At one o'clock to-day I was referring to the fact that the Minister had been a fairy godfather to the shareholders of the Great Southern Railways and the Dublin United Transport Company because he had given them in compensation for the stock which they held a sum of money which is fantastic compared to the normal actuarial value of this stock and much more, I suggest, than the shareholders themselves ever dreamed they would get. Under the Bill we give to the Dublin United Transport Company shareholders something like 26/- for shares which were quoted a few years ago at 7/6. If they have an enhanced value it is only because of the emergency in which passengers have been almost tinned in the limited accommodation available for passenger transport. Similarly the Great Southern Railways shareholders are getting a fantastic price for their stock. We have guaranteed £16,000,000 in debentures as to principal and 3 per cent. interest on this £16,000,000 redeemable debenture stock so that if the company does not make a profit they can come along and say: "Come on lads you promised in 1944 to guarantee 3 per cent. on the £16,000,000 redeemable debenture stock, hand out now the equivalent sum in dividends." If it should happen to fail, then the State through the taxpayers will be liable to refund to the stockholders £16,000,000 principal which the State guarantees under this Bill. An examination of the movements of railway stocks is particularly interesting. In March of last year the chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company who is the Minister's nominee painted what can only be described as a very depressing picture of the finances of the railway. He said that no dividend could be paid and that the reason for the nonpayment of dividend was that on over 50 per cent. of the company's lines no profits were being earned. Generally the picture he painted was rather distressing from the point of view of the shareholders and indeed not very encouraging from the point of view of prospective investors. It gave very little encouragement from the point of view of the gamblers in stock exchange shares.
What happened after March, 1943? Ordinary stock worth £9 in March, 1943, had jumped to £52 by March, 1944. Preference stock worth £14 in 1943 was worth £52 in March, 1944, and debenture stock which was worth £56 in 1943 was worth £90 in March, 1944. It is very clear from this that the method adopted by the Minister to compensate shareholders in respect of their share interest in both companies has been very unsatisfactory and certainly unprofitable from the point of view of the taxpayers who have been called upon to guarantee the principal and interest of £16,000,000 of debenture stock. If, for instance, the Minister had bought the shares of this company in 1943 he would have bought them at approximately £5,000,000 less than the shareholders are getting for these shares to-day. Because of the method adopted by the Minister, the position to-day is that—and the public ought to realise it because it is being done in their name—these people are getting £50 to £80 for shares which could have been bought 12 months ago for from £12 to £15. I do not know why the Minister is compensating these people on such a generous basis. It is little wonder that these people realise the Minister's generosity when, notwithstanding a campaign against the Minister's and the directors' proposals, they have accepted the Minister's guarantee with such enthusiasm.
The transport and railway companies have been operating on the legislation passed in 1933. The whole community knows that that legislation was in operation and that the companies concerned were subject to its provisions and the investing public knew if they were buying shares in these companies that they were subject to this legislation. It seems to be a reasonable proposition to suggest that in these circumstances the value of the shares held by the shareholders in both companies should not be the artificial values which are the outcome of an emergency situation, but the average value of the shares over the past ten years. If the Minister would apply that method to the valuation of the shares—and it is a reasonable one— then the shareholders will not get for their shares at the public expense the inflated price which they will get under the scheme of compensation in this Bill. Reading through the Bill one thing stands out prominently—the care and solicitude bestowed on the capital interests and the solicitude which the Minister has shown towards the holders of capital invested in the companies. Wherever their interests were affected the Minister is most generous and lavish. Evidence of that is to be found by the examination of the compensation provisions in the Bill. Shares not worth a song a few years ago have now become gilt-edged securities, and as I have already said, we are paying £50 to £80 for shares worth £12 to £15. Wherever the capital interests were concerned the Minister has been generous in the method of making provision for the people concerned. The Minister has guaranteed the profit of gamblers on the stock exchange who have now managed, because of the advance information they possessed, to get shares the value of which has been considerably enhanced because of the community's guarantee of the principal and interest of the £16,000,000 debenture stocks. While there has been a very generous and magnanimous attitude adopted towards the capital interests concerned in the Bill, there has been a most niggardly and unsatisfactory attitude adopted in the Bill towards the staff. The Minister told us there was to be provision in the Bill for compensation for persons who may lose their employment as a result of this merger. When one examines the Bill one discovers that this applies only to persons who may lose their livelihood within a period of six months following the operation of the Bill so that as between the 1st July next and the 31st December next anybody who loses employment will get compensation in the manner provided in the Fifth Schedule of this Bill. But everybody knows that it inevitably takes some time before a scheme of this kind gets into operation.
Some preliminary work has to be done. Plans have to be formulated. They are subject to examination and review and, finally, a decision as to their implementation has to be taken. Then the process of putting them into operation begins. It is very difficult, and oftentimes impossible, to have a scheme of this kind in operation within six months of the nominally operative date. I suggest to the Minister that the effects of this merger will become obvious only after six months from the 5th July next. But any person who loses his employment with either company after 31st December next will get no compensation whatever under the provisions of this Bill. To obtain compensation he must lose his employment within six months after the date of operation of the Bill. If he loses his employment seven months after the date of operation of the Bill, then, although he may have 30 or 40 years' service, he can get no compensation from the company. The company may, for its own reasons, say: "We shall tolerate redundancy for six months because, after six months, the reins are off so far as we are concerned and we can do what we like with the staff." They can adopt the attitude that, by tolerating redundancy for six months, they will be free to do what they like by the end of that period and that it will be better for them to put up with redundancy for that time and save the cost of pensions for life in the case of persons with service of five years or more. Even if the company do not adopt that attitude of deliberately, and legally, avoiding their moral obligations, they can slow down and soft-pedal in connection with reorganisation. They can permit that reorganisation to develop leisurely, so that it will become operative only after six months from the date of the operation of the Bill. In that event, the company can ride away without making any provision for compensation for railway employees who may have given a life-time of service to the railway industry. If the Minister thinks that he is treating the staff justly, I do not know what his conception of justice is so far as the staff is concerned, though his conception of justice so far as the shareholders are concerned is most marked in the provisions of this Bill.
Assuming that redundancy takes place within six months from the date of operation of the Bill and assuming that a man is dismissed within that period, another interesting situation develops. It is a defence by the company against a claim for payment of compensation, if they can show that the dismissal of the man or his redundancy was brought about by the closing of railway lines. If the railways company want to get rid of a certain person, they can say that they are closing a certain line. That is sufficient.
