Dundalk Railway Works—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—

That in the opinion of Seanad Éireann workers in Dundalk Railway Works should enjoy the same compensatory arrangements, in the event of their becoming redundant before or after their absorption by the Dundalk Engineering Company, Limited, as those guaranteed to C.I.E. workers by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Dáil Éireann on 27th November, 1957; and further that an arrangement should be made by that Minister with C.I.E. and the Dundalk Engineering Company, Limited, to ensure that the work of repair and maintenance on that part of the present G.N.R. Board organisation situated in the Republic shall continue to be carried out in Dundalk after the G.N.R. Board ceases to function—(Senator Donegan).

Tomás Ó Maoláin

The subject of this motion was recently fully debated in the Dáil and there seems to me to be no obvious reason for the motion, except to try to score a point for Senator Donegan. The question of compensation was dealt with by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Dáil on 20th November, and again on the Supplementary Estimate for Transport and Marine Services on 27th November. The position was further clarified by the Minister in reply to a question by Deputy Coburn in the Dáil on 4th December. Deputy Coburn is from Dundalk and is a G.N.R. worker. He should know what he is talking about.

The second part of the motion was covered in a Press statement by the chairman of the company on January 10th. Incidentally, since we had some references last night to language difficulties, I must assume that the word "Republic" in this motion refers to the Twenty-Six Counties and not to the area covered by the clause in the Constitution, which brings in the whole island. To my mind, the speeches last night on this motion were largely an attempt, particularly by Senator Donegan, to befog the issue. I think it advisable to refresh the minds of Senators on what exactly transpired.

To recapitulate the reasons which led to the establishment of the Dundalk Engineering Company, it will be recalled by Senators that the Dundalk works were the main workshops of the G.N.R. They were vested in the G.N.R. Board under the Great Northern Railway Act of 1953. They employ about 1,000 workers. Senators will remember that the Minister of Commerce in Belfast indicated his intention to terminate, as from October next, the agreement with the Government here for the joint operation of the G.N.R. undertaking. As a consequence of the termination of the agreement there will inevitably be a serious reduction in the amount of work available to the Dundalk works as it can be assumed that maintenance, repairs, etc., in respect of that portion of the G.N.R. in the Six Counties will be done by the Ulster Transport Authority. Accordingly, the Minister made arrangements for the establishment of a new company to take over the works and secure new industrial activity for it with a view to maintaining the level of employment there. The company has a nominal capital of £100 which is held by the Minister for Finance. This new company took over the works on January 11th.

On 20th November, the Dáil, on the motion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, approved of a draft Order to be made by the Government adding the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited to the Schedule to the State Guarantees Act, 1954, so as to enable the Minister for Finance to guarantee borrowing by the new company up to a maximum of £500,000. The Order, as approved, was subsequently made by the Government and guarantees have been issued to meet the immediate financial needs of the company. I might remark in passing that when the guarantee Order came before the Seanad subsequently, Senator Donegan was not here.

With regard to the second part of the motion, the future working, the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited had negotiated a contract with the G.N.R. Board to handle all railway work for the board as long as the board continues to operate the G.N.R. undertaking. C.I.E. will be taking over the G.N.R. rail and road services in this area in October, 1958. The Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited have made an agreement with C.I.E., under which all G.N.R. rail and road rolling stock which will be taken over by C.I.E. in October will continue to be maintained in the Dundalk works to the greatest extent possible. A statement to this effect was issued to the Press by the company on 10th January.

In addition, it will be remembered that the Dundalk Engineering Works, Limited, have tendered for rail and other work in a number of foreign countries. Every person of goodwill who has no axe to grind will wish their efforts every success, and hope that, as a result, there may be established in full working operation a first class heavy engineering industry in that part of Ireland.

With regard to the first part of the motion, it should be remembered—and I do not think Senator Donegan pointed it out—that, under the provisions of Section 38 of the G.N.R. Act, 1953, a redundant G.N.R. worker domiciled in this part of Ireland is entitled to compensation only where he has been directly employed and has been employed wholly in connection with a train service being discontinued. As was pointed out, workers in the Dundalk works have no statutory right to compensation for loss of employment by reason of a reduction in the volume of work available.

I am a great believer in trade unions; I have great faith in their efficiency and in their devotion to the interests of the workers. I believe they are quite capable of safeguarding the interests of the workers concerned. It might be well for me to recall that, as far back as 5th November, the representatives of the unions catering for G.N.R. workers in the Dundalk works met the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the Department of Industry and Commerce and got an assurance that the pension rights and other welfare benefits of the workers would be preserved.

New transport legislation is at present being drafted to provide for the reorganisation of C.I.E. and the taking over by C.I.E. of the portion of the G.N.R. undertaking in this area, apart from the Dundalk works. No further addition can usefully be made to the information already given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the various references in the Dáil, pending the introduction of that legislation.

Last night, Senator Murphy expressed the fears of the people in Dundalk that the new enterprise might not succeed. A pessimistic outlook of the situation was also conveyed— probably inadvertently—by Senator Donegan. So that Senators will know that the people who actually live in the town of Dundalk have another view, I should like to quote from this week's Dundalk Democrat the observations made in regard to Senator Donegan's recent statements. The Democrat says:

"What grounds had Senator Donegan for his statement at the county council meeting that this town of ours had been hit by the greatest wave of pessimism known in any Irish town in the last 20 years? Well-grounded anxiety there was, and to some degree still is, but not pessimism. This old town of ours all through its career has had its share of hard knocks, but it has survived them all, even flourished in them, and, with God's help, will continue to do so."

I would like to add to that very pertinent comment my own view, and the view of everyone with any common sense, that the prospects of the new company and the great commercial enterprise on which it has embarked will be greatly improved, if the practice of holding public meetings and making windy speeches about it is discontinued, and if politicians of all Parties agree to treat it as a commercial undertaking organised in the hope of providing and maintaining employment, and not as a subject for political posturing.

Professor Hayes

One of the consolations of politics is that one is constantly hearing new things. The conclusion of Senator Ó Maoláin's speech was most interesting. It was surely one of the most striking examples we have had of Satan rebuking sin. To hear a person so prominent in the Fianna Fáil organisation object to public meetings and windy speeches——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

On this subject.

Professor Hayes

On any subject. Have they not spoken at enormous length everywhere about everything, without any regard at all for the national good? I could not refrain from saying that. May I say also that Senator Ó Maoláin reads beautifully?

What I would like to stress has nothing to do with the merits of this motion, but I regret very much—not as a Fine Gael Senator or as a member of the Fine Gael Party, but as a Senator interested in the development of this House and in its powers and privileges—that the ordinary precedent of having either a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary present has not been followed in this case. There may indeed be good personal reasons for that—I do not know. Last night, seeing that it was not certain what time this motion would come on or, indeed, not certain it would come on at all, one could understand no Parliamentary Secretary or Minister being present. I think it a pity from the point of view of the House generally that there was not some such person present to-day.

I should also like to join issue with the Leader of the House when he says there was no obvious reason for this motion, except for Senator Donegan to score. I listened to Senator Donegan yesterday evening with great impartiality, because this is a subject I have not studied. I must say that he seemed to me to be peculiarly careful not to attempt to score on anybody. Neither do I accept the view that when a matter has been debated in the Dáil, it should not be debated here. I should like to put to the Leader of the House, his friends and everybody in the House that that for us would be a disastrous attitude to adopt. The fact that something has been debated in the Dáil does not mean we ought not debate it. We had an example yesterday in regard to the Agricultural Institute Bill. Debates here are sometimes a good deal more fruitful than they are in the Dáil, and sometimes more enlightening.

The motion which Senator Donegan put down was in order; it was accepted by the Chair and he was perfectly entitled to move it. It is a pity we had not here a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary to deal with it, not that I object to the way in which Senator Ó Maoláin dealt with it, but we should follow the practice which has existed here for more than 20 years, since this House was reconstituted. When I was in the place in which Senator Ó Maoláin now is or when I was over here, I did my best to see that a Minister would be present at a convenient moment for himself, if possible.

When a problem is pressing on the people, or on the people in a particular area, the more intelligent discussion it gets, the better that discussion and ministerial statements do help towards an understanding of the difficulty and towards making people understand what is happening. They very often assuage hurt feelings.

The Senator said that the Minister had given clarification in the Dáil, but, as we are on language a good deal, clarification is not the same thing as satisfaction. It is the same in relation to the quotation from the Dundalk Democrat. Politics, I think, I may reasonably suspect, but I do not think the distinction between pessimism and well-grounded anxiety is at any rate very great. A person who has well-grounded anxiety over a period comes very close to being a pessimist. We must let that pass.

I regret, as a member of the House and as one who has had something to do in the past 20 years with the regulation of the House, either from the Government or Opposition side, that the procedure followed in nearly every case, that a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary is present, was not followed in this case. I think Senator Donegan had a perfect right to put down his motion. He should not in any way, apart from the merits of the motion or what may be said for or against it, be reproved or be open to rebuke for moving it.

Mr. Donegan

Initially, I should like to refer to a quotation which I said I had last night and which I could not find, but which I have to-day. It was in regard to the denial of the Tánaiste of a statement he made regarding redundancy in C.I.E. It bears out there is no fixed amount of redundancy as far as investigation has disclosed in the ranks of C.I.E. workers, whereas there is a very great fixed amount of redundancy obvious in the case of workers in the G.N.R. Works or the Dundalk Engineering Company, as it is now.

At column 1525 of the Official Report, Volume 164, 5th December, 1957, the Tánaiste said:—

"Reference was made here to-day to this question of redundancy among C.I.E. railway staffs. In that connection I may say that I was wrong in my statement that C.I.E.'s submissions to the Committee of Inquiry into Internal Transport contained a reference to a 30 per cent. redundancy. C.I.E. pointed out that that statement was not contained in their submissions to this committee."

That is merely for the purpose of record. Senator Ó Maoláin did not question me or contradict me when I said that the Tánaiste had stated there was no fixed amount of redundancy in C.I.E. Merely for the record, it is perhaps wise that I should produce the quotation I thought I had last night.

The contributions to this debate, with one exception, namely, that of Senator Ó Maoláin, were enlightening and helpful. A man who has evidence to give from a legal point of view, a man who has experience of the law, the seconder of this motion, Senator O'Quigley, gave us instances where in parallel cases compensation had been paid to persons who under the action of a Government or even of an outside Government, had their livelihood in toto removed from them. It is a very wise, valid, and good point he made because it shows us that what I ask for has been done before. I will comment no further upon what Senator O'Quigley said in seconding the motion except to say that his contribution was most helpful and informative.

No Minister or Parliamentary Secretary came here to discuss the motion. I think I was perfectly in order in putting down this motion. Senators who heard me last night or those who may read the debates will find I was most scrupulous not to make one political point. To-day, I will be equally scrupulous not to make one political point. This matter is too serious and pressing for anybody to play politics with. I say that in any assembly or body in which I have spoken on this matter, I never made one political point, nor will I.

This is Seanad Éireann, the upper House of the Oireachtas, and I feel we might have had a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary here, even last night or at least to-day, after I had conveyed my request to the Leader of the House that he would have such a person present. If the Tánaiste was not available, and if the Parliamentary Secretary was not available, there is a man in the Cabinet who has addressed himself to every phase of this difficulty and who is aware of every turn that has been taken. He could have come from the Cabinet and the Government to discuss seriously here in a non-political manner a problem which affects 500 or 600 families in Dundalk. I refer to the Minister for External Affairs.

Having disposed of the matter of the precedent, namely, that there is always a Minister present during a debate in the Seanad to speak for the Government, I will pass to the remarks of Senator Murphy. Senator Murphy was helpful but I think he was too gentle. I do not think he appreciates fully the position that the people of Dundalk are faced with. I do not think he has related his thought on this matter to black and white. I think he was too vacillating, floating in and out. He cannot just get himself down to earth and see the position that has to be faced in Dundalk.

He told us that there was no provision made for redundancy as a result of a drop in traffic. I want to make this point. This is not an actual drop in traffic, or rather it is a drop in traffic for which I do not blame this Government or any other Government here. It is something huge; it is something which is most unequal and which has taken place as a result of the decision of another Government. It is at Government level and it is at Government level it must be faced.

Senator Ó Maoláin opened his speech by saying that this matter had been recently fully debated. Of course that is true but I would refer him to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in the House when he said that debating is a very different thing from satisfaction. Satisfaction has not been received and, in my view, satisfaction should be given by the Government to these people. When it has not been received, what is more natural than that a person who believes satisfaction should be given, should invoke his power to raise this matter in the upper House of the Oireachtas? That is my reason for bringing in this motion and I do not agree that because it was debated elsewhere it should not be debated here. I say it should be debated by every public body which is in a position to debate it because this problem involves 500 families in the town of Dundalk and faces them within nine months.

I would describe the speech of Senator Ó Maoláin as a wonderful series of generalisations. We all know what has happened; we all know the present situation, but we want satisfaction. We want clarification and it has not been forthcoming. The Tánaiste has said that arrangements must be made between the new company and C.I.E.; he has said the compensation is not a statutory right. I concede that. As a layman who has read all the Acts dealing with the matter I concede that, but I do not know enough about the law to give an authoritative opinion. My personal opinion is that there is no statutory right and my motion does not mention a statutory right but it submits that there is a moral right for the workers and a moral obligation on the part of the Government to give the G.N.R. men the same terms, in a matter such as this, as are being given to the C.I.E. workers.

Regarding the statement of Senator Ó Maoláin that when the Guarantee Order passed through the House I was not here, I should like to tell Senator Ó Maoláin where I was. I was waiting in the Lobby of the Dáil for the Tánaiste to rise and tell me what I did not know in regard to compensation, the number of people who would get work and the amount of maintenance work that would still be done in Dundalk and various other points that have been since discussed ad nauseam. That is where I was, and if there is timing in that or coincidence in that, do not blame me.

If I had been sitting in the Seanad instead of sitting in the Lobby of the Dáil awaiting information, I would have had to stand up here as a man blind and deaf, knowing nothing and hearing nothing. Instead I was waiting to hear that matter explained. I think Senator Ó Maoláin will now realise why I was not here when the Guarantee Order passed through the House without much comment. Nobody was able to make comment because they did not have the information—except one person and that person was in the Dáil and he, of course, is the Tánaiste. If there was timing in that, I blame the Government and if it was a coincidence, nobody is to blame.

In regard to the G.N.R. Act of 1953, we do know there are arrangements for compensation in Section 38 for workers on the permanent way and in railway stations, etc., but we submit— and I think fairly—there is only a difference in name between the worker in the Dundalk Railway Works and the worker on the permanent way. If it is true that Dundalk Railway Works were vested in a different way from the permanent way or the railway stations when this Act which we are now discussing was framed and passed here through the Oireachtas and in Belfast simultaneously, even though that difference is there in the vesting of the works, there is also a moral consideration. The man working in Dundalk is really the same sort of an individual, the same type of servant of the State as the man on the permanent way. This again hinges on a moral right and only on a moral right.

Senator Ó Maoláin referred to the statements in the Dundalk Democrat. I would say it is natural that any reporter would say what in my opinion is true, that there is a great wave of pessimism in that town. It is also true that if there is an individual with an interest in that town and particularly if he is a proud man, he would be slightly riled to hear talk of pessimism. His first reaction would be to rally to the support of the town and what is more natural than that he should say that “this grand old town will weather this storm as it weathered so many others”. And that is what he did say.

I would suggest to Senator Ó Maoláin that he should go to the town of Dundalk, go into a public house, buy a bottle of Dundalk ale and a large packet of Aftons and sit down until some citizens come in and talk to them. I do not think he should disclose who he is. He will find this wave of pessimism really exists and that, much as he will regret it, he will see that the town of Dundalk has not much hope for the future and should at least get the two small things sought in my motion. All we ask is a foothold by which the town of Dundalk can climb the hill. At the moment, it is at the bottom of the hill and not sufficient help is being offered to it.

I think Senator Ó Maoláin also implied that this motion was out of date. I made every effort to have it discussed earlier. I rose in this House out of order—the Cathaoirleach can bear me out—when the Order of Business was being discussed to try to get this motion taken before Christmas. I did not succeed. That is the lot of parliamentarians. It is not the fault of the Cathaoirleach or of Senator Ó Maoláin, nor is it my fault, but it is a fact that must be recorded, that the motion should have been taken before Christmas and would have been debated, if the business of the House had allowed it.

Lest anybody should believe it is out of date, I propose to give just two quotations. One is from the report of the Dundalk Chamber of Commerce dinner last year. The president of that body, Mr. Neil Traynor, was able to announce on that night, as stated in the Drogheda Argus:—

"I am in a position here to-night to announce that there will be no redundancy in the near future in the G.N.R. railway works."

But if we go to the Irish Independent of December 23rd last year we find that:—

"Trade union leaders told a mass meeting of G.N.R. workers in Dundalk that they had been informed that at the moment 70 men in Dundalk were redundant."

These, in the main, were men with short service or men over 65. The men with short service may find some other niche in life where they can perhaps rehabilitate themselves. The men over 65 are morally fully entitled to the provisions I outlined last night when I told the House of the compensation provided for the C.I.E. workers. For instance, a man under 65 with 20 years' permanent way service would be entitled if, as a result of the cessation of a train service or the dieselisation programme of C.I.E., he lost his job, to a pension until he was 65 of £201 a year and after that the normal retirement pension. I say that those of the men who are under 65 are entitled to that and that the men over 65 are also entitled to it, if they are fit and able to do their job, until such time as they are adjudged as not fit to do it, and that the men who have a few years' service or who have gone out with under 11 or 15 years' service are entitled to the relevant figure, whatever it may be.

Having gone so far, I would say that, notwithstanding the—almost— contempt which the Government has shown for Seanad Éireann in the progress of this motion through the House, notwithstanding that we heard from Senator Ó Maoláin to-day, the Leader of Fianna Fáil in Seanad Éireann, a complete generalisation, notwithstanding that our own Deputy for the county, the Minister for External Affairs, did not come here even to hear the debate, much less to reply to it, the people of Dundalk and the people of every political creed and every political side in County Louth are ready and willing to co-operate with the Government. But they ask them to give these two things: (1) an absolute and strict undertaking that all the work on the amount of line left in the Republic of Ireland to the G.N.R. Board, after that body ceases to function in September, will be left in Dundalk, and that includes the items which have not been included in the Press statement of January 10th, namely, locomotives, bridges and permanent way; and (2) that the men in the Dundalk Railway Works will be entitled to the same compensatory provisions as C.I.E. workers who have lost their employment through major upheavals, such as has occurred in the Dundalk Railway Works, and which are described in the 1950 Act as the cessation of train services under a dieselisation programme.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 30 Jan 1958