Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 2 May 1944

Vol. 93 No. 12

Transport Bill, 1944—Second Stage (Resumed).

I was pointing out, as regards the functions of the Railway Tribunal, that it is proposed to hand some of them over to the High Court, while some of them will be exercised by the Minister. It is true that the Minister has provided a transport advisory committee which will investigate certain matters. But that committee has no power to initiate any inquiry except it is so directed by the Minister. Neither has any individual or group of individuals power to bring any matter before the advisory committee except the Minister feels it is desirable. It might so happen that in certain cases the Minister, for political or other reasons, might think it unwise to refer a particular matter to the advisory committee. I think that, in comparison with the old method, whereby the carrying company, an individual or group of individuals, could bring any matter related to the fixing of freight charges for any particular commodity before the Railway Tribunal and make a case for it, the proposed method of handling such a matter is not by any means an improvement. I am not saying that there was not some room for improvement in the old method, that the best results were got from the efforts of the Railway Tribunal. But surely their terms of reference could have been altered to some extent so as to permit of the fixation of maximum charges that would be in the best interests of the country as a whole, not merely in the best interests of the carrying company.

In examining the maximum charges fixed by the Railway Tribunal in relation to a variety of goods, one thing that has struck me as rather peculiar is that the rate of charges on agricultural commodities operates to a far greater extent against the free flow of these commodities than in the case of industrial goods. For instance, if you take 5 per cent. of the value of particular goods to be a fair charge for the transportation of such goods, that not more than 5 per cent. should be used for the purpose of transporting any particular commodity, we find that, in the case of woollen and worsted yarn, 5 per cent. of the value will permit the transportation of that commodity over a distance of 700 odd miles; in the case of electrical machinery, 379 miles; in the case of wool, 372 miles; in the case of books, 366 miles; in the case of butter, 373 miles. But, in the case of raw material for the farm, such as rock phosphate for instance, 5 per cent. of the value of the commodity will not permit it to travel by rail at all. It will permit it to travel by road two miles at the rate of 2/3 per two miles. In the case of household coal, it can only travel two miles by road; it cannot travel by railway at all, on the 5 per cent. basis. In the case of potatoes, it will not allow them to travel by rail at all, but will allow them to travel seven miles by road. In the case of sulphate of ammonia, it will not permit it to travel by rail at all and only 14 miles by road. In the case of wheat, it will permit it to travel 17 miles by rail.

How far would a diamond tiara travel?

The Minister may try to make a joke out of it.

These are not the bases of calculation.

It would take 20 per cent. of their value to carry potatoes from Athlone to Dublin; 20 per cent. would be eaten up by rail charges.

That is a matter of administration.

It is a question of the fixation of charges. Machinery is being set up for the fixation of charges under the Bill. This is not a question of administration at all. It is a question of the machinery provided for in the Bill for the fixing of freight charges. The Minister is taking special power to review these. But, judging by his attitude, I am not convinced that he is the right man. I do not think that it should be left to any Minister to make decisions in these matters. In the case of potatoes, I want to point out that it takes 20 per cent. of their value to transport potatoes from Athlone to Dublin. On that basis, one can understand why Dublin was short of potatoes last year. Surely in an agricultural country like ours that aspect of the problem must be examined and must be given consideration. The Minister realises that where marketing boards have been set up, for instance, in Northern Ireland, a pig will be carried over one mile for 8d. and the same charge operates if the pig is to be transported 50 miles. That is what I want to get the Minister to appreciate—that you cannot apply the same scheme to agricultural production as to industrial production. If you do, if it is merely on a ton-mile basis you fix the charge, then it will be detrimental to the remote districts or the more backward districts. If the Minister concerns himself with an examination of the area of supply so far as the City of Dublin is concerned, he will appreciate that, as compared with Cork, Waterford, Limerick or other centres, it is very much wider in extent and in scope than the area of supply of the requirements of these other centres.

For the purpose of export of certain commodities also, whatever sort of organisation is set up, we ought to ensure that the freight charges that will be fixed will operate, not primarily in the interests of the carrying company, but in the interests of the agricultural industry and of the country as a whole. If we are to set up machinery to deal with the fixation of maximum charges in the post-war period we certainly ought to ensure that the machinery so set up will concern itself with that aspect of the problem. I am suggesting that, so far as the initiation of any inquiry by the advisory committee is concerned, or so far as the giving of any opportunity to individuals or group of individuals to get an inquiry initiated is concerned, it will be far more difficult to have that done under this type of machinery than under the Railway Tribunal as operated at present.

Reference has been made to the question of redundancy of workers. I think it is a fact that the redundancy must arise within a six-months' period and that any workers discharged outside the six months will not be entitled to any compensation. Section 55 of the 1924 Act has been referred to. So far as I recollect, the period in respect of redundancy provided for under that Act was seven years; any individual who was found to be redundant under the amalgamation which took place as a result of the 1924 Act was entitled to compensation under that section if the redundancy arose within a period of seven years. Obviously, one would suspect that the period of six months may possibly be taken advantage of If employees are not discharged within the six months' period, their services may deliberately be retained for the purpose of evading the provisions for compensation under the section. I suggest that the Minister should reconsider the period of time provided for redundancy. I think it is an unreasonably short period.

I think that this is a very inopportune time to contemplate reorganisation. Even if it were necessary to subsidise the railway company from this until the end of the war when we may have a better idea of how things will shape themselves, it might be very desirable to see what type of transport is likely to be available and what our requirements are likely to be in the post-war period rather than by guessing at what they will be. The Minister said that we are dealing with something that we cannot foresee with any exactitude, and that is true. We are actually planning for transport requirements without having any realistic idea of what they are likely to be.

To my mind, the unification of transport makes it more vulnerable from many aspects and therein lies a danger. It may make it more vulnerable from the labour point of view, in that if the country is dependent on one monopoly organisation in respect of transport, it is quite on the cards that we might have a strike which would paralyse the whole country.

In that regard, I am glad the Minister has seen fit to allow lorries owned by private individuals for carrying their own goods to continue in operation. Certain provisions in the Bill in this connection are rather unorthodox, but I suppose the 1933 Act is being abused in so many ways that it is scarcely fair to blame the Minister for having recourse to the method he has adopted, by which a man is assumed to be guilty until he proves himself innocent of carrying goods other than his own. So far as the ownership of a lorry by two or more individuals is concerned, it seems an extraordinary provision that a lorry cannot be operated except for the carriage of goods owned by both people. That is almost impossible and may inflict very definite hardship. I can understand what the Minister is getting at—he wants to stop certain abuses—but he will hurt certain individuals carrying on legitimate business. Suppose there are two small traders, or even two small farmers, who decide to operate a lorry for the carriage of their own goods. It is not economic for each to own a vehicle as there is not sufficient work, but there is sufficient work if they combine. The Minister's provision will definitely operate against that procedure because that lorry would be used for the carriage of each man's goods separately. It might carry the Minister's goods to-day and my goods to-morrow. I wonder how will the provisions affect co-operative societies?

It will not affect them at all.

In the case of licensed hauliers, it appears that, for the moment anyhow, they are to be left untouched and the Minister has taken power to extend the licences in cases where it is desirable to extend these licences under the 1933 Act to certain other goods and commodities. It appears that it is the intention to allow them to continue to operate their lorries, but there is no assurance that they will be allowed to do so for all time. Is the provision in regard to acquisition under the 1933 Act not still in operation? There is a definite limitation in that there is no possibility of additional private individuals coming in to sell transport. I think the preservation of the existing lorries would be very healthy because a certain amount of healthy competition is absolutely essential to ensure that the monopoly transport company will work efficiently and at a fair price. We have not got sufficient information from the Minister. I have already referred to that, and I want to say that my attitude to the Bill, so far as my interpretation of its various provisions is concerned, is that I am opposed to it and intend to vote against it, unless the Minister is prepared to give us more definite and detailed information.

I join with the other speakers who have suggested that, because of the magnitude of the problem with which the Bill deals, the whole matter should be approached with care and caution and that any suggestion of the Bill being rushed through should be avoided. I think there will be agreement that, no matter what is in the Bill and what it is proposed to do under its clauses, the present position of transport cannot be altered by the operative date, which is given as July 1st. If that be so, I suggest that there is no apparent reason why the measure should be taken even on Second Reading to-day, but whatever may be said so far as the Second Reading is concerned, I suggest that, having regard to all the interests involved, at least a reasonable interval should be allowed to elapse between the Second Reading and Committee Stage and that that interval should not be less than four weeks, or three weeks as an absolute minimum, so that interested parties may have an opportunity of studying a Bill which runs into 117 sections and 10 schedules. I feel certain that that point of view will be put forward with some force by later speakers.

It is the usual practice on occasions of this character to taunt members of the Opposition that they can approach matters of this kind in a rather lighthearted fashion because they have not got responsibility, and I was rather glad that the Minister, in his speech this morning, complimented, inferentially, if not directly, the members of the Labour Party for the trouble they took in connection with their examination of this whole transport question. It is perfectly true that, for some months past, members on these benches have examined this problem and that, as the Minister indicated, a copy of their findings was sent to him. The only line of divergence which I could find in his speech from our proposals, which are, of course, proposals for a nationally-owned and controlled concern, was that he did not now agree with nationalisation. He gave as his reasons the dangers, as he sees them, in relation to subvention and other matters, and particularly the question of political pressure arising out of policy or staff.

We deeply deplore the attitude of the Minister in that respect. We had reason to believe that it was his personal policy—he expounded it on more than one occasion—and it was certainly the policy of his Party. Railwaymen generally believed—and I can speak as a railway man myself—that, given the opportunity at some time or another, the Minister particularly would implement such a policy. He has given as one of his reasons for not adopting that policy the question of the subvention of traffic, but, broadly speaking, as has been indicated already, there is no very great difference so far as the Bill is concerned in that respect, because certain people will receive subventions of one kind or another under it. So far as political pressure may arise, we have the example of the Post Office. The Post Office is a national concern since the setting up of the State, and if I am to infer from his remarks that the employees of a nationally-owned transport concern would use their position, perhaps effectually, to bring about a set of conditions which would operate in their favour, might I point to the position of the Post Office employees, who are generally regarded as the lowest paid grade of State servants, so that apparently the political influence which they have been able to wield for the past 21 or 22 years is rather negligible.

The Minister will have noticed from our proposals that, so far as nationalisation is concerned, the viewpoint put forward from these benches was that the concern would be managed as a utility corporation and that we proposed to proceed along these lines, on the basis of compensation which would not violently infringe the rights of anybody concerned. We demonstrated in that memorandum that, on the basis of our compensation, we could, as a matter of fact, have made a better bargain for the new concern, a nationally-owned concern, which would have relieved it of not less than £155,000 paid in interest yearly. That point of view, however, does not commend itself to the Minister and we shall have to turn to the Bill itself.

The Bill is remarkable, in my opinion, both for what it contains and for what it omits. There is abundant evidence that great care is being taken of certain interests, particularly the interests of the directorate and the stockholders, but so far as the staff are concerned the same solicitude does not seem to have prevailed in the drafting of the Bill. Deputy Norton has already referred to the question of compensation so far as the directors are concerned. The Bill provides that certain officers of the company, continuing in office after the 31st December of this year, may still be retained and may get the benefit of compensation for two and a half years, as against the position occupied by the ordinary employee of the company. After all, it cannot be assumed that these officers are in a different category from the ordinary employees of the company. Surely, the employees of the company are very directly concerned, since, without their labour, the company could not be operated at all. It would appear, however, that so far as protection for these employees is concerned, after 31st December of this year no protection can be afforded to them, while it can be given to certain other officers of the company. Apart from that, however, the position is infinitely worse so far as certain employees are concerned, whose services, after that period, will be declared to be redundant. Under the Bill such employees are deemed not to have qualified for compensation if they come into certain categories, such as the closing down of branch lines or altered methods of working. Quite frankly, so far as altered methods of working are concerned, any change in working conditions might be used to show that the employee concerned might have no rights whatever.

In plain language, so far as this Bill is concerned, there is no protection for the ordinary employees whatsoever. It is quite obvious that what is meant in this Bill is that the period of redundancy could not possibly operate after a period of six months, and that, therefore, there can be no question of compensation for such employees. Accordingly, it is my belief that so far as that arbitrary line is concerned, the Minister will have to move away from it. The most vital matter that I am concerned with, if I might be permitted to represent their viewpoint here, is the rights of the employees, as defined under previous Railways Acts. I am particularly referring to Section 55 of the Railways Act of 1934, which was afterwards incorporated in a later Act. That section had reference to the regulation of rates of wages and conditions of service for the employees. It laid down that rates of pay, hours of duty and other conditions of service of railway employees should be regulated in accordance with agreements made, or from time to time to be made, between the trade unions representative of such employees of the one part and the railway companies and other persons by whom they are respectively employed of the other part. Reference has already been made to the fact that that particular section is not included in the present Bill, whereas Section 56 of the Act to which I am referring, presumably, is being re-enacted.

Perhaps I might be permitted to explain that. Section 55 of that Act still applies and remains in force so far as all railway undertakings are concerned. Section 56 applies to the Great Southern Railways Company alone, and is being re-enacted here. Section 55 is still in force and will apply to this company as to all the other companies.

Why cannot it be incorporated in this?

It is not necessary to do so. It applies to every railway company operating here. The only difference between Section 55 and Section 56 is that Section 55 applied to every railway company, while Section 56 applied only to the Great Southern Railways Company, and it is now necessary to ensure that the same conditions will apply to the new company.

Well, I am glad to hear that statement from the Minister, but I am sure he realises that the position will have to be made abundantly clear on a later stage of the Bill. Now, I come to the question of superannuation. I pointed out to the Minister already, that so far as that question is concerned there is a big point affecting the clerical staff. Up to a few years ago, the clerical staffs of the railway companies had a savings fund, with headquarters in London. It was operated through the Railway Clearing House, but it did not prove to be too satisfactory so far as the rates of pensions of retiring employees were concerned. Four or five years ago, however, a number of English railway companies came to an arrangement with certain of the Irish railway companies, which proved to be more satisfactory. Under that arrangement, so far as the staffs themselves were concerned, it was not necessary to have the assent of the clerk concerned as to the payment, on his retirement, of 12 months' salary and the benefits accruing, pro rata. All the railway companies in Ireland gave their consent to the reorganisation of that fund, with the exception of the Great Southern Railways Company. The staffs of the other companies are benefiting very considerably from that reorganisation. They have the advantage of 12 months' salary on retirement, and also the advantage of better benefits. What happens now, however, is that you have a clerical worker employed by the Great Northern Railway Company in the Railway Clearing House down the road here enjoying those benefits while a clerk in a similar position stationed at Kingsbridge, at Cork, or anywhere else is deprived of these benefits. The result of that is that there is a good deal of bitterness. I feel quite sure that the Minister does not know to what extent these benefits have been withheld from employees of the Great Southern Railways Company, or for what period of time they have been withheld. I am quite sure that he is not aware that the clerical employees are not deriving the result of the benefits of the reorganisation to which I have referred.

Because of a rather complicated scheme there is what is known as a system of supplementary benefits which they will be paying in the normal course. The present arrangements are allowed to stand in the Bill but we do hope that as a result of what may take place in committee it will be possible for the Minister to indicate to us that the withheld assent will be given. The only reason given for the withholding of this assent is that the fund happens to be domiciled in London. But the fund has been well managed and has the advantage of having a general committee. Members of the staff of the Great Southern Railways here are sitting on that committee with the members of the manager's committee and take the opportunity of improving it in every possible way but as I say they are deprived of the benefits which have accrued to their colleagues even in this City of Dublin, in Belfast and elsewhere by the withholding of this assent, that is so far as the superannuation of the clerical staff is concerned. There is, of course, in this Bill provision for another superannuation fund to which Deputy Norton referred. That is the one by which members of the staff will be called upon to subscribe to a fund to the satisfaction of the chairman and the Minister. Presumably it is understood that this fund will be on the lines of what has been described as the Dublin Transport Company Fund. I want to tell the Minister quite frankly that the lines upon which that fund of the Dublin Transport Company is being run would not appeal in any way whatsoever to railwaymen. The fund of the Dublin Transport Company is merely insurance to which I understand a subscription is made by the company which can be withdrawn on three months' notice. If a man were contributing for 30 or 40 years and if at that stage the company decided to withdraw from the fund then the fund would collapse so far as that man was concerned. The railwaymen's idea of a superannuation fund involves a matter of joint control and I urge upon the Minister that view strongly because they will insist that it be expressed here to-day so far as we can do so. The words which the Minister employs in the Bill may be deemed to be entirely unsatisfactory. Naturally I will have to refer here to the question of the Dublin transport position to which I noticed the Minister devoted quite a good deal of attention this morning. So far as the Labour Party is concerned even if we were dealing with a national form of transport we consider that Dublin has a special position because it has one-sixth of the population of the State and even in a nationally controlled scheme there would be room for a municipal scheme here. The Minister himself subscribes to that and I believe the reasons he gave for doing so still hold. There are special features attached to Dublin transport particularly in regard to facilities for town planning, housing and other things which would make it most imperative to have a special form of transport. The Minister will say: "Well why not in Cork, Waterford or Limerick?" but Dublin happens to be the only one of them that has its own form of transport at the present time. Cork, Waterford and Limerick are under the Great Southern Railways so that the position is not at all comparable from that point of view. In that respect attention has been drawn to the fact that under an Act option was given to the Dublin Corporation to purchase the concern after 40 years. That position was waived or slowed up in 1927, I think, on account of the Lucan line and I think there was a further extension of the period. In the final analysis it was open to the corporation to purchase in the year 1966. I gather from the Minister that he does not dispute that right in so far as the tramways are concerned. In that respect I say that some of us who are members of the municipal council will have to consult with our law agents, in view of his statement, that is, that the right only refers to the tramways and not to substitute lines. That is a moot point and will have to be looked into. Another aspect of the matter is that there is the question of the way-leaves which amount in value to us to £15,000. There is the question of rates which was a very serious question up to now, but the rates have been a diminishing factor since the tracks have been taken up in part. It was understood so far as the wayleaves were concerned that that was part of the price which the corporation of that period was paying for the withdrawal of its opposition to the monopoly which the tramways company then desired and that the wayleaves would be paid in perpetuity. That is the opinion of our law agent.

But the origin of that agreement was totally different. It was due to the opposition to the Act of 1925 which empowered the company to run omnibuses.

We are advised in any case that we have got a case for compensation on the basis of perpetual payment, but it has been indicated by the Minister that this may be referred to arbitration, and limits are set to the arbitration by the arbitrator, who has to take into account consideration of the disuse of portions of tramways and the wayleaves concerned.

Only to the extent that the arbitrator himself thinks it fair to take it into consideration.

These are the principal points to which I want to refer in this Bill. While more properly it can be dealt with in Committee, having regard to the number of amendments that will be put down in the length of time that will be necessary to examine the Bill in order to secure amendments of the type that we would like, I am going to urge the Minister to ensure that there will be an adequate interval, an interval of not less than three weeks before the Committee Stage is taken.

Mr. A. Byrne

Everybody in the House and in the country admits that we must have railways which must be maintained if the agricultural community is to carry on successfully. From that point of view I wish to give full credit to the Government for their efforts in trying to keep the railways going and to give reasonably good employment which I hope will be better and more plentiful than it is at present. There is a point that I wish to bring forward regarding the Dublin United Transport Company. The Lord Mayor has referred to our law agent's advice. Our law agent has advised us that the Great Southern Railways and the Dublin Transport or Tramways Company as it formerly was, had existing contracts of various kinds, statutory and otherwise, with the corporation, and we have not been able to discover in the Bill any provision for the transfer to the new company of some of the obligations of the dissolved companies secured by the Dublin United Tramways Act of 1881. He points out to us that you are leaving us with all the liabilities and taking from us the assets. Dublin Corporation asked us Dublin members to put forward these views as to how it will affect Dublin City. We all express the hope, as I have already stated, that the maintenance of the railways will be continued, but Dublin must not be asked to nurse the baby to too great an extent, and if there is to be any heavy expenditure in order to keep the Transport Company going, Dublin ratepayers must not be called upon to bear more than their fair share of the burden. You are taking the wayleaves from us. People notice the difference in the concrete roadways and the area where the tram passes, which is in stone sets. All these stone sets have to be maintained by this company. You withdraw the wayleaves and leave the corporation in the position, it is my opinion, that we may have to continue to build strong, solid concrete roadways in order to carry heavy bus traffic, and the result may be that when new routes are opened, say, at our new corporation schemes in Crumlin, Kimmage or West Cabra, which are long distances away, Dublin Corporation may have to put down new solid roads at considerable expense to carry the traffic, while the profits received from the high fares charged for short distances will be diverted to purposes other than the building of roadways. The Dublin public may find themselves under a serious impost to make these roadways, and I ask the Minister to see that Dublin will get fair play and that we will be in no worse position—I will not ask for more —in the future than we are in to-day. In order that the new company may show profit and help other portions of the system that may not be paying their way, there should be no increase in the fares to our people in the city and there should be no curtailment of the distances travelled for the fares charged. We can see if things do not go well on the railways there will always be the inclination to look to Dublin and to try to draw from the Dublin Transport Company moneys that should be put into improvement or better value for the travelling public in the City of Dublin. For instance, we have all agitated in this House in days gone by for ½d. fares or for cheap fares for workers travelling long distances and for ½d. fares for schoolchildren.

All these things were talked about in the past. In my opinion this is the opportunity to revive them in the hope that the Minister will keep in mind that if he can get away with leaving things as they are, he will be doing well and will give us some guarantee that there will be no further heavy impost put on our people but that they will get the same value as they are getting to-day. It may be that with the Minister's advice, assistance and ability we may get better value in the future. Having drawn attention to the fact that there is nothing in the Bill to that effect, I would ask the Minister to introduce some clause that will see that the corporation contracts with these people will be carried out. For instance, the Increase of Charges Act, 1918, is deleted from the Bill, that is, the charges for the electricity and water. Not many years ago when the Tramways Bill was passing through the House, when the corporation found itself with increased expenditure in order to provide water for Dún Laoghaire and, I think, Blackrock, the charges were increased and the Bill, when passing through the House, was amended so as to allow these increased charges to get through. It is quite possible that the Minister will say that these things are already provided for in some other portion of the Bill that we ordinary people have not seen. If they are not provided for I am sure the Minister will see that they are reinstated. Now, I spoke about the fares and the distances to be travelled, and I hoped the fares will be no higher and the distances no shorter, that there will be accommodation for passengers, and that proper shelters for passengers using the services will be provided by the transport company. Go down to Aston's Quay, on a stormy, wet day and see the people waiting for all these long-distance buses. Aston's Quay has taken the place of a big railway station, but there is no toilet accommodation and no shelters for the people. You will see people gathered from O'Connell Bridge to the Metal Bridge waiting for long-distance buses in all kinds of weather. There is insufficient shelter and rest-places, insufficient toilet accommodation, and people have to leave their queues to look after their children and may not be able to get back into the proper places. The Minister referred in his statement—I was not quick enough to catch his exact words—to an advisory committee, and he mentioned the type of people who would be on that committee. The various vested interests are to be represented on that committee, but the Minister did not say a word about the user. People like the Lord Mayor, the City Manager of Dublin, the law agent or the President of the Chamber of Commerce are never put on any committee the Government have power to nominate. I ask the Minister to see that the general public, the users of the railways and buses, will get representation on these committees, as I believe is done in the case of the London Transport Board. At least, that has been conveyed to me. I have no personal knowledge of the composition of the London Transport Board, but I am informed that the public are represented on it and that they give good advice and valuable help to the people in charge of transport there. I earnestly hope that users will be permitted representation on this board, so that the claims of Dublin may be put forward.

The question of way-leaves has been referred to by the Lord Mayor. When various Bills were going through, it was understood that these way-leaves were granted in perpetuity. Now an arbitrator is to be appointed. This arbitrator will not be one agreed to by the parties concerned. The municipality, which has the ratepayers' interests at heart and which may have to suffer heavy losses by the withdrawal of way-leaves and by the necessity for building and maintaining new roads, will have to submit its claim to an arbitrator to whose appointment it will have nothing to say. He may be bus-minded and railway-minded and—I shall not say indifferent to the corporation's claims —not sufficiently interested in those claims as against the desire to see the transport of the country put on a proper basis. I hope that an arbitrator who will have the goodwill of all parties concerned will be appointed.

There are a few other matters to which I wish to refer. I shall not detain the House long because I have never availed of the 20-minute period allowed. My usual time is 10 minutes. Reference has been made to recognised pension schemes but the Minister has not said a word about a rule by the railway company about the giving of a small allowance during the pleasure of the board in cases where men have to go out after long service. Quite recently, a couple of men have been retired at 62 years of age and 63 years of age from the Great Southern Railways. They thought that they would go on to 65 years. These men had to go out without any compensation for their unexpired time. They were physically fit and were doing their work splendidly, as the railway company said. But they were found redundant and they got an allowance.

I do not say that it was a very good allowance but they do not complain of it. The allowance is given during the pleasure of the board. I ask the Minister to see that no injustice will be done to these men under the provision regarding the pension scheme. I know the Minister's sympathy is with these men but some oversight might occur by which they would not come under the Bill. When the Bill became an Act, the Minister and the board might be faced with the difficulty that these men were not in any recognised or legal pension scheme. They are merely getting an allowance subject to the pleasure of the board. They should be properly protected by the law, so far as it is possible to do so.

Let me draw attention to another point—a small point. Two years ago, a railway engine driver came before the Old Age Pensions Committee of which I am a member. He had 16/- a week. Workers of that type go out on that small pension after 35 or 40 years' service. One week before he reaches 70 years of age, the person concerned gets a notice stating: "As you will be 70 years on such a date, your pension of 16/- will be reduced by 10/-, because you will be entitled to the old age pension." That applied in the case of an Old I.R.A. man, named Tom Gaffney, or Tom Gillespie, I am not sure which.

It applied in more than one case.

Mr. A. Byrne

I merely want to give an instance. I know the Minister has his heart in the right place and that now is the time to remind him of these small things so that they will not be overlooked. Tom Gaffney gave service to the I.R.A. as a railway driver. What he did or what he carried I do not know. Nine or 10 years afterwards, he went out of the railway service about 66 years of age and he got a pension of 16/-. At 70 years of age he was told to apply for an old age pension. Then the railway company cut off 10/- from his allowance. The I.R.A. tribunal decided that they would give Tom 9/- a week. The moment he gets the 9/-, off comes his old age pension, so that Tom, having served about 40 years with the railway company and having served in the I.R.A., is left with 16/-. That seems to be looked upon as the standard for old people. To give the Government and their friends their due, after a new Bill was introduced, Tom's pension of 9/- was increased to a reasonable sum. I hope these things will not occur with the new board. In some cases, railway workers apply for the old age pension. The railway company stop 10/- from their pension from the company. Then comes along an old age pension investigator who discovers that a son or daughter is allowing the pensioner 7/- or 8/- a week. As a result, he may get nothing. These are small matters which come before local authorities every day in the week.

I shall not delay the House further except to say that the corporation hopes earnestly that the Minister will see that justice is done to the people of the City of Dublin and that adequate compensation is provided for the way-leaves. I do not mean compensation in respect of the period for which the way-leaves had to run but compensation for the fact that the corporation is apparently now to be deprived of the option of taking over the bus services and of running them under the control of the municipality. By Act of Parliament the corporation had the right to take over the tramway services any time up to the year 1966, I think, and run them for the benefit of the people of the city. I hope the Minister will still leave us that right and that when the matter is being considered all these questions will be taken into consideration and that the arbitrator will not think that he is appointed to protect Government and railway interests alone.

I should like to join in the general chorus—so far it has been practically general—of protest against the hasty consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill. The Minister stated in his opening speech that the principal object of the Bill is to facilitate long-term transport policy. I think he will agree that all Parties in this House should have an adequate opportunity of hammering out that long-term policy. I do not base the case for the postponement of the Second Reading on the enormous amount of public money that is involved in this Bill but on the Minister's own statement. Frankly, I am not in the position, in which I should like to be, to make an adequate contribution to this debate because in the short time at my disposal it was possible to give only a hasty examination to this measure. This Bill when it becomes an Act will include not only one Act of Parliament but several Acts dealing with vitally different matters. I shall give an illustration of that in a moment. I think it very unwise to have this Second Reading debate carried out in such a great hurry. I can quite see the Minister's own point of view, that he has taken a very great interest in this matter, and that having reached the key point of efficiency probably in being able to tell the Dáil in his usual eloquent fashion what the Bill is about, he probably would not like to postpone the Second Stage to a later date. I think, however, that it would have been better in the interest of a long-term policy if the debate had been postponed.

I followed the Minister's opening remarks very carefully and took one or two notes as he went along. With many of his statements and sentiments I am in through agreement, namely, as to what the object of a transport system should be and what is the best method to bring about an efficient system. I do not, however, believe that this Bill carries out these objects and intentions. The Minister went to great pains to outline these objects and intentions. He told us that the Government were not going to do this or that and assured us that such-and-such would not be the law, but his statement really boils down to this: that this is a Bill to amalgamate the company known as the Great Southern Railways with the concern known as the Dublin United Transport Company. So far as I could follow the Minister's remarks, that is what they amounted to. He said that the public generally had lost confidence in the concern known as the Great Southern Railways Company and that it was necessary to give it a new name and a new start in life, by amalgamating it with the Dublin United Transport Company and giving the joint concern a new name. The Bill is undoubtedly drafted, so far as I can judge in the short time which we were allowed to read it, with a view to facilitating a long-term transport policy. So far as I could make out it gives this new company complete control, with certain minor exceptions in certain districts, over passengers and goods and in fact every form of traffic.

These explanatory statements I have come to regard with a certain amount of suspicion because they are worded in such nice language that when one reads an explanatory statement one thinks one has read the Bill. In the explanatory statement here, however, the effect of Section 9 of the Bill is entirely overlooked. That section is dealt with in Part II of the explanatory statement which purports to explain the effect of Sections 6 to 27. Here we have coming into being as a result of legislation the biggest statutory company I suppose in this country, indeed one of the biggest statutory undertakings in the world of its kind. Naturally any person who has any knowledge of the administration of a business company would look to the explanatory statement to see what powers of doing business the company possess and what form of business the company could engage in. While in fact this Bill has the effect of amalgamating two public transport undertakings, it sets out in Section 9 the powers of the new company. By a nice use of phrases, we find that this company can as soon as it is incorporated operate shipping services and create new activities of all kinds.

We have it stated in the Bill that the expression "transport services" means transport services by railway, tramway, inland navigation, sea, air or road. That is the object of this company. Further we are told that the expression "transport undertaking" means any undertaking operating any transport service. So while there are in existence two undertakings which are to be taken over and to be amalgamated to form the working core of this new organisation, under Section 9 the new company will have power to acquire any undertaking which carries on transport services by railway, tramway, inland navigation, sea, air or road. We are giving that over to one man who is to act as chairman of the company, who is to form himself the quorum for any meeting, and who is to be appointed by whatever Government is in power. That is what the Bill means, that we are going to have a traffic dictator, in the air, on the ground and under the ground in this country. There is not a word about that in the explanatory statement. If those who come in here armed to speak on the Second Reading are relying upon the explanatory statement, they altogether miss the purpose and object of this Bill.

I quite agree that if it is necessary to facilitate a long-term transport policy, it is necessary to deal with all those matters. But is it the consensus of opinion in this House, as representing opinion in the country, that we should give to one person, helped by a chorus of "yes-men"—and I shall deal with those in a moment—sole control of every form of transport in this country? I do not think it could possibly be. If the Bill were acceptable on general principles and could be amended in Committee, I would be in favour of it because I think we should have some form of proper organisation in this country in charge of transport. I am at one with the Minister when he says that the idea of transport is to give the best possible service at the least possible cost to the community, that is to say, it must be efficient and economical. Efficiency is to operate through a particular man at the head of affairs. Presumably, economy is to operate also in that way.

When the Minister came to consider this long-term policy he had three alternatives. I am with him in saying that there should be amalgamation and co-ordination, particularly having regard to the vast increase in travelling facilities by air, modernisation of plant, electrification, and so on. He had three alternatives. He could bring into being as a creation an ordinary business company with certain checks by the Government and Legislature on its activities; he could nationalise the railways, or he could adopt the third alternative, which is something that has not yet been fully tried out, and which I would not recommend should be tried out, an undertaking of such gigantic proportions and of such importance to the country in the future, namely, the managerial system. There has grown up during the last ten years in all countries in the world what has come to be regarded as the managerial system. It is more familiar to us, perhaps, in connection with the administration of our local authorities, and so far as that is concerned, I think it is working well. That system is being introduced into business not only in this country but in other countries. That is the 20th-century approach to efficiency by one school of thought. The Minister has adopted that expedient and I do not think that it is the correct one in connection with this particular matter, for this reason: If the Minister could produce a superman—make him dictator, if you like— to run our transport services efficiently and economically, well and good; but no such man, I suggest, could be produced or, if he could be produced, a successor for him could not be found. The Napoleons of business and so on are thrown up only once in a way, and their successors often make a mess of the job they have done. The general public, who are the persons vitally concerned, should have control over this undertaking.

Transport facilities grew up as a result of the joint stock companies, the railways and similar companies amalgamating, and in all countries big companies were created, and in this country the Great Southern Railways. Their primary object was to produce revenue for their shareholders, for the successors of the persons who had originally put up the capital to build the railways. The matter went a step further. The railways acquired ships, and later buses and lorries. Then the point of view grew up that the general public were the people who were entitled to be served. We must approach this problem of long-term planning in regard to transport from one point of view only, namely, what is the best way to create an organisation that will serve the public with proper transport facilities, having due regard to sectional interests, such as the interests of those who owned the capital of the company to be acquired, the workers employed, and so on? I am not so much concerned, except where justice is not done or where hardship is created, with other matters. The interests of the general public are what we are concerned with here, and I cannot conceive that the interests of the public can be safeguarded with the existence of a traffic dictator.

In the days of competition, if the public did not like one form of transport, they used another. The Minister is against competition. I think he said he did not believe in competition. That is, presumably, because the undertaking has to be so vast that it must absorb all competitors. But competition was the check that guaranteed efficiency to the public. If you did not like the railway, you went on the bus. If you did not like a particular railway, you travelled by another. If you did not like the route via Holyhead you went via Fishguard. These were the checks the public had. Under the proposed new system the public has no check whatsoever. It has no check through the Legislature. The laying on the Table of the Dáil of railway accounts is no check whatsoever. If I want to move a cat or a dog, or a bullock or a parcel, or myself, I have a choice of going by air, by road, or by sea, but I must make use of this particular organisation. I am looking ahead to the time when the whole scheme is working according to the terms of this Bill. If there is something wrong, what redress have I? If something goes wrong in regard to the postal service, I can go to my local Deputy and have the matter raised. There is no way in which the public can ventilate their grievances in connection with this public undertaking. They will just have to grin and bear it if anything goes wrong. There is no check whatsoever, and we are going to hand over control to a dictator who can tell the members of the public who may not like his administration, to use a transport expression, where they get off. That is the end of it. If this Bill is going through—as I suppose it will be machined through here —there is one thing I think we should insist on—and I think the Minister ought to agree to it—that is, that there will be some place to which an outraged member of the public can appeal, whether it be the representative of a big manufacturing firm, or a small farmer who has not had a proper wagon for his beast, or an old age pensioner travelling two miles who cannot get a proper seat in a train. Let there be some tribunal or some place to which everyone can go in order to see that the dictator at the top maintains what the Minister is seeking for in this whole Bill, namely, efficiency. I believe the transport system, if run efficiently, would pay for itself, and not only that, but would be able to redeem a considerable amount of the capital outstanding. It cannot do that without being efficient. I do not believe this Bill will promote efficiency with the methods by which the Minister envisages. The Minister's words were that there would be efficiency and economy.

Another matter which must not be lost sight of is that there is no mention anywhere in the Bill of the Great Northern Railway Company. As I understand it, that is an Irish company. It operates in Ireland, and has not got any level crossings on the Border. Of course, that is one of the difficulties we are up against in long-term planning. Leaving that question aside, how could there be a long-term transport planning policy if we do not include within its ambit a transport company that is operating over seven or eight important counties?

That fact is not dealt with. I do not know what the position is with regard to road traffic as I do not live in the great northern end of this State. I do not know if they have operational rights. When this Bill goes through we will have one system operating to the fullest extent in one part of the country and another operating partially only in another end. I assume that the Minister's answer will be what I mentioned in connection with Section 9, that the new company to be brought into existence will have power to acquire the Great Northern Railway Company. I do not see how we could intelligently discuss a long-term transport policy without taking some cognisance of the existence of the Great Northern Railway. In approaching this problem we must do so from the point of view of the public and not from the point of view of sectional interests concerned. The employees must be justly treated, and the shareholders of the concerns being acquired must be justly treated. The latter have already registered their views. I know that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst the employees regarding their position. I have not had time to go into that aspect of the matter, but as regards the shareholders of the company I want to know what they exist for at all. What is the object of having any ordinary shareholders? Is that a bit of window dressing? Is the reference to them put there as a suggestion that this will be still an ordinary company, and not a dictatorship?

Speaking from recollection, I understand that the qualification for a director is ownership of £1,000 of nominal capital in ordinary shares. I think these shares represent something in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000. It could be easily arranged by a dictator that he would be able to control the election of the qualifying directors who would act for him. Even if these directors wanted to they would not be able to represent their shareholders. I cannot see the object of having ordinary shareholders at all unless they are to have some say in the management of the concern. On the one side you have proprietors of common stock without any representation; on the other side you have the public, the users of transport, without any representation; and in the centre you have the chairman. That is what this Bill amounts to. It gives to the company to be brought into existence, subject to some statutory rights which the Minister has in a later part of the Bill, power to do certain things in the way of acquisition and gives it complete control of all transport. Does the Minister think that to be wise long-term planning for transport? We have had enough of experiments. I give the Minister credit for trying to meet the situation and for trying to work out a plan, but I do not think he has gone the right way about it. If the Bill did not contain the disabilities I have pointed out, I would be at one with the Minister, because I agree with what he aims at, but he has gone the wrong way about it and for that reason I cannot support him.

If any Party has a grievance it is this Party, because the announcement in the newspapers on Monday was the first intimation we got that the Bill was to be before the House to-day. We are certainly going to oppose this measure, not so much on the lines of the Fine Gael Party, but because we believe, as Deputy Esmonde stated, that the Bill, so to speak, would mean real dictatorship. I disagree with the Deputy when he said the chairman is going to be a dictator. I do so because in my view the chairman is only chairman in name, as the real chairman will be the Minister.

No, not the Minister.

If you take Section 35 of the Bill—I do not know if I am entitled to go into it on the Second Reading——

Sub-section (3) of it says that the chairman alone shall constitute a quorum at a meeting of the board. Sub-section (1) of Section 37 says that the chairman is the personal choice of the Minister. It provides:—

"The Minister shall...appoint a person to be chairman and the term of office of the first chairman shall commence on the establishment date."

Therefore the Minister is to select the chairman. The chairman forms a quorum; the chairman shall give his decision, and a decision of the board will not count without the concurrence of the chairman. Therefore, there is only a chairman in name. Members of all Parties in the House agree that something must be done so far as the transport of the country is concerned. What use is a Bill of this kind if the ordinary person is given no opportunity of putting forward his grievances to any body except to a chairman in name? His complaints will count for absolutely nothing. Sub-section (8) of Section 37 allows the Minister to influence the chairman by the prospect of a rise in his salary. That will depend on the opinion of the Minister. Sub-section (6) of Section 37 completes the control of the Minister over the chairman. I could go on for an hour with this, but I do not think there is any need for me to do so. To be honest about it, I only read the Bill this morning. So far as control is concerned, I do not think that a more undemocratic Bill than this ever came before a Parliament That is my honest view, and I think it is very unfair of the Government to try to force the Bill through. I would expect the Minister or the Government to set up some type of tribunal that would be independent of this so-called board, which, of course, is the hidden chairman, a tribunal to which the ordinary man could go with his complaint. The great objection so far as the Great Southern Railways were concerned, was that when the company was doing well it had nothing but disrespect for the ordinary public. I believe, in the words of another Deputy, that the Minister's heart is in the right place, that he wants to remedy the present situation, but what we are not in agreement about is his method of doing that. I do not believe that you are going to make bad worse. So far as the Great Southern Railways are concerned, financially or otherwise, it would be impossible to do that. While you are Minister, and even though I say you are the hidden dictator—I do not use that expression in the usual sense—I believe you are dead serious about improving the position.

The Deputy should address the Chair and not the Minister.

Excuse me.

I thought he was referring to you.

No. I was referring to you. I would ask you——

Ask the Minister.

I would ask the Minister to take back this Bill and add a section to it giving people down the country who have grievances about transport the right to go before some tribunal to make their complaints instead of to one individual who is called the chairman of the company. I think that is necessary. I believe that this Bill is a step in the wrong direction for the reason that it sets up a complete dictatorship in many ways. As far as I and the members of this group are concerned, we intend to vote against the Bill. We fully realise that some measure, even some drastic measure, is necessary as far as the transport of the country is concerned. While that is so we still believe that in the past the Great Southern Railways was a dictatorship, so to speak. What is this new transport company going to be but a still greater dictatorship? For that reason we intend to vote against it.

We had an excellent dissertation from the Minister this morning on the recent history of the transport industry of the country and on the many legislative failures there were in trying to bring about a satisfactory position in it. He indicated the magnitude of the problem that is before the House, its importance in the national interest and the equable frame of mind in which it ought to be approached by all Parties. With all that I fully agree. I, however, do not agree that the Minister is likely to get the conditions which he considers are necessary by the indecent haste with which he proposes to push this measure through. Deputy Esmonde has reminded us that the Minister asked the House to look upon this as a long-term transport policy, and that it must not be mixed up with present dislocations of one kind or another in the traffic world. Apparently, we must disabuse our minds completely of anything that is happening at the present time and consider this as a long-term policy.

It is not as easy as the Minister suggests to give a dispassionate consideration to the proposals in this measure for a long-term policy and at the same time completely disregard the conditions which we know exist at the present moment. According to a ruling given by the Chair, we have a set of circumstances which is not capable of being discussed on this Bill. It is not possible to refer to certain personnel. But, it is equally impossible for us to keep the names of certain persons out of our minds, persons who are going to be intimately connected with the control of the railways. I do suggest, with regard to the particular incident which has been referred to that it would be much better if this Bill were withdrawn until the tribunal, which is now sitting, had made known its findings. We have at the moment the position that there is a dislocation of services owing to a fuel shortage. That matter was discussed in the House within the past fortnight. The whole country is at present reading the correspondence which is emanating from the company and from the unions representing the men. I do not think it is of an inspiring nature—the manner which the people who are in control of the railways at the present time have adopted in approaching a national crisis.

They are not in control of this measure.

I am passing from that. If we have any right to use our commonsense, I think that one may say that they are going to be the controllers under this Bill.

That is prophecy.

Is it not a fair assumption?

It will not be denied.

A prophet is without honour in his own land.

There would not be any use in discussing this Bill in an atmosphere of complete unreality. As representatives of the people, we should express what the man in the street thinks about this measure. It is the general impression that there will be very little alteration in the personnel in control of the railways, when this measure is passed. The description of that gentleman's powers has been dealt with adequately by Deputy Esmonde and Deputy Donnellan. They are dictatorial powers and, seeing the way those powers have been used since the recent alteration made by the Minister, amalgamating the management of the Dublin United Tramways Company and that of the railway company, the people of the country—and especially the railway employees—have no reason to look forward with confidence to an extension of such dictatorial powers.

It is the duty of every member of the House to approach this discussion calmly, in order to give co-operation to the Minister in introducing a measure the long-term policy of which will ensure the welfare of the transport industry. We regret that the Minister did not see his way to go the whole hog of nationalisation. Having gone to the extent of guaranteeing £16,000,000 capital from the ratepayers and taxpayers, I am at a loss to understand the omission of the £4,000,000. It appears to be left out in order to be utilised as a smoke screen, to preserve the private nature of the company. Sixteen million pounds is being guaranteed by the State and £4,000,000 is not being guaranteed. On that account, there will be no opportunity in this House for discussion on the control of the company, because of its private character. If anyone tries to raise the question, the Minister will be entitled to say that he cannot allow a discussion, as the company is privately owned and controlled. On the other hand, the ratepayers and taxpayers will be held liable if the company fails to provide the dividends, in the final analysis, on the £16,000,000.

We will have the satisfaction of knowing that the board can be elected, but the members constituting the board must be prepared to stultify themselves completely before accepting a seat. They can sit under the chairman, or the chairman can sit without them. He can make decisions on his own, if they are not present; and even if they are present, he can make decisions himself. No decision can be arrived at without his concurrence. It is an insult to the intelligence of the members of the proposed board, and also to the members of this House, to ask that the control of transport affairs be entrusted to such a board. It would be much better and more decent to set down in black and white that the Minister has lost all confidence in boards and proposes to set up a dictator, to run the railways in conjunction with the Minister and the Government. That is the plain English of it and it would be better to put it in that way.

The Minister, in introducing this Bill, said that the railways must continue to be the backbone of the transport industry. That is heartening news to railwaymen. Many of us believe that the controller who is likely to be the nominee is anything but rail-minded. I should like to know if the Minister's expression that the railways are to be the backbone of transport will have any effect in influencing the controller or dictator to a like point of view. Evidence could be adduced to the contrary, even up to the moment. He has adopted anything but rail-minded tactics and that does not seem likely to change, unless there is a change of heart. I was glad to hear the Minister make that statement this morning and hope he will be in a position to give effect to it, if this Bill becomes law.

In regard to the railway employees, the Minister certainly clarified one point, which was causing great difficulty in the minds of railwaymen, that Section 55 of the old Act would still operate. Certain sections of the Act were being re-enacted and others were not referred to. I would like to know why the pension clauses set out in the legislation of 1924 and 1933, should not likewise be allowed to remain.

Every other portion of the Railways Acts has been made effective, except that to provide pensions for railwaymen, which was part and parcel of that legislation. Various reasons were adduced for the failure to give effect to the pensions scheme.

That is not quite correct. Section 33 of the Act was made effective in full, but did not result in a pension scheme. It required that a scheme should be prepared and submitted to the Transport Tribunal, which was to report as to whether it met the reasonable requirements of the employees. The trouble arose from the fact that the tribunal reported that the scheme did not meet the reasonable requirements of the employees. That contingency had not been provided for in the Act. As a result, that section of the Act was discharged and nothing followed from it. There is in this Bill a new section, which does provide for finality, if necessary, by Ministerial Order.

It does not provide that the workers must be satisfied.

It does not set out the details. It says that a scheme must be prepared and will become operative if necessary by Ministerial Order.

Will the Minister include in the section a clause to ensure that those affected will be satisfied?

We did not make any attempt on the scheme at all. It will have to be prepared and submitted.

The point made by the Minister is correct. In the original Act the company was to provide a scheme. In the second Act, the company was to provide a scheme satisfactory to the representatives of the men. A scheme was submitted which was found to be unsatisfactory. Many interviews took place in the Department between representatives of the company and union representatives, and the company's representatives refused to budge an inch.

That is not quite correct, either. May I interrupt the Deputy for a moment? By 1939, we had succeeded in getting agreement on a scheme between the company and the unions. At that stage, however, the company was not in a position to pay any contributions, as its finances were so weak, and the scheme could not be proceeded with until some legislative changes had been enacted.

We want, at any rate, if and when this pension scheme becomes operative, that it be a satisfactory one. I am not one to stand for a moment in the way of new railway legislation, and would not wish to continue for a moment longer than is necessary the scandal which is taking place of throwing railwaymen on the scrap-heap at 65, and putting them into the position described by Deputy Alfred Byrne this evening. We have been looking forward for years in the hope that some pensions scheme may be introduced for railwaymen; but men have gone out of service and have died since 1933 and 1934, hoping with a hope that never materialised. I would not wilfully stand in the way for a moment, and I hope that due consideration will be given to those men who, in recent years, have had to eke out a living on a miserable stipend, and who have been literally hungry in the streets of Dublin and in other parts of the country.

At the same time we do want, when providing new legislation, that this will not be left at the mercy of the dictator. We absolutely insist that the men should have a voice and that, if they are to contribute, they are entitled to have a reasonable say in the scheme. With regard to the scheme the Minister has referred to, and his point that, if that scheme were completed before the passage of this Bill, it would be passed and adopted, the railwaymen cannot be expected to accept that type of scheme. It may be generous in its provisions, but the company has refused point blank to give representation to the men on the board controlling the scheme. It is set down that the railwaymen can have no say whatever in it. That is a condition of the scheme, of which the Minister may not be aware. It is supposed to be similar in a character to the one operating in the Dublin United Transport Company, which is capable of being withdrawn at three months notice. No one can realise the danger in such a scheme to organised workers. If, for instance, at one time or another, they think it desirable to make a demand for increased wages, this alleged pension scheme could be used as a threat against them and they might be told: "If you persist with your demand, we will withdraw our contributions from the fund."

It cannot arise, because once a scheme is confirmed by Order under this, it is legally binding on the company.

The point is that it could not happen if there is some representation given to the other side in the scheme. It is mentioned that existing valuations, funds or benefit schemes will be continued by the various contracting companies, but one has already been scrapped. A superannuation fund has been wound up compulsorily and the money handed back with the option of investing it in the company at 3 per cent. That has been done before the operation of this measure. I suggest those are indications of the trend of events, of what we are likely to expect from the people who will be placed in control. We want to take such steps as are necessary for the protection of whatever rights we have and the additional rights we hope to secure.

We cannot say that the men have been generously treated, particularly in the matter of pensions. The Minister indicated the generous provisions that are being made for retiring directors. They are fairly generous, but we are not quarrelling with that in the least. But those terms form a shocking contrast to the complete absence of any protection for the men who will be compulsorily retired. In the existing legislation it will be found that there is a period of seven years in which men are entitled to lodge objections and claim compensation if they can prove that they were made redundant by reason of amalgamation. Even then it was difficult for the men, because the company was provided with all sorts of side-doors, back-doors and skylights through which they could get out and prove that a man's dismissal was not due to redundancy. In this Bill only six months are allowed, after which a man has no claim whatsoever for dismissal. The position is that the company would be unwise if they did not hold an employee for six months and then dismiss him, because in those circumstances there could be no claim for dismissal.

The company are provided with every opportunity of proving that the men are not being dismissed because of the amalgamation. They can point to altered methods of working, the loss of traffic and to a dozen other reasons, and it will be almost impossible for a railwayman to prove that he is being rendered redundant because of the amalgamation. I do not think any Government could reasonably ask the Dáil to pass the measure in that form without putting in some protection for the railwaymen, the men who have made the railways possible, who have given their best years in the railway service. Branch lines have been closed down and they may not be reopened. I think it is unfair to ask us to agree to a measure that contains no provision of protection for the ordinary workers on the railways, while at the same time generous provision is made for the men who had nothing to lose but everything to gain by being directors of the company for a couple of years.

The Minister was really amazing on the point of disagreement with the Labour Party's proposal for nationalisaction. He advanced a couple of reasons against nationalisation. One rather amazing reason was that if the railway service was nationally controlled the railway workers would be so influential politically that they might endeavour to compel the Government to run unnecessary and uneconomic services. I honestly believe that if the railwaymen were working for a nationalised railway service they would be as loyal to those in authority as ever they were to a private company. I might mention in this connection the analogy referred to by Deputy O'Sullivan, the Lord Mayor of Dublin. Nothing like that has happened with the Post Office workers and I cannot see why the railway workers should be so influential in political circles that the Minister would be afraid they might exercise a political pull and thereaten the Government in power if they did not get all they required.

The Minister indicated that a nationalised service would automatically mean a subsidised service. I wonder how he comes to that conclusion. He stated that it was the experience in other countries that a nationalised service automatically meant a subsidised service, and he went on further to suggest that a subsidised service would mean an inefficient service. We heard the Minister also mentioning the possibility of an impecunious Minister for Finance dipping into the railway pool as an alternative to fixing heavy taxation. On the one hand, according to the Minister, the railways if nationalised must be subsidised and, on the other hand, there is a danger that their accumulated funds may be used as a pool to come to the assistance of a finance Minister in order to help to balance the Budget. Then there was the third point of the political influence that the railwaymen might be able to wield so as to threaten the period of office of the Government in power. I do not think the Minister need have any worry and I feel sure that he will not lose one wink of sleep suffering from any of those three terrible nightmares.

He does not believe any one of them.

It is a pity that the Minister is not in a position to give expression to his own honest-to-God views. As a matter of fact, I would prefer not to say anything here as Deputy Keyes if I could but repeat the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, in 1931, because I believe there could not be a more effective contribution towards the nationalisation of the railways than that statement. Nothing that I could say in my own poor way could be as effective in favour of nationalisation as the Minister's 1931 statement. The position now is that the Minister, instead of having advanced, has receded. What attempt has he made to try to improve the position? I remember him when the 1933 legislation was going through. We urged him to go the whole hog, and the Minister said: "No. I think private enterprise is entitled to one more chance." Further on he said that if that attempt was not a success, then nationalisation could not be ruled out of consideration any longer.

We have now arrived at the stage when the Minister tells us that he is going the whole distance. The proposed company will have a capital of £20,000,000, and they are making it more or less a State enterprise. They are prepared to guarantee £16,000,000. I suggest that this is merely a smoke screen, and the company will be left at the mercy of a dictator. It will be immune from Parliamentary questions —questions put in the Dáil in the hope of a reply. Why the Minister is so blind to this extent I cannot understand. Even now he ought to reconsider that aspect. He is not going to inspire confidence among the people by this type of control. Deputy Esmonde and the leader of the Farmers' Party are not enamoured of a dictatorship, and the Labour Party certainly are not. We cannot subscribe to it. We suggest that the board that will be initiated by the Minister will be only a board of cyphers. The whole thing will be under the control of a dictator. An advisory committee would be useful on a nationalised railway, but certainly not as advisers to a dictator. It might be that the dictator would dictate to the Minister himself. Deputy Donnellan is afraid that the Minister will be the chairman. I am afraid the manager will be the Minister. So far as that is concerned, the fear is mutual. The only thing about it is that the Minister and the chairman, or the chairman and the Minister, will be completely independent of the control of this House as to how matters are being run or ruined in regard to the railway. I am anxious for legislation that will make a success of the railway; but I have no confidence that this Bill will do it. I believe that the Bill is being rushed with indecent haste, and that the present time is inopportune for discussing it. I think the Minister is unwise in bringing it forward now, because, while we are anxious to have the legislation brought to fruition at the earliest possible date, the maxim, festina lente, could be usefully applied. I believe that the postponement of the discussion would result in a better measure and a better frame of mind on the part of the country and of Deputies. I think we shall lose nothing by postponing the consideration of the measure until the atmosphere is cleared, so that we may get some more reasoned consideration of the proposition which we put before the Minister.

This is one of the most important and, at the same time, one of the most controversial measures brought before this House by the present Government, and I think that it is incumbent upon me to express the view which has already been expressed by the leader of my Party, that their attitude towards the House in the way in which they are rushing on this Bill is an insult to the House and an attempt to undermine Parliamentary institutions in this country. It does not quite stand alone. We had an important Bill—the Drainage Bill— which only reached the hands of some Deputies on the very morning of the Second Reading. We made very little protest. The Bill followed out the report of a Government Commission and, because we were willing and anxious to facilitate the carrying out of public business, we made no protest. We discussed a Bill, which we had no opportunity of reading, for the first day, at any rate, on which the Second Reading went on. It was adjourned for a week and then, of course, we had an opportunity of reading it. Taking advantage of that, and because the House did not protest, a contentious measure, a measure of the first importance, a measure which is introducing a completely new principle into this State, a Bill which is introducing a method of dealing with public money which, so far as I know, is entirely unprecedented, is brought in and we are asked to discuss it fully after a very few days. If there was ever a Bill which Deputies should get time to consider before Second Reading, it is this Bill. Whether it is fear, or whatever emotion brought about the Minister's attitude, I think that, if the Minister were deliberately attempting to prevent harmonious discussion of this Bill and were endeavouring to create an acrimonious discussion upon this Bill, he could have taken no surer course than the course he has taken.

We are asked to discuss this Bill which is half hidden away by a smoke screen. We are asked to discuss this Bill as if we did not know from where it emanated. At least, I suppose we can say from where it emanated, but we are supposed to discuss this Bill without any consideration of the particular individuals who are to work it. What is more, we are not only asked to say that it is for the good of the country and the well-being of our people that Mr. X should be given control of State transport, but we are asked also to hand over—because that is what it amounts to— £16,000,000 of public money to a private company without having the remotest idea of how that money is to be spent or invested. Taking the Bill itself, the Bill does not state, nor does the White Paper, how much of this £20,000,000 is to go to the present shareholders of the railway company. No doubt we could calculate it if we had all the material before us. But certainly it is one of the matters as to which the Minister might have informed us in his opening statement. As to where the balance is to go, we are not informed at all.

The Minister gave us a very graphic description of the condition of the Great Southern Railways. He told us that it had unstandardised and obsolete equipment, that it required new equipment. He told us that it was hardly possible for it to carry on. He told us that the time was coming when actually it would not be able to pay its current expenses. That is the condition of the Great Southern Railways that the State is now asked to acquire—a thoroughly bankrupt concern, according to the Minister. The Minister stated, of course, that he thought a good deal of that was due to bad management, and that at the present time the management was better. The Minister assumes that such alteration as has been made in the management has been an improvement, but what evidence has the Minister given us that the alteration has been any improvement? I know from the point of view of a passenger upon that railway that I can see no possible signs of improvement or of efficiency. The last day I was going home from Dublin when I left Westland Row at 10 o'clock and at 11 o'clock I knew that I had not reached Liffey Junction, I could not see that there were any great signs of efficiency. Possibly I might not mind a train breaking down in the course of its journey—you could make every allowance for the fuel supply—but when I discovered an engine starting off from Westland Row in such a condition that it cannot reach Liffey Junction, I certainly think that there is very great inefficiency somewhere. I see no sign of the improvement which the Minister talks about. So far as I am concerned as a passenger on the line, all I can see is that the new management is not one bit of an improvement upon the old, and I am making as much allowance as one is bound to make for the fuel situation.

We have a completely bankrupt concern, as the Minister says, and what are we doing with this bankrupt concern? We are giving it a present of £16,000,000 of Government money, because it is exactly the same thing whether I give a person a present of £16,000,000 or whether I guarantee the interest on £16,000,000. If the Minister would pass a special Act to give me a present of £1,000,000 out of State funds, or if the Minister would give me a guarantee that, if I borrow £1,000,000 from the Bank of Ireland, he will pay the interest, I would not really care, if I had the option, which of the two I got. I would have a magnificent time on either.

That is the position here. A bankrupt company is being given £16,000,000 of public money. I think it is the most astonishing thing that has ever been done. If the State proposes to take over a particular undertaking, I do not see that the State is bound to pay, nor indeed do I think the State, as trustee for the public, is morally justified in paying to the owners of the concern any higher sum of money than the owners are entitled to. We have very often had discussions here about the acquisition of land, and we have heard complaints that land for public purposes is being bought over too cheaply. That is being done, but here we have the State taking over a bankrupt concern and paying good hard cash for it. My first objection to the Bill is that the State is being asked to pay to the shareholders of the Great Southern Railways far and away more than the Great Southern Railways are worth. There can be no question about that, and there can be no question that they are being given millions more than their company is worth.

I cannot deal, and I am not attempting to deal, with the inquiry into stock transactions, but I can deal with the facts which led up to the inquiry. Everybody knows that when it was bruited abroad that this largesse was proposed to be scattered by the Fianna Fáil Government amongst the shareholders of the Great Southern Railways, however it was so bruited abroad, the shares immediately boomed and boomed on the Stock Exchange and that, although it passed completely and entirely unnoticed by the Minister, there was an amount of vigour in the dealings on the Stock Exchange which was entirely unprecedented. Why was that? Why was there this extraordinary boom in these shares? It was due to this particular fact, that the shareholders were to get twice as much as they were entitled to get, and therefore the shares doubled in value.

I have as much sympathy as anybody can have with persons who had money invested in railway stocks—some persons had their all and others a great deal of money which was of tremendous importance to them invested in railway stocks—and who, when railway stocks went down, owing to road competition and other things, lost all their property. I have the greatest sympathy with them, but I do not see how this House, as trustees for the public, is liable to make good to them a loss of that nature. I remember when there was a catastrophe in Dublin about 40 years ago. There was a national insurance company which was looked upon by all persons in Ireland as being one of the most solvent bodies in which one could conceivably put one's money. Unfortunately for the shareholders, the shares were not all paid-up shares. That company speculated, or, at least, dealt largely with business outside the country. There came the earthquake and fire in San Francisco and the company was unable to meet its liabilities without calling up all the uncalled-for shares, which created woe, havoc and desolation in many households in this country. But no one then proposed that, because the shareholders in that company had lost their money, the State should step in and make good the losses.

If the unfortunate shareholders in Great Southern Railways have shares that were of little or no value, the State is not justified and this House, in my judgment, is not justified, in being charitable to them, and in giving them, out of mere charity, a great deal more than their shares are worth. We might like to do so, but as trustees of the public, as trustees for the taxpayers, we have no right to buy over, and I say we have no moral justification for buying over an undertaking at twice its value. That is one of my main objections to the Bill.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn