I submit they have. It would be a dangerous thing to lay down that if, in the future, other companies are to be taken over by the State—as has been stated, for the public good—the men controlling these businesses should not be properly compensated, or perhaps not compensated at all. I think the principle is a very definite one. Senator McGuire has gone into detail on it, and he has established the very definite principle involved. It is one which this House should be very careful to safeguard.
I wish to make it clear that Senator McGuire based his argument on the suggestion that they were the owners. I merely asked for some clarification on that point. I did not intend to suggest that directors in all cases should not be compensated. I was simply following Senator McGuire's argument where it seemed to lead.
I may not have conveyed clearly what I meant to say. In this taking over of private property I suggested that not only should the owners be compensated, but I felt that all concerned should be compensated. That was the principle this Bill started off with, and I understand it is the principle that applied in the past. I think that when Córas Iompair Éireann and the Tramways Company were taken over the shareholders, directors and staff were compensated.
Where are you going to put the directors in this concern? Are they staff or owners? It is usual, at any rate, to think of directors in terms of owners. Very often they are the owners of companies. The principle of compensation for any person suffering loss through the State taking over private property is one that we should establish and live up to.
I find this argument rather hard to follow. What are we compensating the directors for? Is it their certainty of annual re-election in a certain number of years ahead?
In the Grand Canal Company these people have had a long record of directorship. They also have had a good record of stewardship and a good hope of employment as directors in the future. I believe that in the Grand Canal Company no director has ever been removed except by death, and I think the directors in this company are fairly healthy and they are good for two years, anyway. The two I know are; one is very old, but he is good for another two years. There should be some degree of compensation for people who have been in this company for many years.
As regards this suggestion about compensating directors, I am tempted to ask does the Senator mean by his proposal that all those affected should be compensated? Am I to understand that amongst those who should be compensated as a matter of equity there should be included persons whose only capital is their labour? Am I to understand that amongst those who should be compensated, because they are dispossessed as a result of the passage of this measure, will be those in the employment of the company other than directors?
I think Senator McGuire was quite right to raise this matter specifically with regard to the Grand Canal Company and its directors. It is extremely difficult to lay down principles in such a way as that they will apply equally to all cases; but there does seem to me to be a principle involved, and the principle is that, as a general rule, where persons are displaced from the positions they hold, as a result of the State taking over their interests, there should be some compensation.
The degree of compensation obviously would depend on quite a number of circumstances. I can conceive the case of a private company in such a poor condition that the directors would be pleased if the State took over and they were relieved of responsibilities, and in such a case a nominal compensation would possibly be sufficient. But that is one type of case. It seems to me that the point whether the directors will be normally re-elected will depend on the particular company.
In many cases one or two directors retire each year. These are matters which should be taken into consideration, having regard to the circumstances. The amount in the case of directors would not be a large amount and the period would not be a large number of years.
I think it is a great pity if in this case, which is the first large-scale taking-over of what might be regarded as a private interest by this State, the principle is more or less established that there should be no compensation for persons displaced if those persons happen to be directors. In most public companies the directors are seldom replaced. There are cases, and it may apply to this company, in which they are substantial shareholders. It might be that that might make a difference as to the total amount by which they should be compensated, but it does not make a difference as far as the principle is concerned. I think it would be a pity if in a Bill of this kind we had a set of circumstances which would allow us to approve a wrong principle.
The argument in favour of no compensation for the Grand Canal directors does not seem to be sound. At the moment it is only applied to employees who are directors, but the same principle could very soon extend to employees in other positions. I think, if we are going to have confidence here, we should definitely stand for the principle that persons who lose their employment as a result of the State taking over a private interest should be compensated. We need not agree as to the degree or as to the circumstances. Obviously, if the whole livelihood of a person is taken away compensation must be on a different scale to the case where it is not, but the principle is there and it is a great pity that in this Bill we are establishing what I think to be a wrong principle.
I am not going to say anything, one way or another, with regard to the matter raised by Senator McGuire. I might mention that it was to be understood that the Bill as originally introduced was drafted after due and mature consideration by the Minister, that the Minister having come to his decisions, they eventually went to the Cabinet, and that it got the approval of Cabinet. Events since the introduction of the Bill have led me, at any rate, to doubt very much whether that is the position or not. However, there are certain issues involved, political issues and moral issues, that I think must now pass from this tribunal to the greater tribunal of public opinion. Reference has been made to the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. I daresay we could widen the discussion on this section to cover matters which we ought perhaps to cover. I am not going to do that. I want to draw the attention of Senator McGuire and the attention of the Seanad to the fact that in the case of the Grand Canal Company, the affairs of which I have not mentioned in detail, that company has been making a loss for some years. I wonder is that a fair conclusion from the figures in this Milne Report. I take it that for the year 1945—on page 75, there is a table showing a summary of the financial results from January, 1945, to June, 1948— that there was a credit balance of £743. That is to say, the balance available for dividends was on the right side by £743. In 1946 there was a debit balance of £483, for 1947 a debit balance of £136, and for the six months to June, 1948, of £290. Now, I quite admit, that I have not examined the question of the Grand Canal Company in detail.
Perhaps I may be able to help the Senator. I have some figures here that may be of some assistance to him. I can give the Senator the total net income of the company for a number of years. Will that be of any assistance?
I am afraid, Sir, it would be of very little use. Certain figures would be useful, but in certain cases averages can be very misleading. For instance, say a company pays 4 per cent. in one year, 3 per cent. the next year, 1 per cent. the next year, and 2 per cent. the next year, that would be a 2½ per cent. average for the four years. If you say the company has paid a dividend of 2½ per cent. for four years, that conceals a very important factor.
I thought it was the net income the Minister offered to give.
Money would be declining as far as its efficiency to pay a dividend is concerned.
What I offered to give the Senator was the total net income of the company for, say, six years from 1938. It may be of some assistance to the Senator. The total net income of the Grand Canal Company in 1938 was £14,174; 1939, £15,373; 1940, £16,157; 1946, £27,435; 1947, £8,006; and, 1948, £17,869.
May I stress, again, that in anything I have attempted to say now, I do not want to be taken as opposing what Senator McGuire has in mind, but I want to draw the attention of the Seanad to this fact, that more than once the Córas Iompair Eireann Board has been condemned because of its failure to earn sufficient income to pay its way? The company deteriorated, to some extent, in 1947, and that deterioration continued in 1948 and in 1949. Now, here is this Grand Canal Company, and Sir James Milne refers to it in these terms at paragraph 254:—
"The deterioration in the company's financial position is due, in the first place, to a decline of traffic"
and so on, and so on. The fact remains that there has been a deterioration in the finances of the Grand Canal Company and I hold, that if there has been a deterioration in its affairs, that that should not be held against them, and that that is no reason why we should condemn them, say they were incompetent, and use that as a reason for declining to pay them what might be considered reasonable compensation for the taking of their business.
It seems to me that, although Senator Ó Buachalla indicated that he had no view for or against this proposition of Senator McGuire's, that he is in favour of compensation to the directors. My view about it, in so far as I have a view and I have a very definite view, is, that I think there is a very important question involved in this decision, and I think every Senator has a responsibility in this matter. It is probably unfortunate that so much of the discussion in the other House on this whole question was taken along the political line, and decisions based on considerations that, in a way, were rather foreign to the issue involved. You have a situation here in legislation, all through the life of the State, in the previous legislation dealing with our railways, and in another instance as well, where provision was made for compensation to employees. Now, Senator McGuire points out that we have here made provision for compensation to employees and to owners. I do not know how you will classify these directors of the Grand Canal Company, whether they are employees or whether they are owners. If they were owners, in so far as they were owners of shares, there is provision for compensation for them. They are particularly singled out. But they are, apparently, singled out as a group of people, giving service in the running of this organisation, for whom no provision is made by way of compensation. As Senator Douglas has very well put it, they had rights. These rights may have been major or minor, so far as one looks at it from the point of view of the profitability of the business which they were managing. But whatever rights they have had up to the present are being extinguished by this Bill. My view is that where it is a question of the rights of the individual, and when these are being adjudicated upon by the State, the State has to be much more careful than even the individual has in regard to the extinction of another individual's rights to compensation. I think that the State, above all, must be very careful about the standard it sets in this regard because if there is a disregard of the right of the individual by the State, make no mistake about it there will be even less regard by the individual as against another individual's rights. My view is that even though it be stretching a point, the State must be very careful lest it establishes the principle and sets an example that may be copied in a wider sphere, giving such a twist in regard to the rights of individuals in other spheres as would really be disastrous to morality as a whole.
I feel myself on the side of Senator McGuire and Senator Douglas on this matter. As far as I am concerned, I feel that the rights of all those who were directors in either of these concerns ought to be judged according to the considerations put forward by Senator Douglas. In the case of one concern the profit was low and in the other it was practically nil.
I think that in the case of those who are put there to manage those concerns it would have been far more gracious and sensible if they had been completely blotted out, from the point of view of precedent, than to do what is being done. It is of the utmost importance that the State should take cognisance of the fact that they were being obliterated, and whether their rights were great or small consideration should have been given to that. As far as the Grand Canal Company was concerned it was a private concern in the sense that the State had not poked its nose into its affairs. I think that the position with regard to those people who were formerly directors calls for consideration.
I hardly think there is such a vital principle involved in this as some Senators would have us believe. Compensation for possibilities rather than for actualities is a very doubtful principle and a very difficult problem to deal with. The longest that any director could hope to be in office by offering himself for re-election and running the chance of not being re-elected was three years. In some cases a director would have to offer himself for re-election in one year. We are asked in those circumstances to take precisely the same view of that man in the matter of compensation as if it were his livelihood we were dealing with or if he were a permanent employee devoting the whole of his time to and depending for his livelihood entirely on one form of occupation. That is not the case where directors are concerned. That sort of compensation is not allowed in the case of employees. An employee must have a very definite period of service before he can get any compensation at all. If he has less than five years' service all he gets is two months' salary for each year of service, so that if he was a little short of five years' service all he could get would be ten months' salary; but under the original provisions of this Bill a director who had only one year's service and who had to run the chance of being re-elected would be entitled to two full years' salary or fees. Therefore, there was quite a different principle and a very much more generous one applied in the case of directors than in the case of the regular employees.
As regards the Grand Canal Company, those who know the position are well aware that the time that had to be devoted by these directors to the work of that concern was absolutely fractional. They are all men with several other directorates, with numerous and far-flung interests, and one might well say that in every case their directorship of the Grand Canal Company was the minor interest. When you come to compensating a man 85 years of age for loss of office, well, it certainly is carrying this principle to a tremendous extent.
After all, people lose office in the public interest sometimes and get no compensation. In 1936 this House was dissolved years before some Senators were due to go out and nobody suggested that they should get any compensation. Indeed, no Senator asked for any. Any position in which one has to rely on the good graces of a number of people in order to secure election or reappointment is not at all on the same basis as a post for which a person qualifies by reason of special qualities and to which he devotes the whole of his time. I do not stand for the expropriation of private interests in any sense, but I do not think that the alleged expropriation of a few directors in this case involves the same type of principle as would the expropriation of property or of the rights of people in the case of their employment and means of livelihood.
These directors are shareholders, and they are being fully compensated for their shares. At any time within the next year or two it is theoretically possible that every one of them would have been removed from the position of director.
This matter was discussed at great length in the Dáil. As Senators are aware, there was a vote taken on it. I would like to say that I felt that I had to put the provision into the Bill because of the precedent which had been created for me in relation to previous Bills. I did so, and brought it before the Dáil. It was argued there for a considerable time. and there was a division on it. I felt that it was more a question of following precedent than really a first-class principle. Perhaps there is a principle involved in it to some extent. I decided, in view of the opinions which were expressed from all sides of the House, and following the line which I had taken on the Bill through all its sections on the Committee Stage, that I would leave the matter to a free vote of the Dáil. Senators may remember that the result of the free vote was this: 99 members of the Dáil voted against the section and only ten voted for it. As I said myself, looked at from one point of view, there is, of course, a considerable difference between the directors of the Grand Canal Company and the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. If we are talking about the principle, then I do not think there is any difference. I feel that there is nothing I could or should do about it, and I certainly will not be prepared to introduce a new section in the Bill or to introduce an amendment, either here or in Dáil Eireann, that would separate the directors of the Grand Canal Company from the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann. I feel that if we are arguing here that there is a principle—if we are arguing here on principles—that provision should be made, it must be made for the directors of both companies—to all or none. That seems to me to be the position, and I am certainly not prepared to go back to Dáil Eireann with, in effect, the same section as I had in the Dáil, and which got such an overwhelming decision against it on an entirely free vote of the House —members of all Parties being left entirely free to vote as they thought fit. It seems to me that the Oireachtas must provide either for the directors of the two companies or make no provision at all.
I would like to say that this is a matter in which I have some interest. Unfortunately I have not been able to hear the speeches made previous to the Minister's, but I do entirely agree with the Minister in this, that if you accept the principle, if it is a principle, it should apply both in the case of the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann and the directors of the Grand Canal Company. On the question of the amount of compensation, you are entering on some of the ground that Senator O'Farrell trod, and that is whether the directors of Córas Iompair Eireann have done their work as they should have. You might argue that, even if you accept the principle that the amount of compensation in the case would be very small. As I understand the position of the Grand Canal Company, it is that while it has had declining returns in recent years, there are substantial assets, and the Grand Canal Company, from the point of view of the directors, could continue for many a long day to pay all their employees and pay the directors whatever fees they were getting. But I do not think that position holds in Córas Iompair Eireann. Therefore, once you accept the principle, you come down to details as to how much to provide. Remember, there is a very different case to be made for the directors of the Grand Canal Company than for Córas Iompair Eireann, but I do not want to go into details. The Minister, quite rightly, said that there was a free vote in the Dáil on this matter and that a very big preponderance of the Dáil, concerned with finance more than we are, voted against any such provision. Giving a personal view on the question, I do not think that the decision of the Dáil was arrived at in an atmosphere that would allow of a fair objective approach to these matters. I do regret that the Minister seems to have come to the conclusion that there is little effect in re-opening the question, but I feel, and it is my own personal opinion again, that there is a principle involved in this, and if the Minister would, even after saying what he has said, change his mind, the Dáil would be given a further opportunity of considering in perhaps a more placid atmosphere this aspect of the particular question, rather than in the heated atmosphere in which, if I might say so, this whole question of expropriation and compensation was bedevilled by purely political issues.
I would like to say a few words about the suggestion made by Senator Hearne. It was suggested here, I felt, that I was asking for the same compensation for directors as for other employees. I did not say that at all. I suggested the directors should be given compensation for losses not on the same basis as a worker, I grant you that. A point was made here by one Senator that because people were wealthy business men they should not be compensated. It is not a question of being wealthy. The fact that a man is wealthy is no reason why you should dispossess him of something he is entitled to. Secondly, the point was made that these directors are on so many boards that they can devote only a short time to any particular company. Everyone connected with business knows that services cannot be measured in time. Very often, a man gives the greatest service in a short space of time and I think it is foolish to attempt to measure his efforts by how much sweat he drops on the floor or to measure his use to the particular business by the amount of time he spends in the office.
On this question of giving reasonable consideration to people who suffer, the Minister says it will be impossible to bring it back to the Dáil and get it reopened. The decision of the Dáil was spoken of as if it was the last word on the subject. We all know that the majority made the decision, but is the majority always right? I do not think that a majority, even given a free vote, can be always right. Senator Hearne is right in saying that anybody who reads the report of the Dáil debate can grasp the atmosphere in which the decision was made. It was certainly not a judicial atmosphere, or an atmosphere in which you would get a fair deal. It seems to be forgotten that the people who are buying this concern are the people who are deciding arbitrarily what the compensation will be, whereas if the State is buying land you always have an appeal to the arbitrators. In these cases it is decided not to give any compensation to these people because they are wealthy or for one reason or another, and that is the end of it. I submit it is a bad precedent for the future and I think it is a bad state of affairs.
I would like to put one or two points. I entirely agree with the case put forward by Senator McGuire and I think the Seanad should be very careful about the decision they arrive at in view of the fact that this is probably the first Bill that came before this House to nationalise a private undertaking. When we are making provisions of that kind, and when the Minister saw fit, as he has admitted here in the House, to include in the original Bill as passed by the Cabinet, provision for compensation for both the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann and the directors of any undertaking they might take over, one is tempted to ask the question—having presented the Bill to the Cabinet and the Cabinet having agreed to the proposals contained in it—what really happened in the interval to influence the Minister to leave this matter to a free vote of the House? If we look up the result of the vote we find that a Bill which has been agreed to at a Cabinet meeting, and which has been accepted, comes before the Dáil and some Ministers vote in opposite directions. That probably might be explained away in present circumstances. I have no doubt that it can be easily done, but the point I wish to make is that I support the principle that where the State takes. over any undertaking, not alone should provision be made for the employees but provision should also be made for persons associated with the particular undertaking. The reason advanced for the taking over of Córas Iompair Éireann and the making of a certain amount of money available to continue its services is because it is very essential that the State should give a subsidy.
I would like to remind some Senators that there are other undertakings here to which the State also pays a heavy subsidy—heavier subsidies than to Córas Iompair Eireann. There is a possibility that in the near future we may be presented with a Bill to take over those undertakings. I do not want to mention the particular undertakings, but our attention was drawn to them by the Taoiseach himself in this morning's paper. There are certain undertakings which demand a subsidy of £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year.
Perhaps the Senator would be good enough to give the quotation. Certain undertakings?
Yes.
The Taoiseach certainly did not make that statement.
No man in this House knows as well as the Minister does the undertaking to which I am referring. It is under his direction and his Department that provision must be made for a certain amount of money on food subsidies.
That is not an undertaking.
It is certainly outside this section.
Probably it is outside this section.
It is a long way from compensation for directors.
It has been suggested by Senator J.T. O'Farrell's colleagues that we might nationalise the flour milling industry. I am sure Senators will agree that if such a Bill came before this House provision should be made in it for the owners, directors or proprietors of such a concern.
The more I listen to this debate the more important it seems to me to reach some clear-cut decision on this point. The Dáil had a free vote on the matter and I think this would be an excellent opportunity to have a free vote in this House.
There is always a free vote in this House.
I do not know if Standing Orders would permit of that. I am not too sure that I would not support Senator McGuire's suggestion. Is it an amendment?
There is no amendment before the House.
If Senator McGuire put down an amendment on some later stage he might get considerable support. I do not think the suggestion that we would cause the Dáil a considerable amount of trouble is one that would deter members of this House. It might also be a matter of principle to give the Dáil some trouble.
It was because I feared that that I was so careful.
Is it not correct that an amendment could be put down on the Report Stage?
That is correct.
I have the greatest sympathy with Senator McGuire's suggestion, but I could not support it at this stage. This Bill was before the Dáil for a considerable length of time. We all know the attitude taken up by the Opposition there on this particular matter. Now Senator Hawkins gives a kind of sympathetic support to Senator McGuire's suggestion. I have come to the conclusion that some people are merely wasting time and trying to annoy the Minister by prolonging the debate. This was discussed ad infinitum in the Dáil and an overwhelming majority voted against the proposal. Surely it is the majority which decides. It would be merely wasting time to send the Bill back to the Dáil where an overwhelming majority voted against this provision. I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition. After all, the Opposition in the Dáil voted against this provision and they would hardly turn their coats and accept it if we sent it back to them again.
I think a point of fundamental principle is involved. It is the function of the Second Chamber to send Bills back to the other House for reconsideration of a particular decision there if this House thinks that decision merits reconsideration. I would press very strongly for a vote on this matter.
On what? There is nothing to vote for.
Then I hope that we shall have that opportunity at some later stage.
This is not the first occasion on which it has been suggested that there are political Parties here. I think it is only right that it should be stated quite definitely that there is no such thing as either a tied vote or a free vote in this House. If anyone wishes to put down an amendment on this, he is quite entitled to do that subject to the ruling of the Chair. It is high time we realised that there are no political Parties here. Every member can vote any way he likes.
On a point of order. Suppose we said this section was not agreed what would happen?
If you eliminate the section, then you cannot amend it on the next stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 67 to 71, inclusive, put and agreed to.
First and Second Schedules put and agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In column (3), opposite Reference Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, page 46, to delete the figures "1975-85" in each case where they occur and substitute "1960-70".
In this amendment, as in an amendment I moved earlier this afternoon, I am asking the Minister to agree to another small concession to the shareholders. The various parties to the ideological warfare we have had regarding the fees to directors will agree, at least, to the right of the shareholders to compensation. This compensation applies to two classes, namely, the common stockholders in Córas Iompair Eireann and the ordinary and preference stockholders in the Grand Canal Company. My first amendment was not accepted by the Minister on the ground that it would create a dangerous precedent, thereby paving the way to still more dangerous precedents in the future. Be that as it may, in regard to the question of exempting Government stocks from stamp duty, as I suggested in a previous amendment, the shortening of the redemption dates for some of the new public stocks does not seem to involve any of these grave dangers. The Minister, in accepting this amendment, would not, I think, involve himself or his colleagues in any dangerous precedents or in the opening of any dangerous doors which may lead to trap doors outside. In fact, I think I can convince the Minister that this amendment, if accepted, would open the door to safety rather than to danger.
I am putting this amendment forward on two grounds. Both are very important grounds, but I think the second, from the public point of view, is the more important of the two. The first ground is one of consideration for the shareholders in the undertakings taken over. As I stated on Second Reading, the basis of compensation for these shares was fixed some time ago when gilt-edged securities were a good deal higher than they are to-day. I shall remind the Minister later of what the actual deterioration in value has been. As I said, also on Second Reading, if the basis of compensation was fair at the time it was made it has become unfair to-day owing to the change in the gilt-edged market. If, on the other hand, the basis of compensation is fair to-day then it was too high when it was assessed exactly a year ago. The Minister, therefore, finds himself faced with the dilemma that if the compensation provided is fair to-day it was far too high a year ago; if it was fair a year ago, then it cannot be suggested that it is fair to-day. I do not think that the Minister will argue that the basis of compensation was too high a year ago. Therefore in attempting to rescue himself from one horn of the dilemma he finds himself impaled on the other.
The first argument is based on justice to the shareholders; the second argument is at least equally strong. Without wishing to be offensive, may I say that it is possibly more calculated to appeal to the Ministerial mind because if an idea gets round that people in this country are not fairly treated by the Government, when property is being compulsorily purchased, that will have a very adverse effect on Government credit in the future? Reference has been made this afternoon in the course of the discussion—I do not wish to refer to it beyond saying that it was a topic which was touched upon possibly in heat, and I do not say that I agree with the statement—to an attempt to sabotage the national credit.
In my opinion nothing would have a more sabotaging effect on national credit than the idea that people who are being compulsorily purchased out of their property in existing undertakings are getting unfair terms of compensation. I can conceive of nothing more calculated to injure Government credit and to raise the rates of interest which have to be paid on new flotations and conversions in this country than an idea among the investing public that the Irish Government is not dealing fairly and squarely with stockholders in acquired undertakings. Therefore I suggest there is a strong case in favour of the amendment from the point of view of doing justice to the shareholders and from the point of view of maintaining Government credit, which will be severely tested in the course of the next two or three years if the professions of the Government in regard to large-scale investments are really seriously intended.
It is precisely a year almost to a day since the terms of the compensation were fixed early in 1949. At that date the price of 2½ per cent. consols was 80 and the yield was £3 1s. 9d. per cent. At the present time the price of consols is 69 and the yield is £3 12s. 2d. The yield on gilt-edged securities has gone up by a ½ per cent. per annum and the value of the securities has gone down by well over 10 per cent. An analogous stock to our railway stock which may be quoted is British Transport Stock. British Transport Stock, also a 3 per cent. stock and a Government security, was quoted in the market last year when these terms were issued at 102. To-day the quotation is 89, also a fall of over 10 per cent.
This fall in gilt-edged prices will seriously reduce the real value of the compensation paid to the shareholders in the Irish Grand Canal Company and in Córas Iompair Éireann common stock. There can be no question of that. If the basis of compensation was fair a year ago—that I am not going to argue now—but, assuming it was fair, if it is to be paid in gilt-edged stocks, then, with a fall of 10 per cent. within the past year, it is definitely unfair. By any criterion of social justice, of justice as between man and man, serious injustice will be done to the stockholders if some effort is not made to remedy this change which has taken place in the real terms of the compensation to the Irish railway and canal shareholders.
There are two obvious measures by which this injustice can be remedied, either of which could be justified. One would be to raise the nominal rate of interest on the Irish stock to, say, 3½ per cent. I do not think that is practical politics and I do not ask the Minister to consider it. The other remedy would be to increase the nominal amount of the stock issued, which would have the same effect. For every £100 worth of stock issued 12 months ago people should receive £115 to-day; that is to say, if every £100 of the nominal stock were raised by 15 per cent., something like rough justice would be done to the shareholders. I do not think that the Minister is likely to consent to either of these two courses, although I think both of them fair. Therefore, I ask him to consider an alternative course which will not cost the Government anything, which will not raise the nominal amount of compensation, and will not result in an increase in the annual charge, but, at the same time, will tone up the market value of the shares. It will not cast any additional burden on the Exchequer, but will increase the value of the stocks of the shareholders. While it does not entirely eliminate the injustice, it does, to some extent, reduce the extent of it.
My suggestion is that the 1975-85 stock referred to in the Schedule should have an earlier date of redemption. At a time of rising interest rates and serious fluctuations in the gilt-edged market, indeed at a time when there is a very unsettled international outlook, we have to remember that in the course of the next 25 years the price of gilt-edged stocks may fluctuate very considerably. A security, the redemption date of which is 25 years distant, is regarded on the stock exchange as an almost irredeemable security. The date of redemption is so remote that fluctuations in the interest rates quite outside the control of the Irish Government, the Irish banking system or indeed of anybody in this country will seriously affect its market value.
If the dates of redemption are advanced, I suggest by 15 years—I am not sure that it might not be advanced even further, but at least by 15 years —the market value of the stocks will unquestionably be higher. That can be seen by a reference to this week's quotations of the British transport stocks which are in every way analogous to ours. The 3 per cent. 1978-1988 stock is 89 and the 3 per cent. 1968-1978 stock is 94. The stock with the ten years earlier redemption date stands five points higher on that account. I have been told by a stockbroker in Dublin whose opinion I greatly respect and who is a man of great experience in the financial world, that he expects that the market value of the 1975-1985 3 per cent. Irish transport stock will not be more than about 80 when dealings open. That would inflict a very serious injustice on those shareholders who have to liquidate for any purpose, such as the payment of death duties, or anything else. Therefore, I think, from the point of view of the Irish Government doing justice to the citizens of the country, that is an injustice that ought, if possible, to be avoided.
I have also been told by people in the stock exchange that a shortening of the period of the redemption of the stock might quite easily raise the market value by ten points. It would cost the Government immediately nothing; it would simply alter the redemption date. That is the only effect. I do not see in what way it could injure the Government or the Exchequer. At the same time, it would have a good effect on the recipient of the stocks. I do not see how it would injure the Government, but I do see how it would greatly aid them.
If the professions of the Government regarding large-scale capital investment in housing and other social amenities are sincere, if they are really intended to be carried out, a good deal of borrowing may be required. It is also common knowledge that a good many Irish Government stocks are coming up for redemption and conversion in the near future. I seriously ask the Minister to apply his mind to the possible consequences of having a large block of Irish Government 3 per cent. stock standing at a figure between 80 and 85 on the Dublin market. I do not think it would be good for Government credit, and I do not think it is going to make it easier for the Government to borrow afresh or convert. I do not think it is going to reduce the cost of housing and other investment programmes about which we have been told so much and to which the Irish public are looking forward with such confidence. Therefore, I must earnestly press on the Minister the necessity of considering this amendment seriously.
Circumstances quite outside the control of anybody in this country have operated in the last 12 months in such a way as to reduce the value of these stocks. The debates in the Dáil and in the Seanad on this legislation have been very prolonged. The fact is that a year has elapsed from the time this measure was introduced until to-day, when it is nearly through, when the measure has nearly became effective. I suggest it is most unfair to the shareholders in the railway company and the Grand Canal Company. There have been parliamentary holdups and delays, a slowness in parliamentary procedure, during the period of a rising interest rate which has been entirely outside the control of the Minister or anybody in this country.
I suggest that if some action is not taken a serious injustice will be done. The right thing to do is to raise the rate of interest on this stock, to increase the nominal amount, but I do not think it is reasonable to ask the Minister to do that. Possibly, it would be politically a very difficult thing to do; but the Minister can partially undo this injustice or prevent it—because it is in his power to prevent it—by considering some shortening of the redemption rates of the stock. I suggest in doing so he will be protecting a very large and helpless section of the population, old people whose whole source of income is derived from Irish railway shares and widows and other people who live on these shares. A very deserving and helpless class of people will be prevented from suffering serious injustice and at the same time as the Minister will be doing something good for other people he will be doing something good for himself: he will be raising the tone of Government credit and making it easier for his colleagues to carry out the ambitious programme of capital investment in relation to which we have been promised so much.
May I remind Senators what I said on this matter before, that I believe the terms of compensation were not merely just but that they bordered on being generous? May I remind the Seanad that when the Government took action in February, 1949, to suspend dealings in Córas Iompair Eireann common stock on the stock exchange it was then standing at 9/-? When the terms of compensation were announced they were thought to be so good by the investing public it rose to 14/-, and I think it is at present standing at about 12/-. May I suggest to the Senator that the people about whom he is concerned would be in an infinitely worse position if the Government had not acquired this undertaking and had not determined on the compensation? I want again to remind Senators that the terms of compensation were more than fair.
I think the Senator rather over-sprinkled his speech with such terms as unfair, unjust terms, rough justice, and so on. The terms in this case were neither unfair nor unjust, nor was there any question of rough justice. We deliberately selected the three best years from the point of view of the stockholders in order to find. the basis upon which compensation should be fixed. Suppose we had taken three later years. If, instead of 1945, 1946 and 1947 we had taken 1946, 1947 and 1948, or 1947, 1948 and 1949, as we could have done if we desired to be unfair or unjust, the compensation would be infinitely less than what it is. In so far as there has been any comment outside the actual owners of stock that I have heard, the comment has been that we were more than fair, that we were too generous with the stockholders.
So far as there was any expression of opinion in the Dáil on this matter, with, I think, one solitary exception, it was that the terms of compensation for stockholders were too generous. I do not think they were too generous. I think they were, as I said already, not merely fair, but they bordered on being generous. I, certainly, could not accept this amendment. I feel, that having secured for the stockholders of this undertaking, which was in such, shall I put it mildly, a shaky position, that they are guaranteed, approximately, 2½ per cent. and that they have an assurance that the stock can be redeemed, neither of which they had before, I think there is something of real value in that. As I say, I do not want to argue this, to go into it in detail or try to deal with the many points raised by Senator Professor O'Brien. I have no desire to be unjust to any stockholder. I am perfectly satisfied they are getting reasonable terms. Of course, we have to be fair to the taxpayers, and the community generally, as well as to the stockholders, and I think we are holding the scales fairly evenly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."
I have resisted the temptation to stand up for a long time. Not merely on this Schedule, but all through this Bill, there are two words which annoyed me and which, I think, have annoyed some other Senators, particularly my learned friends from the universities. The two words are "dissolved undertakers". I think there is something gruesome suggested in that "dissolved undertakers", particularly so soon after we read a case in the paper of a man who had been dissolving people in glass tanks with the aid of acid. I do not suggest putting down an amendment or asking the Minister to do anything about it here, but I merely want to use it to call attention to the fact that in drafting Bills we might try to make them intelligible and be as careful in the choice of our words as we would be in the writing of letters. I think there are too many clichés and vague terms introduced into Bills. When I try to discover what the drafter of the Bill meant by "dissolved undertakers", I turn to the front of it and here is what it tells me, on page 5, line 25: the expression "dissolved undertaker" means "any body, being Córas Iompair Eireann (1945) or the Grand Canal Company". Why the mischief could he not say so?
Question put and agreed to.
Fourth and Fifth Schedules put and agreed to.
SIXTH SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 16:—
Before sub-paragraph 2 (2), page 51, to insert a new sub-paragraph as follows:—
One member of the tribunal shall be a person of experience in commercial affairs, one member shall be a person of experience in agriculture and one member shall be a person of experience in railway business.
This has to deal with this transport tribunal, which we discussed at some length earlier to-day. This is the tribunal that will deal with applications for the closing down of branch lines. It seems that they will have a rather easy time, unless the new board applies for the closing down of the whole of the branch lines at once. In fact, if it decides to carry on and not seek the closing down of any line it would look as if the tribunal will have nothing to do. However, its qualifications as stated are of the negative kind. The members of the tribunal shall not be possessed of any transport stock, they shall not be ordinarily resident outside the territory, they shall not be bankrupts, they shall not be insane, and they shall not belong to either House of the Oireachtas. There is no positive qualification, and it has been suggested to me that because of the type of work they will have to perform there might be inserted qualifications in regard to, at least, some of them. This amendment is really almost entirely lifted from the Transport Act of 1924 dealing with the railway tribunal. It provides that one member of the tribunal shall be a person of experience in commercial affairs, one member shall be a person of experience in agriculture, and one member shall be a person of experience in railway business. These are the interests that will be mainly involved— commerce, merchandise, and live stock. I do not think that these branch lines will be very much concerned from the passenger point of view. They will, certainly, be of considerable moment where merchandise and live stock are concerned, and, consequently, it is suggested that there should be one member with experience of commercial affairs, another with a knowledge of agriculture, and then, as it is primarily a railway matter, the amendment suggests, as in the Railway Tribunal of 1924, that one member should have experience in railway affairs. I do not know what view the Minister takes of this, but to me it is not of considerable importance because of the fact that the tribunal may not have very much work to do at all. I do think, at the same time, to the extent that it has work to do, that it will have to make decisions, which in certain cases may be unpopular, that it would be well that it should be stated that it was composed in part, at least, of people who are fully appreciative of the issues involved, and of the interests most likely concerned in the discontinuance or otherwise of branch lines.
I was going to say, Sir, that I have a good deal of sympathy with the arguments put forward in support of this amendment. It is quite likely that a number of the considerations which Senator O'Farrel has advanced in support of it would be present to our minds when the tribunal was being selected, but I would not care to be bound down in this way to particular sectional interests, and that is why I would not care to accept the amendment. It must be remembered that, as was argued here earlier, there are other or broader interests or issues at stake, than purely sectional ones, and it may be necessary to have somebody on it who would have other than, shall I say, a purely sectional interest or point of view. However, I think the Senator may take it, that having regard to the importance which must necessarily be attached to a body such as this tribunal, full weight will be given in the selection of the membership to it.
I would like to agree very much with the Minister's approach to this matter, that it is hardly fair that we should be asked to tie his hands in the selection of the particular individual. I would appeal to him when making the appointments to take it into consideration and to have this representation, as far as possible, on this particular tribunal. After all, this tribunal, to my mind, has overriding authority over the board, in relation to the matters that affect rural Ireland in particular, the closing down of branch lines. I agree with Senator O'Farrell that we cannot foresee that it may be necessary for this body to be a permanent body. After all there are not so many branch lines. One can assume that the board will immediately appeal to the tribunal to have a decision made and recommendations given effect to. Apart from sectional interests, it is important that the persons appointed on the tribunal should have a rural rather than a city approach, and should also bear in mind the national importance of keeping the branch lines open. I think that, if the Minister exercises due discretion in the selection of the members of the tribunal, he will do much to gain the confidence of the people, and that their decisions will be respected. They will not be regarded as having been appointed to make a particular decision.
In view of the Minister's statement, I do not propose to press the amendment. Neither do I propose to move the following amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Question—"That the Sixth Schedule be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill"— put and agreed to.
SEVENTH SCHEDULE.
The three Government amendments to this Schedule are purely drafting amendments.
The following three Government amendments were agreed to:—
18. In paragraph 6 (2), lines 22 and 24, page 53, to delete "and returns".
19. In paragraph 6 (3), line 27, page 53, to delete "and returns".
20. In paragraph 6 (5), lines 36 and 38, page 53, to delete "or return".
Seventh Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
This day week.
I want to inform the Seanad that, on the Report Stage, I will bring in an amendment proposing to change the date of the appointed day from the 1st April to the 1st June. That change of date will involve a few consequential amendments, but these will be purely drafting amendments. If in order, may I ask if the Seanad would be good enough to give me the Fourth and Fifth Stages of the Bill on next Wednesday? The Report Stage will be purely formal.
Ordered: That the Report Stage be taken on Wednesday, 3rd May, 1950.