This amendment is merely to change the date from 1st April to 1st June; the reasons for that are obvious.
Transport Bill, 1949—Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:—
In page 5, Section 2 (1), line 31, to substitute "June" for "April."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 9, section 9 (3), line 2, to insert "(not less than three)" after "number."
This amendment is to ensure that there shall be a quorum and that the quorum shall not be less than three.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 18, Section 21 (7), line 17, to insert after the words "may sell" the words ",with the consent of the Minister,"—
This is not the sort of amendment I would have put down if I had not been advised that I would probably get this amendment from the Minister but that if I put down the one I wanted to put down there would not be much chance of getting it. I thought it better to have some amendment to ensure that the lines would still be the property of Córas Iompair Éireann. I do not think this would cause any great loss as there would be greater revenue from the lines if they were retained by Córas Iompair Éireann and let to farmers in stripes of a mile or two miles at so much a line or so much a furlong. The farmer would keep up the fences. This method would hold the line and, as I have stated, this craze will pass and there will be an agitation throughout the whole country to bring back the railways again. Our roads were never built to maintain the lorry traffic which will be on them and it will not be safe for man or beast to travel on the roads because of all the lorries needed to convey the traffic from fairs in different towns. I pointed out on the last occasion the number of lorries necessary to convey cattle from some of our fairs. In some cases 500 lorries would be needed to take the number of cattle that go to fairs by rail at the present time. In the case of the smallest fairs, there would be 40 wagons, so that we will have 40 lorries travelling on the roads from each of a number of fairs, because more than one fair is held even in the same county on the same day. One objection raised by a Senator was not very complimentary to the Irish farmers or to the efficiency of the Guards. He said that the sleepers and rails might be stolen.
I am afraid the Senator is wandering a little. The Senator can only deal with the provision by which the board may sell the land when an abandonment Order has been secured.
I am putting forward reasons why the land under the rails at present should be retained by the railway company for the future use of the railways.
That is not in this amendment.
I have been assured by very wise men in the Party that the Minister will accept this amendment and I now await what the Minister has to say.
It rather grieves me to have to disillusion the Senator and to say I cannot accept the amendment. Even if I were to accept it, it would not necessarily secure what the Senator says he wants to secure. This does not arise until an abandonment Order has been secured by the company. The only safeguard, if it would be a safeguard, which is doubtful, which the Senator seeks to secure is that they cannot sell the land without the consent of the Minister. I do not know whether that would be very much of a safeguard, but in any case I do not think there is any necessity for the amendment. Again, I want to emphasise that there is no desire on the part of the Government and will be no desire on the part of any Government likely to succeed it, or any desire on the part of a new board, to close down lines. That will not be the desire or the intention, if it can possibly be avoided.
If any Order is secured for the abandonment of a particular line, I would take it that, as a matter of ordinary prudence, the board would not be in a hurry to dispose of that line. I think it unlikely that, if the board, having secured an abandonment Order, decided in its wisdom to dispose by sale of the land over which the line previously ran, any Minister would refuse to give his consent. I think the Minister would give his consent if the board made the case to him. The amendment is not quite as innocent as it looks. It seeks to introduce into the Bill something which I have resisted from the very beginning, that is, the Minister himself.
I am sorry that the Front Bench on the Government side had not got more influence with the Minister and were not so wise when they told me that such an amendment would be accepted.
The wise men were not quite as wise as the Senator thought.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 41, before Section 67 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The board shall pay to each person who was immediately before the establishment date a director of the Grand Canal Company a sum equal to the fees received by him as director of that company during the year 1949.
(2) This section does not apply to a director of the Grand Canal Company who becomes an original member of the board.
I base my argument for this amendment on the contention that, in the case of compulsory acquisition by the State, especially where there is an unwilling seller, the State should compensate fully all who suffer loss. This is all the more important when it is the State itself who decides who is to be compensated and how much compensation is to be given, as is the case in this instance. In the case of land, I understood from the Attorney-General the other day, arbitrators are appointed and, therefore, the people purchasing are not the people who decide who is to be paid and what is to be paid, but in this case, the case of a company, it is the State who decides who shall be paid and what they shall be paid. I think this is an instance in respect of which it is very important that there should be no injustice and no arbitrary action or any bad precedents set up with which fault could be found afterwards.
This is the first occasion on which the State has refused to pay compensation to directors. The defence of directors, especially in this case, is not very popular, at least in the street, but I feel none the less that it should be made and I hope to enlist the sympathy of the House for the case I am making, which involves a very big principle, although very small sums of money are involved because of the way I have framed the amendment. I had not heard any of the opponents of paying compensation to these directors advancing an argument against the principle of compensating those who suffer loss, and, if that be the case, I feel that it will only be necessary to establish that in fact a loss is being suffered in the case of the Grand Canal Company which is being taken over.
One of the arguments used against paying this compensation was that the directors were appointed only from year to year and could not be said to suffer any loss because their future was problematical. Surely that is not a practical argument when we remember that, of the five directors of this company, one has been a director for 46 years and that no director has less than 14 years' service, having been elected on 14 different occasions. I am also informed that no director of this company has ever been removed, except by death. I contend therefore that it is really not logical or sensible to say that these directors had only a problematical future. This is a solvent company, a company which is being taken over against its own will, and taken over by the State for the benefit of the community and, therefore, I think the proposition that these directors should be paid only one year's compensation is, to say the least of it, merely a safeguarding of the principle and not payment of compensation at all. I feel that we ought at least to rescue the principle.
It has also been argued that these directors are professional directors, as if this were an argument against their getting compensation. I think it is an argument in favour of it. If they were merely amateurs, it would be some argument, but we all know that a professional lives by his profession, while an amateur does not, and therefore this argument makes the case all the stronger for compensating them for the loss they have undoubtedly suffered by the taking over of this company. A general feeling has been stirred up in the Dáil more or less against the director class. We all know that the director class are necessary in the free economy which we still have in this country, and I mean free in the sense of being free to make money, to save money and to invest money. It is imperative that the Oireachtas should get the confidence of the moneyed class, because it is upon them that the State and the community depend for capital investment in the industrial and general life of the country. In the past few months, we have seen stressed over and over again the necessity for the investment of capital in our country. Therefore, I feel that the arbitrary dismissal of the directors' right to compensation as being negligible is not going to create the confidence which is necessary. I hope we in Ireland have not fallen into the modern error of thinking, as they do in socialist states, that not only is the property of the moneyed classes to be penally and unmercifully taxed, but that they are to be dispossessed as well. That has been a fallacy, and I think the Pope has called it "a modern error" spreading from other countries. I would not like to see it spreading here also.
It has been argued that the directors were directors of other companies. It has been mentioned that some of them were directors of ten, 11, or 12 other companies. Let us take that point to its logical conclusion. If you are to assess the value of the interest of those directors in the Grand Canal Company, which is a solvent successful company, at nothing, and if you bring that to its logical conclusion and take over the whole ten companies, from which they are earning ten times £200, which is £2,000 a year, do you claim they should get ten nothings, which is nothing? I do not think so. It is obviously ridiculous.
Another argument put forward was that the directors were also shareholders. The compensation to shareholders as shareholders is for a distinct and different loss. Shareholders who were not directors received the same compensation as those directors. Surely, we are not going to argue that in a company the shareholders are as well off as a man who is a shareholder and a director? There are plenty of shareholders in every company and only a few directors. The position of director is very much sought after and some people spend a lot of money to get it. The argument that they were paid as shareholders does not dispose of their claim as directors.
A very unworthy and disturbing phenomenon has manifested itself in this challenge to the principle that it is moral to do injustice to citizens because they appear to be well off. It is a characteristic of socialism that it purports to act with the highest motives, but often only sublimates the vice of jealousy and makes a virtue of the unjust treatment of the property-owning classes.
These may seem to be hard words and going too far, but I think it is quite right to say them. It is rather unpopular to be well-off. If one has made a success of life and is even a good employer, there is a tendency for people to shake their heads, as if one could not be making money honestly. That campaign has been worked up particularly on the restrictions of war time. There was a fantastic amount of red tape wound round business of all kinds and not to break the law was almost a physical impossibility. It is well known that there were so many regulations that they were broken five or six times every day by every citizen of the State, and if some business man made a mistake in his business he was branded immediately as if he were a criminal. I am sorry that sort of note crept into this in the Dáil, and anyone reading the debate could not fail to see that that was the feeling behind the debate and that the attitude in the Dáil on this question was certainly not a judicial one.
I could understand the opposition to this proposal if other classes were not being fairly treated—the shareholders and the workers. Everyone agrees that the Government has done a very fair, if not generous, job regarding the shareholders in this company. I do not think anyone has complained in the Grand Canal Company about the treatment of the shareholders. Similarly, I understand that provision is being made for the workers, even down to undertaking that there will be no redundancy. I feel that it is a pity to spoil this work by leaving the directors without compensation. The sum involved in this particular motion is small; it is only £1,715. In fact, the Minister said himself that it was only a nominal sum. Therefore, I would ask the House and the Minister to accept this proposal of token compensation, which I suggest it is.
Mention was made the other day by a Labour Senator that Cæsar's wife should be above suspicion. Surely, in this case, the State should be above suspicion. I would like to put this final point: do we consider that any loss has been suffered by these directors? If so, it is only fair that the State, which is taking over this concern and which is the buyer and which is deciding what is to be paid for the company, should see that justice is done to the directors.
I put my name to this amendment because I thought there was a principle that should be established. I gave my reasons in the debate that took place on the section during the Committee Stage and do not propose to repeat them at any length. It seems to me that this is a matter in which this House might very well give the other House an opportunity of reconsidering the principle. It is for that reason that it would seem best that it should be in the simplest possible form, by providing simply for one year. It is quite probable that there will not be any great hardship done in this case in providing for one year. If we are to accept the principle that companies can be taken over without consideration of compensation to the persons employed, because they are directors, the State will be making a serious mistake. There has been an impression abroad, though I think it is disappearing very quickly, that directors are necessarily well-off persons.
The old day of the guinea pig has almost disappeared and most companies have very little use, as a general rule—I am not dealing with the specific case, of which I know very little— for directors who simply come and put their names. They want directors who will be active and useful. There has been a decided tendency, which I think is highly desirable, to raise experienced staff to the rank of director. If the impression should be created abroad that a man who gave long service as a director can be retired and given no compensation when the State takes over, I think that is wrong. The principal difficulty I feel is that each case, and the quantity of compensation, should really be taken on its merits, and I do not feel that the House of Parliament is the exact body to discuss that. The best way, in these circumstances, was for us to put down an amendment and confine it to one year, in order to establish the principle, which this amendment applies to the Grand Canal Company, that the directors should receive compensation. I think the House would be very wise to give the other House an opportunity of reconsidering the principle. If the Dáil should accept the principle and does not think a year enough, it is very easy to amend it. It is better for us to make it a small sum, in order that the principle would be the thing which would be reconsidered.
Most of us have read the speeches made in the Dáil on this issue. I am inclined to agree with the statements made by the two Senators who have spoken here, that there is definitely a matter of principle involved. The principle of compensating people who lose their employment because of Government action has been accepted by succeeding Governments over a considerable number of years. In the debate in the Dáil, and to a much lesser extent in this House, attacks have been made on individuals and the suggestion has been made, as Senator McGuire has said, that the fact that most, if not all of the directors, appear to be well off, should have a bearing on the case. It is a very great mistake to allow personalities to enter into the matter.
The question should be approached definitely as a matter of principle and we should decide whether or not the policy of Governments in future would be to continue the principle which has been accepted up to now, of compensating people who lost employment because of Government action, or to depart from that principle and dismiss people indiscriminately. If you were to go into the question of the financial position of certain individuals who may be members of this or other boards, you might be very wrong in suggesting that certain people were well off. It is an everyday occurrence to find that someone whom you thought was well off is, in fact, not nearly so well off as you thought he was. That should not be allowed to enter into the question.
The fact of the matter is that, if we were to go into personalities, if the men whose names would come under discussion in this case had been guilty of the things they were accused of in this or in the other House, they should be all in jail now, but I do not believe that they were guilty in any sense. We should leave personalities out of it and judge on the merits. If we were to do that, a very considerable argument could be made for the reinsertion of the clause which was orignally in the Bill.
I have an open mind on this matter. In the Dáil it was left to what was called a free vote. When I saw that, my idea was that it was a question of the Government not fully accepting its responsibilities in the matter. I thought that the Government should have adopted the attitude that they included this section in the Bill believing it was right that it should be included and therefore, that they would have used all the powers at their command to ensure that it was included. To leave the matter to a free vote of the Dáil or a free vote of this House is not taking things as they should be taken.
I certainly would like to hear the Minister's attitude on this and I am not throwing any bouquets at him when I say that I would be largely guided by what he would say. In the Dáil, the Minister had that section included in the Bill, but in the discussions in the Dáil it would not be right to say that the Minister was for the inclusion or for the rejection of that section except that in the vote which was taken the Minister voted for the Bill as it stood. It is only right that the Minister should give us an indication to-day as to whether or not he wants this amendment carried.
It is quite possible that the Minister feels that an injustice has been done. He should say that to us to-day and give us a lead. Politics do not run so high in this House as they do in the other House.
Many irrelevant statements were made in the other House. The suggestion that the directors should not be compensated because they were shareholders is the weakest argument I ever heard and, if there were to be a new law passed as to the type of people who should be directors or the qualifications of those who would be made directors, it should be that they should be at the same time shareholders. The greatest guarantee of the 100 per cent. interest of any director would be to insist that that director would have an investment up to the maximum of his capacity in the particular company in which he would be made a director.
It is a dangerous principle to accept and a dangerous precedent to create that people who have been in the employment of a company, one for 46 years and none for less than 14 years, should be dismissed indiscriminately. It is a very bad principle and I am quite prepared to say that I would be guided to a very great extent by what the Minister says on the matter.
I want to go on record as supporting the amendment. I do hope the Minister will take the course suggested by Senator Quirke. Unless we have a case based on principle, we have no case at all. It is because I feel there is a principle involved that I rise to say a few words in support of the amendment. I do support those who urge that personalities should be entirely divorced from the discussion. Personalities should not come into it at all. Where the State, in the public interest, takes over either the property or the employment rights or the perquisites of anybody there is a principle involved and the State, in equity, should give a reasonable degree of compensation for the property, employment rights or perquisites so taken over.
The arguments have been detailed in great length. If I were to give them in my own language, I would be merely repeating what has been already said. I do hope that the Minister, even now, will feel that this is something which, if it is left as it is, is, frankly, confiscation in the interests of the State from those who have no say in handing over the particular rights. Because of that, I doubt if the Minister, on reflection, would maintain that even the State has any right forcibly to confiscate property or anything else without giving the reasonable degree of compensation that the particular circumstances of the case call for.
I wish to support the principle that has been urged by Senator McGuire and Senator Douglas. I agree wholeheartedly with what Senator Quirke says in this respect. The members of this board were managing a solvent company and were doing a good job for the community. Whether it is a socialist State or a capitalist State, someone has to manage the businesses that are being run in it. These men were doing a good job. It seems to me to be in the interests of the State that the company should be taken over. I do not see that there is any principle that would be upheld if we do not allow the members of the board compensation. If they were able to run the company as a paying concern and to sell transport to the people of the Midlands at a cheap rate over that long period, it is a poor compensation for their good offices to be paid one year's salary in compensation, but the principle would be upheld and that would be good. At a later stage things like this may occur again. Some other company might be taken over by the State and, perhaps, in a calmer atmosphere the State may be able to give adequate compensation to persons who are removed from their employment in the national interest, as these gentlemen are being removed in the interests of the transport system. I would ask the Minister to agree to the amendment. If he does, some respect will be given to principle. This is a matter which Senators ought to take to heart.
Senator Quirke has made the point that we discuss things in a calmer and more objective atmosphere than they do in the other House. I believe that if the amendment is passed in this House, the members of the other House will, in their wisdom on reconsideration, accept it.
I should like to say a few words also in support of the amendment. There are various ways in which we might approach the amendment—some of us as directors, others as shareholders, others as workers, some as rich, some as poor—but I think we should primarily approach it as a Legislature, as a matter in which the question of justice is involved, because having read over the debate at our last meeting, I am convinced that it is a matter of plain justice that those men who are being deprived of their offices by State interference— perhaps I should not use the word "interference"—or by State planning should be compensated. There is a grave danger that the old catch-cry of rich versus poor might be raised as an issue on this question. I do not think it will, but I should like to say that when comparisons are made with the director class, my sympathies are with the poorer side in this question, if there is a poorer side. There is not, however. Our job is to legislate for all classes and if we admit the principle of partial justice, the principle of excluding certain classes from compensation for loss of their rights, I think we are going to weaken our prestige and damage the best interests of the country. The question at issue is simply this: are we going to admit the principle of confiscation without compensation? I most certainly think we should not.
Again here we have a chance in the Seanad of exercising our function as a Second Chamber admirably. It is not a question of opposing a Government measure. It is not a question of some particular interest being opposed. It is a question of plain justice. I should like to assure the Minister that we do not wish to put him to any unnecessary trouble by simply asserting our rights as a Second Chamber. I do think that this is a case where, if necessary, the Bill should be sent back to the Dáil for reconsideration on this point. I am convinced from private conversations I have had, that many members of the Dáil would be glad to have an opportunity of reconsidering this clause. I, therefore, support the amendment.
Like other Senators who have spoken I desire to support this amendment. As other speakers have pointed out, the amendment seeks to vindicate a very important principle, a principle from which we cannot depart without grave danger. To depart from that principle would create a precedent which might have very dangerous consequences. When we gave the powers that are given in this Bill, we recognised the right of the Government to use compulsion provided compensation were provided. In exercising these powers we are obliged to keep before us the fact that we are bound to make compensation to those whose interests are affected. I regret myself that the ordinary shareholders did not get as much compensation as I personally would have liked to have accorded them. Still they got compensation. Employees are also promised compensation in the event of their services being dispensed with. It would be very undesirable if one particular class who worked hard to make a success of these undertakings were to be treated as a separate class and just dismissed without any compensation after devoting all the ability acquired during long years of experience to the management of these companies. The compensation demanded is very small. It is a token payment but that token payment will be made in protection of a great principle. I heartily support the amendment.
I think it would be undesirable if it happened that any person who might, for some reason, vote against the amendment, would be taken as being opposed to any form of compensation Personally I believe that in certain cases it might be desirable to give some nominal, or "token"—I think that was the term used by Mrs. Concannon—compensation, but that need not necessarily be one year's salary. We have all heard of cases of the payment of the nominal sum of £1 as a token compensation. In my own case I recently received a nominal compensation, in connection with a certain matter, of £1. I need not go into detail. It was merely given as a vindication of a principle, and the amount was negligible.
In regard to this amendment Senator Maguire referred to certain things which happened in other countries and certain beliefs that were held. I do not want to go into these matters, as I do not think it would be desirable to delay the House to-day in discussing them in detail. Personally I think the amount of compensation payable in individual cases should depend on a number of factors. I think it should depend on whether the person concerned was earning his livelihood or earning most of his livelihood in the particular position which had been abolished, and the amount which he earned. It should also depend on the age of the person and whether he was able to get alternative employment. If a young or middle-aged person is disemployed, owing to State action for the public good, I think it is only right that he should be helped to obtain, if necessary, alternative employment, if he was unable to obtain suitable alternative employment by his own efforts without difficulty. Personally if I were in such a position, I would not ask for or accept any compensation if I were able to get an equally good job without difficulty. It would, on the other hand, be a great hardship if a man were disemployed, and had no other income, and could not get suitable alternative employment. I think all these things should be taken into consideration before deciding what compensation, if any, a person should get. I do not think it necessary to go into great detail on this amendment, but it would be interesting to hear some speeches from any Senators who may oppose this amendment. I think that if compensation is given, as a matter of principle, it could be confined to a nominal sum, say £1, if that sum is considered to be adequate.
I just want to say a word or two because I supported Senator McGuire when he introduced this matter originally. I do not think there is only one answer to the question as to whether or not these people had rights. They had rights; I do not think anyone will attempt to deny that. The question of measuring their rights is something that can be determined but the issue is the compensation they should get for the rights taken from them.
Unquestionably the State in demanding that people like these, who were working a business for a considerable period, must surrender their rights, must take into account the consequences to the individual. I am not prepared to accept the approach of Senator R.M. Burke to this matter. I do not think the principle can be decided on the question of whether a person was employed almost continuously or whether the person had reached an advanced age when he was compulsorily retired. Even assuming we were to judge the damage done to these people by compulsorily demanding that they give up their office, surely it cannot be denied that over all the years they served they gave a considerable amount of their time to this work and the time they spent directing the business prevented them from having any alternative employment or, if you like, obtaining possession of property in such a way that they could conduct it on their own, apart altogether from this business in which they were engaged as directors.
If they were aged, the argument that because they were aged they should get no compensation would be wrong. To my mind it should be the other way around. If they spent 40 years directing this business and they are now to be marched out, and if the amount they earned was not sufficient to enable them to build up a store when they were called on to retire, surely some account ought to be taken of that? Aged people cannot turn to other employment quite easily and that is one reason why the principle of justice should be taken into account. I have no knowledge that on any previous occasion the State decided that people who directed the business should surrender that directorate and no compensation would be awarded to them. If this is a new step it is a mistake. I would have no hesitation in voting for Deputy McGuire's amendment.
I do not know what the Minister will say in relation to this matter. We have to decide it for ourselves. I do not mind what the Dáil had to say about it. The Seanad should have a mind of its own on this, as a matter of principle, and it ought not to be afraid to express its opinion. If the people in the Dáil will not face their obligations, that is their own affair. It has been the practice here to determine various issues for ourselves. There is a principle involved here of such vital importance from the point of view of justice that none of us can conscientiously refuse to support Senator McGuire's amendment. I hope the House will unanimously accept it.
No matter what the temper was in which the question was decided in the Dáil, we should not be content merely to follow their decision sheepishly. It was a faulty decision, a decision which we will have reason to regret if we let it go unchallenged.
The approach to this matter of Senator Baxter and Senator Stanford is the proper one. I do not like all this talk about principle, because when people talk about their principles they generally talk about their interests. A man will tell you a certain thing is against his principles, but he generally means it is against his interests. Senator Stanford and Senator Baxter approached this matter from the point of view of common justice and equity. I am more concerned with the question of precedent rather than principle. As Senator Baxter says —and I think he is correct—this is the first occasion that any native Government has approached a matter of this sort in the way in which it is being approached in this Bill. We are not socialists in this country—whether we should be or not is another question— but when a public concern is being taken over there ought to be compensation for everybody affected by its acquisition.
The Seanad should be more concerned with the point of creating a precedent. When we are all dead and gone to a better land this decision here will be considered possibly with regard to other measures that may be brought before the House and Senators will be told that this was done under the Transport Bill and why should it not be done in relation to other Bills? It is a matter of common justice that these people should be compensated in the same way as other employees of the company.
On the Committee Stage of this Bill last Wednesday I think Senator Hearne put the point of view which I held about this matter, and that is that we ought to give the Dáil an opportunity of reconsidering the question in, perhaps, a more placid atmosphere than obtained when they decided it.
The section in the Bill which was deleted in the other House provided for compensation on a particular scale for the directors of the old Córas Iompair Éireann company and the directors of the Grand Canal Company. The section was deleted but, in the course of the discussion very little was said about the Grand Canal Company; as a matter of fact, the whole discussion centred around Córas Iompair Éireann. I agree with Senator Baxter that this is a matter entirely for ourselves and I for one do not seek any direction from the Minister.
The matter was left to a free vote in the Dáil. The atmosphere there was one which, perhaps, did not allow of a philosophical consideration of the question, such as has taken place here.
I agree that we should stand for precedents in this matter. The argument the Minister used in the other House was that whenever a matter of this kind was done before, the particular precedent which was enshrined in the section of the Bill which was deleted was followed. I agree with Senator Colgan that that precedent should be followed now.
We should not be concerned with personalities in this matter. It would be true to say, although I am not very well acquainted with any of them, that the directors concerned, whether they get two years' pay, one year's pay, or no pay, will not be very much injured. We are not concerned either with the financial standing or the personal histories of the individuals concerned. I feel that the precedent that has been established should be followed. The amendment segregates the two companies and reduces the amount which was put into the section which was rejected by the Dáil.
We are, therefore, sending back to the Dáil a proposition rather different from the one they rejected. It is part of our function to do that kind of thing, to say to the Dáil: "Here is something from the point of view of precedent and principle we think you ought to reconsider." If they reconsider it—if we pass this amendment, and I intend to vote for it for the reasons I have given, purely impersonal ones—and if the other House can agree to that amendment, then the Minister's Bill is not held up. If the Dáil should disagree with the amendment, well then we would have done our business and given them an opportunity to reconsider the matter after an interval, to reconsider it in two parts and with a different figure. If they do not agree with us, then we should not insist upon our amendment.
That would be my intention—to vote for this amendment and, if the Dáil agrees with it, we will hear no more about it. But if the Dáil does not agree, then I would be prepared to move that the Seanad do not insist.
I feel the matter is one which has rather an abstract importance, but it will have a very practical importance also because this kind of Bill, as was predicted when the Electricity Supply and other Bills were under discussion, is bound to have successors, and we should be very careful that precedents set about all kinds of people should be carefully observed. For that reason I will vote for the amendment, but I think the House should be able to make up its mind for itself and should not seek direction from the Minister on the matter. As I say, I hope that the House will agree with me should the Dáil disagree with the amendment that we should not insist upon it.
That will be another day's work.
Mr. Hayes
I know it will.
I have not very much to say on this question that I have not said already. I made my position regarding this matter very clear in the Dáil. It is not true to say that I merely voted for it and did not support or put forward arguments in favour of the section as it was originally inserted in the Bill. As a matter of fact, I would be inclined to say that I made at least as good a case for the original section in the Dáil as was made for this amendment here this afternoon. No argument was used in favour of the amendment this afternoon which I did not use in favour of the original section although perhaps I did not elaborate as much on various points as Senators did here.
As you know, when the matter went to a division in the Dáil it was left to a free vote. I think it is only fair to say that the whole atmosphere in which the Bill was discussed in the Dáil over a long period was different from the atmosphere you usually get in connection with Bills of this type which are, to a certain extent at least, controversial. I stated in the early stages of the Bill that I wanted the help and assistance of the House in trying to get the best Bill we could get to deal with the situation. I said that I would welcome suggestions from all sides of the House and that if I considered they were practical suggestions, suggestions which would improve the Bill, I would be prepared to accept them. Not merely that, but when suggestions were made and fear expressed —fear which I did not think well-founded—in order to remove the uneasiness particularly in relation to the closing down of the branch lines, very much against my will I agreed to bring in an amendment establishing the tribunal. What I am trying to say to the Seanad is that so far as a Bill of this kind could be discussed in a non-Party way this Bill was discussed in a non-Party way in the Dáil. There was free expression on all sides of the House on the various sections of the Bill and we had not very many votes on it. The reason for that was that I as Minister in charge gave way more often on amendments to the representations which were made than is usual. It is not right to suggest that I was running away from my responsibilities in the matter. It is just not right to say that the Government is running away from its responsibilities if it agrees to leave a certain thing to a free vote of the House. As a matter of fact, my view is, and has been over a long number of years, long before I became a Minister, that many things which should have been left to a free vote of the Dáil and Seanad were not left to a free vote.
When I put forward this section in the Dáil I said that I was following a precedent which had been established. I argued that every other type of person who was in the employment of those two companies which would be taken over when the Bill became law were fully safeguarded as to their employment, and where their employment would be endangered they were fully safeguarded regarding compensation. I argued that it would be, to say the least of it, inconsistent not to make a similar provision for the directors. When the matter was raised here on the Committee Stage by Senator McGuire some Senators at least were inclined to make a distinction as between the two companies. The argument then as to-day was largely if not entirely based on the question of the principle at stake and some Senators went so far as to talk about the morality of the question. I then said that if this were a matter of principle, as Senators held, you could not establish a principle in favour of one of the two companies and not of the other. Personally I think it would be inconsistent. Not merely this House but the Oireachtas must approach the matter from the point of view of providing for the directors of the two companies or none. I originally made provision in the Bill; I put it before the Dáil; I put the arguments in favour of it; I stated the reasons why it was inserted and the Dáil, as it was perfectly entitled to do, took a completely different view and by an overwhelming majority resisted it. I could take up the point about responsibility with Senator Quirke as to changes that took place overnight but I do not want to go into it.
The fact of the matter is that the Seanad is entirely free to decide in its wisdom on this amendment or these two amendments. What has been said in respect of one covers the two. If the Seanad carries these two amendments or either of them I will take them back to the Dáil and I am prepared to stand over them in the Dáil as I was prepared originally. Again, as when the Bill was before the Dáil, I am not going to make this a matter of confidence. It will be a matter of a free vote of the Dáil, each and every member of the Dáil being entitled to vote for or against the amendments. I think that should be particularly so if it is, as I think it is, a matter of principle.
That is, I think, as much as I can say on the matter and as much as the Seanad could expect me to say on it. When I came here I came as an officer of the Dáil with the Bill as it emerged from the Dáil and I put the measure before the Seanad. I feel equally, whatever the Seanad decides to do, that I am bound to take it back to the Dáil and recommend it to the Dáil, but they are entirely free to decide themselves whether they will agree or disagree with the Seanad amendments. The only thing I would say is that I do not want a conflict as between the Dáil and the Seanad as a result of this which might postpone the coming into operation of the Bill and make it incumbent upon me once again to change the appointed day. I will, however, undertake to put the amendments before the Dáil if they are carried here and I will undertake to the best of my ability to convey to the Dáil the reasons given by Senators in support of the amendments.
I think it would be injudicious on the part of the Seanad if the idea got abroad that we were sending this back to the Dáil expecting the Dáil to throw it out. We should not indicate that to the Dáil and I think it would be better if we simply passed the Bill without further comment. I refer to Senator Hayes' statement.
Let me be clear on this. I would not dare to ask the Seanad to do that, but I think I should indicate to the Seanad my very particular interest in the effects of this amendment.
As it is a matter which affects the House, perhaps I may be allowed to make a comment on Senator Colgan's remark. The Seanad is entitled to amend the Bill and the Dáil is entitled to agree with the Seanad amendments or not to agree with them. The Seanad is entitled to make up its mind about a particular amendment, but whether it is of sufficient importance to allow the full period, which the Seanad is allowed to hold up a Bill, to run, is another matter. The Seanad is equally entitled to say to the Dáil either before or after the event—in practice, it can only say it after the event—"The amendment is not, in our judgment, of sufficient importance to hold up the Bill." All I said to-day was that, if the Dáil did not agree, it was not a matter on which I personally would advise the Seanad to fight. We are not giving away anything by that, because everybody knows there are different degrees of importance in amendments and I cannot, of course, guarantee a vote of the Seanad any more than Senator Colgan can.
I merely want to say that Senator Hayes speaks as the Leader of the group on the other side. If he were speaking as an ordinary Senator, possibly it would not sound so bad to suggest that if it is thrown out in the Dáil we will acquiesce.
It is not a matter for discussion until it comes up in the ordinary course.
The reaction to my amendment has been such that there is really nothing to reply to and I should like to have the amendment put.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 41, before Section 67, to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) The board shall pay to each person who was immediately before the establishment date a director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) a sum equal to the fees received by him as director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) during the year 1949.
(2) This section does not apply to a director of Córas Iompair Éireann (1945) who becomes an original member of the board.
It was agreed during the course of the debate on the previous amendment that this was a matter of precedent which applied to the two companies and the Minister said that, if this were accepted as a principle and a precedent in relation to one, it must be accepted in relation to the other. The trouble in the Dáil was that it was the Córas Iompair Éireann case which prejudiced the Grand Canal Company case. The Córas Iompair Éireann case was built on personalities and I should like it to go on record that this House is not concerned with personalities in connection with Córas Iompair Éireann but with principle and precedent, and it is on these grounds that I move the amendment.
I second.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:—
In page 47, Third Schedule, column (5), paragraph 2, to delete "the period of three months ending on the 30th day of June, 1950", and substitute "the month of June, 1950".
This is consequential, as are all the following amendments, on the change of date.
Does the Minister visualise any necessity to alter the date again, in view of the fact that the Bill goes back to the Dáil and there may be some discussion there which might occasion an alteration?
I do not think so, unless there is a very protracted debate.
Amendment agreed to.
The following Government amendments were also agreed to:—
7. In page 52, Seventh Schedule, paragraph 1, to delete lines 38 and 39, and substitute—"the expression ‘the stated period' means the period of five months ending on the 31st day of May, 1950;".
8. In page 53, Seventh Schedule, paragraph 5, line 10, to substitute "July" for "May" and "August" for "June".
9. In page 53, Seventh Schedule, paragraph 6 (3), line 28, to substitute "July" for "May".
10. In page 53, Seventh Schedule, paragraph 8 (1), line 49, to substitute "1951" for "1950".
11. In page 53, Seventh Schedule, paragraph 8 (2), line 51, to substitute "1951" for "1950".
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to congratulate the Minister on the extremely able and patient manner in which he steered this Bill through all its stages in both Houses. He had a very difficult and complex task to perform and he stood up to it in first-class style. In my view, the Bill is about as good as the Oireachtas can make it, and it must now be left to the new board, to the employees and to the travelling and trading public to make the enterprise a success. It is going to be no easy task and it will require time, ability and patience, but I believe it can be and will be done.
It is a great pity that a vital national undertaking of this kind should have to start on its course in the rather dismal circumstances prevailing to-day, with a heavy load of accumulated debt and the big deficit as between revenue and expenditure which has to be reckoned with. Tremendous improvements will have to be made before it can hope to break even in that connection. It would be futile and unwise for us to expect spectacular results in a very short time. Then, being a State-owned concern, more will be expected of it than if it were privately owned, although it will have precisely the same problems to solve and the same difficulties to overcome. There will be those who will attribute every shortcoming and every failure to realise expectations to the fact that it is State-owned, conveniently ignoring the fact that, if it were not for the complete failure of private enterprise in the first instance, this Bill would not have been necessary and, in all probability, would never have been introduced.
I sincerely hope that the employees of all grades whose livelihood is involved will, by their skill, their experience and their loyalty do their utmost to make this enterprise a complete and permanent success. It affects them more than any other section of the community, and, to the extent that they adopt an irresponsible or unworthy attitude towards it, they are tending towards their own ultimate impoverishment. Whatever our view and whether we like it or not, henceforth Córas Iompair Éireann belongs to the people. That is an historic fact from which there is no retreat, and for that reason I wish it, the Minister and the new board every success in the great task they have before them.
Tá áthas orainn go léir, is dócha, go bhfuilimuid tagaithe go deire scríbe maidir leis an mBille seo. Na daoine ar an taobh seo den tSeanad, chuireadar an-spéis i gcúrsaí an Bhille. Phléamar go mion é; chuireamar cuid mhaith ceisteanna ar nithe a bhain leis an mBille agus a bhí doiléir dúinn. Níor tugadh morán cúnaimh dúinn le go gcuirfeadh muid eolas air mar ba mhian linn. Níl fhios agam an raibh an t-eolas a bhíomar ag iarraidh ag an Aire. Má bhí, d'éirigh leis gan an t-eolas a thabhairt dúinn. Muna raibh sé aige, is mór an trua é, mar muna raibh eolas aige den tsaghas a bhíomar ag lorg, ba deacair dó Bille a cheapadh chomh sásúil agus ba cheart, agus ba deacair dó Bille a cheapadh ar an mbealach go mba mhaith linn go gceapfaí é.
Bíodh sin mar atá, tá an Bille in ainm is a bheith rite againn. Ní dóigh liom tar éis an tsaoil go bhfuil morán athruithe déanta againn gur fiú trácht orthu, cé's moite dAlt a 6, áit a bhfuil réiteach déanta go mbeidh Bord iomlán, a bheas ainmnithe ag an Aire, i bhfeighil an chórais feasta, í gcomórtas le Bord a toghadh de dhaoine príobháideacha agus cathaoirleach orthu a hainmníodh ag an Rialtas. Níl fhios agam an athrú an-mhór é sin. Dúirt mé fhéin, le linn na cainte ar an mBille, gur cheap mé go raibh rud éigin níos tábhachtaí ag teastáil ná athrú Boird. Rinne mé iarracht fháil amach céard a bhí taobh thiar den athrú, céard a mheas an tAire a tharlódh ó athrú ar an mBord, a chuirfeadh feabhas ar an gcóras iompair nár cuireadh air faoin sean-Bhord.
Is dócha gur athrú stairiúil é agus tá súil agam gur athrú maith é. Níl fhios agam an bhfuil morán daoine a chreideann, mar chreidim, chomh tábhachtach is tá dea-chóras iompair i ngach gné de shaol na tíre. Leis an tuiscint sin agam ar an scéal, agus an mhuinín sin agam as cúrsaí iompair, guidhim gach rath ar an mBord nua. B'fhéidir go mbeadh sé iomarcach a rá go bhfuilmuid réidh le dlí a dhéanamh i dtaobh córas iompair. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh. Tagadh sé sin i gcrích no ná tagadh, is é mo ghuidhe go n-éireoidh go geal leis an mBord san obair atá le déanamh acu.
We have now come to the end of this matter, as far as the Seanad is concerned.
In point of fact, I do not think we necessarily have done that.
If not, it will be just too bad. I hope we have come to the end of it. On this side of the House, we felt it our duty to examine this Bill very minutely. We felt unhappy about the way in which it was approached in its initial stages. From the beginning, I was not satisfied with the make-up of the Bill, but I was depending a good deal on the Minister to help me to understand the Bill and to come to a conclusion as to whether it was a good Bill or not. We looked on this very much in the same way as an interested party would look at a new company's prospectus. We wanted to know the reason for it, what opportunities and what possibilities there were that this new venture would be a success. We wanted some indication of the data on which the proposals were based. It was for that purpose that we directed attention particularly to five or six sections.
No doubt we chuckled considerably when we read, almost in the first line, that the Bill was to come into operation on the 1st of April. No indication was given to us that this date would be altered or as to the date the Minister expected to include in the Bill, or whether it would not be as well for him to have said that it would come into effect on a date to be fixed by him. However, we passed that over.
We have seen that it is not a very impressive Bill when it comes to the matter of definitions. Some of the definitions were illuminating. It was a pity the Minister for Lands did not confer, when preparing his Land Bill, with the Minister for Industry and Commerce for definitions of some of the things he had to deal with.
We drew attention to what we considered to be inconsistencies in Section 13 and we looked upon that as a very important section. I feel the House made a great mistake in not accepting a very simple amendment which was put down by Senator Hawkins to subsection (h) of that section.
We debated at length Section 15, which deals with the duties of the new board. There seemed to be considerable confusion there. Having listened to the debate and having looked through that section since then, I still maintain that there is a great deal of confusion there. I would be sorry to think that the Minister, with his knowledge of legislation and his knowledge of the difficulties of Córas Iompair Éireann, and what he visualised for it as a future, did not make a better shot at Section 15. It might have been possible to enlighten us on that—we may have been very dense— but efforts were not made to enlighten us in a way we were entitled to expect.
We did not delay very long on the question of capital. The Minister's parting shot on that was that I did not raise very much question when £6,000,000 was included in the previous Act as the necessary capital of the company. The Minister forgot completely the time when that Act was being debated. He seemed to overlook that that was the year 1944 and the tremendous difficulties that both the Minister of the day and the board of the company had to contend with. The uncertainty of things made £6,000,000, £600,000, or £6,000 mean very little difference at that time. There is this difference in dealing with this Bill as compared with the Bill we were dealing with in 1944, that we are now aware of the difficulties of the national transport system. We have learned a great deal in the years that have gone by. The Minister has felt he ought to change the management of the system, that there was need for an overhaul of capital and organisation in order to put it on its feet.
To say that only £6,000,000 was included in the last Bill as against £7,000,000 in this and that I raised no objection on the last occasion is, to say the least of it, unworthy of the Minister. His attitude in all these things reminds me of an incident that I noticed this morning and noticed often before in my travels. Travellers in rural Ireland are familiar with a certain type of hen. It sits peacefully and contentedly on the side of the road but, when you come up on your bicycle it suddenly, with much cackling, dashes across the road. Sometimes it gets its head mixed up with your spokes or hits its head off something hard, with dire consequences. If it does manage to get to the other side it does so at the cost of ruffled plumage but, particularly, complete loss of dignity.
We came along with our innocent questions, innocent to the extent that we were anxious to get information, to know exactly what we were doing, exactly what we were planning, exactly where we were going. The Minister met us with that type of cackling—an attack on the Irish Press, an attack on Fianna Fáil, accusations of sabotage, accusations that we had not read the Bill, and so on. That kind of thing did not help us or the Bill. The Bill, when it becomes an Act may do good. If it does, it will be very much in the same way as the cow killed the hare—by accident.
We are genuinely anxious that the new Board will succeed. Whatever differences we may have had in discussions on the Bill, whatever battles we may have had over interpretation, the meaning of sections, aims and objects, I am satisfied that the Minister and I will agree in toto that the best board should be sought and that the best board will be sought. I pay that compliment to the Minister that he, knowing the vital importance of the national transport system in every phase of national life, will realise how urgent it is that he should look for the very best men he can get to man this board and to make a success of this corporation, if they can possibly do it.
Senator Hayes remarked this day week that the Bill might be described as a Bill to save the railways. I do not know that that is in the Bill. We endeavoured to find out whether that was so or not but we did not get much help. There is nothing in the Bill that would indicate that it might reasonably be described as a Bill to save the railways. I believe that the railways are essential. I believe that, however they may be organised, whatever work they will do, we must maintain the railways. We should remember that it will be the duty of the board to provide an efficient transport system. The board should not overlook the wishes of the community in that regard. It may be that the board will be so railway-minded that, having the powers it will have, it will go all out to restrict road traffic in order to bring essential grist to its own mill. It may do that. If it does, it will do it by imposing a very considerable tax on the public. Should that burden be imposed on the community in order to maintain the railways? Sometime in the future we may have to face that issue. We ought to make up our minds that what we want is an efficient transport system and if the road proves to be better to a very considerable extent to meet the needs of the public, they should be met in that way. If it means new types of engines, even diesel electrics, they should come on. I do not want to discuss the matter now but I believe that if this board is objective, if it will seek to put the transport system into a position of efficiency and into such a position that it can pay its way, then nothing but downright prejudice will keep diesel electrics off Irish railways.
After all the battles we have had on this, I do wish the Minister every success in his new venture. I do wish most sincerely that he will succeed in getting the very best board that it is possible to get and that it will not be very long until the railway system is in a position to fulfil the aims that the Minister has set for it and that we all hope it will achieve in as short a time as possible.
It is merely a thrust of Senator J.T. O'Farrell's that brings me to my feet. I agree with his expressions of goodwill and congratulations to the Minister on the heavy duties he has carried in steering this Bill through the two Houses, but I cannot let pass his remark against private enterprise considering that on Second Reading I made quite a long statement pointing out how this was not a failure of private enterprise because of the fact that economic laws have not been allowed to function for the past 30 years in this transport industry. They have been violated through pressures of all kinds in one way or another over that period. Therefore, I claim that this has not been private enterprise and it has not been private enterprise in action. There is another consideration. Even had it been private enterprise, it seems to be forgotten that that happened under a combination of private enterprise and State control, that is, the failure we have seen here may not have been altogether due to the people who were running this concern.
Is it not possible that the march of time had something to do with it? It is no harm at this stage, when we are just finishing this Bill, to realise that we have no better horizon in front of us. Perhaps the same factors will arise in the future that have arisen in the past. Perhaps the day of rail transport is finished. I am not saying that it is. Perhaps it may be found that its difficulties in the past were not due to private enterprise or a mixture of private enterprise and State control. Perhaps it will be found that its nonsuccess could not be attributed to those things. The reason why I strike this note is that I think it would be wrong to let it go forth now, that, because this Bill is passing into law, everything in the garden will be lovely. It is only now that the future of the railways is being thrust upon the right shoulders. It is only now that it is being thrust fairly and squarely on the employees. We must remember that even the new directors will be employees in the same way as stationmasters or executive officers. If they are not prepared to make the economic laws work satisfactorily the railways will be no more successful in the future than they were in the past. They may, in fact, be very much worse. I merely strike that warning note.
I congratulate the Minister on this Bill and I wish the new venture every success. I hope we shall have a prosperous future in front of us where the railways are concerned. I think we shall achieve that prosperity provided everybody takes his responsibility and shares in the working of the railways.
I would not like this Bill to leave this House without saying: "Bail o Dhia ar an obair" and God's blessing on the Minister who piloted it through the two Houses with efficiency and patience. It is a very important Bill because the interests of the country are involved in it. It is called a Transport Bill but the most important part of it is that which deals with the railways. It might be described properly as a railways' saving Bill. We are trying to save the railways from extinction because we recognise they are essential to the economic life of the country. The country is being asked to make a considerable sacrifice to save the railways. It must be remembered that we are saving the railways not merely for the country but also for the railwaymen. If the railways ceased to exist a great many people would lose their employment. They would find it very difficult to get alternative employment. We hope the railwaymen will bear that in mind.
I was heartened when I heard the Minister say that a proper system of arbitration will be devised before which the men can submit their grievances. In that way I hope we shall be saved from that danger always inherent in a monopoly. A few people in a monopoly can hold up the entire work. If that were done this Bill would be useless and so also would the sacrifices that have been made. We hope there will be a satisfactory scheme of arbitration and that there will be a proper degree of give and take between the board and its employees. The employees are not merely the employees of the board. They must remember that they are, too, the employees of their own people. It would be too bad if without due deliberation the rights of the Irish people should be forgotten.
I appeal to the Minister to secure a good system of arbitration and I appeal to those who are in touch with the unions to ensure that that arbitration is a success. If there is danger of sectional strife the work the Minister and the House have done and the money it is proposed to spend will be useless.
Now that this Bill is about to leave the House I would like to join with the other Senators in wishing it every success and in wishing the greatest possible success to the new board. This board will be an important national institution. It would be idle to deny that when the Bill was first mooted considerable uneasiness existed in the minds of private hauliers who operate under general or limited licences throughout the country and in the minds of those traders who carry their own goods on their own vehicles. In the course of the debate here those doubts were thoroughly dissipated. In wishing Córas Iompair Éireann success I think a high degree of co-operation can be contributed towards that success by the independent road hauliers in the State. They are very willing to give that co-operation. I take it the main object of the new board will be to get the most efficient transport system possible. I am not without hope that the new board in its deliberations will seek for that and I know it will get the active co-operation of independent hauliers, big and small. If that is done we shall achieve the utmost advantage from both the rigid system of time-table, semi-monopolistic activity and the complete flexibility of privately-operated transport. We are now putting forth this Transport Bill in its final stage and those of us who take a sane view of our responsibilities must wish it every success.
I join with the other Senators in wishing the Minister and the new board every success in the administration of this Bill. Having travelled over the roads this morning I was more than ever impressed with the necessity of having something done to divert traffic from the roads back to the railways. Lorries with big trailers attached are travelling over roads that were never intended to be used for such transport. If that continues some calamity will occur. I congratulate the county councils on the good work they are doing in improving the roads generally. I hope the Minister and the new board will decide that part of this traffic must be diverted back to the railways. I am sure the railways can do with this traffic. They are running parallel with the roads and I see no reason why they cannot be completely successful if they get more traffic. I wish them every success in the future.
In introducing this Bill on the Scond Stage the Minister stated, as he had stated in the Dáil, that he wished to have the co-operation of every member of the House in order to make the Bill a better Bill. Many of us accepted that in the spirit in which we thought it was intended. We examined the Bill. We attempted to find out whether it could be improved and how it could be amended. We attempted to discover what help we could give the Minister in that direction. Having put some few amendments before the House we were disappointed at the Minister's approach. He made it quite clear from the outset that the amendments would not be accepted and there was, therefore, very little use in our pushing them to a decision by means of a vote.
From the outset our quarrel with the Bill was not so much what was in the Bill as what was not in it. In so far as diverting traffic from the roads is concerned there is nothing in this Bill. Senator Honan referred to the growing problem of increased traffic on the roads and the burden that is placed on local authorities. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest what is going to be the future policy. We asked on the Second Stage and on the Committee Stage some direction as to what the policy was to be. We have not got that. We know full well that if the railroads are to be adequately maintained, or if we are to divert the traffic from the roads to the railways, it will involve a tremendous expenditure. We must have a faster service and better conditions of service. I submit that a sum of £7,000,000 total capital outlay is not sufficient to meet the very heavy expenditure that will be necessary to bring the railways up to date and put them in a condition to compete with road transport. There is very little we can do at this stage except to join with other Senators in hoping that this measure will bring about an improvement in our transport system, realising, however, that this is not a Bill that is going to save the railways and that the Minister will be compelled in a short time, after the position has been investigated by the new board which he is setting up, to come before the House with a more comprehensive measure to make some better attempt to provide for the diversion of road traffic to the railways.
I should like also to express my good wishes for the success of the Bill. I think it is about one of the most revolutionary measures that has ever come before the House, for it assumes complete control of the transport system of the country for the community. It gives the Government a great instrument for the development of the country and especially of backward areas. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the taking over of the Shannon Navigation and the Grand Canal Company provides an opportunity for opening up the navigation of the Shannon. If the navigation system of the Shannon up to Athlone were properly developed and if Limerick and other ports along the Western coast were developed at the same time, the Government would be taking a big step towards restoring the balance of population and preventing the exodus from western areas to Dublin and the East. I trust that object will be kept in view in the future developments of the railways.
There is another matter I think I should also mention to the Minister. It is perhaps a sad coincidence that at the time the House is passing the Final Stage of the Bill our railways are lying idle to the detriment of the people who are dependent on them. That is a development that we cannot let pass without comment. The situation which has developed to-day has caused a feeling of deep anger and exasperation amongst the people. I think it is due to irresponsible action but I think it is right that the responsible leaders of labour should take note of the fact that the railways now belong to the people themselves and that the people cannot endure too much. They should realise that the Government has done its duty to the workers on the railways. The community has given its help and has made great sacrifices, not only to provide an improved transport system, but also to provide security for the workers on the railways. The community, therefore, has a right to ask that these railways will be used for the good of the people. It has at least the right to claim and to insist that there will be no further lightning strikes on the transport system ever again.
I am grateful to the members of the Seanad for their expression of good wishes for the success of this measure and the success of the new board. I regret that the leader of the Opposition Party, Senator Ó Buachalla, thought fit at the close of the proceedings as at the opening of them, to introduce a discordant note. I do not propose to follow Senator Ó Buachalla very far along that road but when the Senator and other Senators accused me of attacking certain organisations and of indulging in personalities, which I did not indulge in, may I ask Senator Ó Buachalla to be kind enough to read in the Official Report of the debates of this House the speech which he himself made on Second Reading? Might I suggest to the Senator that he might read some of the charges which he made against me personally, out of a clear sky, without a shred of evidence, without a single fact to support any one of these charges which were serious charges?
I think this a matter of very great importance.
May I be allowed to continue?
I should like if my attention were directed to the matters in question. If I have done the Minister an injustice, I can assure him I shall make amends.
I am referring the Senator to his own speech which is recorded in the Official Report of the House.
On a point of explanation, in my concluding remarks on this Bill I confined myself, as I thought I should, to the matters that had arisen out of the Bill itself. I might have devoted considerable time to certain matters that arose on the Second Reading but I did not. If that Second Reading debate is to be reopened, I hope I shall be allowed to take part.
This is out of order.
It should be.
May I say that I am not introducing any new matter? Does the Senator forget what he said ten minutes ago? I am merely replying to the Senator. Does the Senator feel that he should be completely free to make all sorts of charges and that no other person here should have an opportunity, or have the advantage, of dealing with them?
I claim no such right.
The Senator should allow me to continue. I did not interrupt him. The Senator also felt inclined to reprimand me because I had not helped him sufficiently. He was depending on me to help him to understand this Bill. Mind you, for a Senator who did not understand the Bill, he certainly spoke a whole lot about it, and the Senator also found fault with me because I had made no real effort to enlighten him. I, certainly, could not accuse the Senator of not having made a mighty effort to enlighten me. The Senator, if I recollect aright, spoke for not less than three hours on the Second Stage of the Bill, and that was a mighty effort for a person who did not understand it.
The only thing about that, Sir, is that the Minister——
Is the Minister not entitled to speak?
The Minister has declared ——
Is the Minister entitled to reply on this Bill? Must he be persistently interrupted by Senator Ó Buachalla, who has talked himself blind, bothered, and stupid? Is the Minister not to reply?
Is the Minister entitled to make charges, and have I not the right to reply?
Senator Ó Buachalla should be asked to observe the ordinary Standing Orders.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister is concluding this debate.
Yes, Sir. The Senator was also very concerned about my complete loss of dignity, and he had a nice story to tell us about the hen that got flustered on the side of the road, and got so confused, that she got her head into the spokes of the bicycle. Now on the question of loss of dignity —that does not matter. I hope the Senator has maintained his dignity and his reputation, to the full, during the whole debate on this. However, I do not want to pursue that. It has been said by other Senators, on all sides of the House, that this is a very important measure dealing with a matter of vital national importance. I did not, at any time, either in the Dáil or here, suggest that this Bill was going to provide a solution for all the transport problems. Of course, it is not. I did not suggest, at any time, that this was the last Transport Bill that was likely to be brought before the Oireachtas. Of course, it is not. I am not trying to score any Party point when I say this, that my predecessor had this problem before him for 16 years. He had, at least, two Bills, and he was satisfied that he was making an earnest attempt to try to find a proper solution for the problem. He failed to do so. I do suggest to Senators, on the opposite side, that it is not fair to approach the consideration of this Bill, and it is not fair to attack me in connection with this Bill, as if I had created the state of chaos, financial chaos, as well as chaos in other respects, which obtained, and does obtain, in Córas Iompair Éireann. I did not create that situation. I found it there. I proceeded to make the best effort I could, along the best lines, to try to find a remedy for it. I believe that this Bill is going to help us to improve the situation. It will enable us to get moving along the lines which, we feel, will give us what we really need, and what we are aiming at; that is, an efficient and, as far as we can possibly make it so, an economic State transport service. In the Bill itself, we have tried to protect the interests of the shareholders, those whose property we are acquiring. I have tried to hold the balance fairly as between the shareholders and the community, who have to pay the compensation. I feel that, having regard to the position in which we found that company—I am not going to argue as to who was responsible for bringing it into the condition in which we found it—but, having regard to it, and having regard to the sort of future which was before it, the shareholders have not been ungenerously treated.
From that, I take it, the Minister visualises a subsidy over a very considerable time?
I was talking about the provision for compensation which we had made for the shareholders.
And the poor prospects that the shareholders have.
Certainly. I go further, and I make the Senator a present of this, that having regard to the condition in which I found Córas Iompair Éireann, and if it were not acquired by the State, in my opinion, the shareholders of Córas Iompair Éireann would never again secure a dividend, and it would have been utterly impossible to have preserved the railway system in this country. That is the fact, and it was realising these facts, that we set about to try to change it. We, and when I say we, I mean the State, are in the process of acquiring Córas Iompair Éireann, not because we want to acquire Córas Iompair Éireann, or because we want to have a nationalised transport service, but because we are forced to take it, because the national interest must take precedence over it, and because, in our opinion, it is in the national interest, and the interest of the community, that the railway service must be maintained in this country. However, as I was saying, we tried to give fair and reasonable compensation to the directors.
The shareholders.
Sorry, the shareholders. It is a matter to be decided, of course, on the question of the directors. I do not want to go into any personalities. I will leave everything out. I want to say this, with all the emphasis I can, that so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government is concerned, there was no question whatever of politics in this matter, nor was there any desire on my part, or on the part of any member of the Government to victimise any individual, any personality, or any collection of individuals, in any way, for political or any other reasons. We were simply facing up to the position that existed, and facing up to it in what we, at least, believe to be the most practical way. In this Bill, as I said on the Second Stage, here in this House and in the Dáil, there is provision made for the security of the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann such as, in my opinion, was never made in any other piece of legislation introduced into this House and, I doubt, in any other country. I went the limit, so to speak, to see that workmen, that no employed person, in either of these two undertakings would suffer as a result of the State acquiring these undertakings. The State, on behalf of the taxpayers of this country, as well as on behalf of the transport users, has taken on its shoulders an immense burden.
Within the last three months, as is known to Senators, I had to go into Dáil Éireann in order to keep this concern from closing down, in order to keep it running, and in order that it would be enabled to continue the wages to the men employed by it, and so enable them to earn their living—I had to go into Dáil Éireann and ask the representatives of the people of this country for the sum of over £4,000,000, the largest Supplementary Estimate that was ever introduced into Dáil Éireann. That money was given, but prior to that, 12 months or more prior to that, when Córas Iompair Éireann had reached the position that they were unable to meet the wages, the Government agreed that debentures should be used for a purpose for which they were never intended to be used, and the wages were paid out of the debentures. We felt that we had a certain responsibility in that matter and we shouldered that responsibility and we are making the provision here in this Bill to safeguard the interests of the workers.
I want to say—I endorse what was said by other Senators and I am glad that it was said—that if certain workers have rights they have responsibilities also. I want to repeat here —and I wish I could get an opportunity of saying it to every working man in the country—that I believe that every employee ought to be a member of his appropriate trade union but that I believe also that they ought to take an active and intelligent interest in the work of the trade unions. They should have a say in the drafting of the rules and regulations of the trade unions and take an active part in the election and selection of their leaders. Having elected them they should agree to be led and advised by them, and having taken part in the framing of the rules and regulations of their trade unions they ought to abide by those rules and regulations. These lightning, unofficial and irresponsible strikes which are mainly directed against public utilities and are nearly always timed to create the greatest possible amount of hardship are in themselves not merely an attack on the community and on the rights of the people but are the most dangerous form of attack that could be made on the trade unions themselves. They will in the end destroy the trade unions and must destroy once and for all that system of collective bargaining for which so many generations fought to establish in order to lift the workers and the poor out of the rut and the morass in which they were.
I know that many men, not merely in trade union circles but in other walks of life, are very easily led or misled, but it must be made perfectly clear that while the people of this country are anxious that the standard of life of all our people should be raised to the highest possible level, while this Oireachtas and this Government and any Government which is likely to succeed it will be anxious and desirous to give the fullest possible liberty to trade unions and trade union members to secure their rights, licence cannot be tolerated. If those people feel that they have rights, rights even to repudiate the unions of which they are members, rights to repudiate at their own sweet will the advice of their own leaders who are elected and selected by themselves, then they will have to realise and appreciate that the ordinary members of the community have rights also and that those rights will have to be established. They ought also to realise and appreciate that in nearly every one of those strikes those who suffer most intensely and who suffer longest are the people for whom they say they are fighting and in whom they say they are interested.
I must confess that I feel that the sort of action that is being taken by irresponsible people is cutting the ground from under the feet of those of us who are anxious, and have always been anxious, to see that the working man got a square deal. They must be irresponsible. I would hate to think that there was anything other than irresponsibility behind some of the things that have been happening in this country in recent times, but there is a pretty close similarity between them and what has been happening elsewhere. I am not suggesting for a moment—I would not like to believe it —that it springs from the same cause, but it is having very largely the same effect. We ought to realise and be thankful that to-day we are living in a country that is perhaps the freest on the face of the earth. We ought to be thankful for the fact that our people are to-day enjoying the highest standard of life ever attained in this country in our history and that goes for all of us and is not confined to any particular section as it was in previous times. But that has not been achieved without a great deal of effort. When I look back on the efforts and the sacrifices which had to be made even in my own time by trade union leaders in order to achieve for the present day trade unionists the foundations upon which they have been able to build and achieve the standard of life they have to-day, then I certainly cannot help feeling that people do not realise where they are going and that those who are responsible for what is happening do not realise that they are endangering not merely the State, endangering not merely the particular utility in which they are employed, but that they are endangering their own future and their own livelihood and perhaps the livelihood and future of their children.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered: That the Bill, as amended, be returned to the Dáil.
The Seanad adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, May 4th, 1950.