Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jul 1964

Vol. 57 No. 19

Transport Bill, 1964—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Dooge

Section 2 deals with the changed duties of the Board of CIE. The only alteration from section 7 of the 1958 Act is that under the Act, as amended, it will be the duty of the Board to do certain things, having regard to the subsidy payable to the Board. This is a small change in words but it represents a major change in the position of the Board of CIE relevant to the Minister and relevant to the community.

The Board, under the 1958 Act, were given a far greater measure of freedom and duties were imposed upon them on the understanding that the Board would, with the duties and the freedom which they had, be able to break even. Now we have the position, under the new dispensation, where a subsidy is payable. This subsidy is payable for certain reasons. The Government have taken a certain decision in regard to transport. They have decided that the railways must be maintained. They have, as it were, made decisions on the Board's transport policy.

I should like to ask the Minister how this affects the general duties of the Board, as amended under section 2? Does the Minister, when the Government make a decision of this type, inform the Board that it is now the general duty to develop the transport policy within the limitations of these Government decisions? I should like to remind the Minister that the Board of CIE asked the Beddy Commission and in the Pacemaker Report that there should be a restriction on private haulage. Apparently the Government again decided to deny the request of CIE in this particular matter. Again, I should like to know whether this is a Government decision and how the Government's views and the Minister's views are conveyed to CIE? I should like to know in what manner CIE are informed of these factors in regard to their general duties?

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I have already had discussions with the Board of CIE, which will be confirmed in writing on the passage of the Bill through the Seanad and its final signing by the President, that they must live within the subsidy, that the subsidy is no indication that CIE can proceed to say: "Well, we have £2 million a year subsidy and as long as we live within that, the Government will be satisfied."

I made it clear to them that the subsidy is, on an average, high by European levels, that the reason for this is that we have absolutely no international transit traffic, that we have no large mineral ore carrying, that a great many of the industries are situated on the coast of Ireland and can bring no revenue to the railway company in relation to the transport of raw materials and manufactured goods from the centre of the country. These matters are all being made clear to CIE and I recognise that fact.

I expect them to live within the subsidy. I have informed them that we do not intend to restrict the use of private transport but I have also informed them that we do not intend in any large measure to reduce the limited monopoly they possess, which is conferred upon them by the Acts governing the licensing of private carriers. In regard to the thousand licensed carriers existing by virtue of a number of Acts passed since 1933, amendments made in regard to the provisions of these Acts would not be such as to remove this very limited monopoly conferred on CIE in relation to road transport for reward.

I have made these facts perfectly clear to the Board of CIE, and they will be confirmed finally in writing when this Bill has passed through the Seanad and has been signed by the President. It has been made clear to the Board that they are supposed to live within the subsidy and I expect them to show the same efficiency and initiative as is shown by a number of other State companies operating here today. It has also been made clear to them that they should not take advantage of the subsidy, such as might happen in the case of any State company given subsidies or grants not of a capital character, as in the case of the ESB rural electrification subsidy and in the case of industries provided by grants by An Foras Tionscal, but a subsidy providing the balance between current operating revenue and current operating expenditure.

I have made it clear to the Board, and have challenged them to prove, that a State company can receive a subsidy of this kind without becoming inefficient. CIE are one of the largest State companies in the country. They have a turnover of more than £20 million a year and employ 20,000 persons. I believe they will live up to the challenge facing them. I believe the Board and the staff of CIE will accept the challenge put up to them in being the first major State company to receive a subsidy in a new form, a subsidy which provides the difference between operating revenue and operating expenditure.

I should emphasise the difference between CIE and other companies. I have already stated that the air companies, Aer Lingus, Aerlinte and Aer Rianta, do not remunerate the capital they have received up to date. I have given the reasons in previous debates for that fact. I have indicated that in future out of a total of £14 million of annual capital expenditure, the State will only provide £2 million of equity capital. I have shown the difference between the air companies and CIE. In the case of the ESB, they repay the interest and the principal on the loans they receive from the State, or loans issued to the public guaranteed by the Minister for Finance. The only subsidy they receive is a once for all capital grant for the establishment of rural electrification. I have also indicated the difference between CIE and the farming population, who receive a guaranteed price for some of their products and who also receive outright grants for capital expenditure. I made it clear to the House why there is a certain temptation to exploit the operating current subsidy, and I have done my utmost to make it clear to the Board that they should set an example to the community and not take advantage of the psychological difficulties that will operate in a company receiving current operating expenses.

Having regard to the character of the Chairman of the Board and the very excellent relations that exist between the Board and the majority of the workers of CIE, I believe they will carry out the commitments which I have given them.

Professor Dooge

I am not so much concerned with this section and the effects of the subsidy on CIE, but rather with the manner in which the duties and the operation of the Board are circumscribed by Ministerial and Government directives. The Minister has indicated that he will, on the passage of the Bill and its signature by the President, convey in writing to the Board of CIE certain headlines of policy within which they must operate.

I should like to ask the Minister whether these major headlines of policy will be made public, whether the Minister will on the occasion of conveying major directives of policy to CIE make public the fact that he has done so, or whether CIE on the occasion of their annual report will indicate that they have received those directives so that it will be clear then to the public and to the members of the Oireachtas the extent to which transport policy is being determined by the Government in laying down definite directives and how much responsibility is borne under this section and under section 7 of the 1958 Act by the Board of CIE.

Mr. Childers

I realise it is difficult for the Press to publish everything that is said by a Minister in the course of a debate in this House. I should say, looking back on the debates in this House and in the Dáil, that surely the statement I have just made is sufficient.

Professor Dooge

I appreciate that at this moment that statement is perfectly sufficient in regard to the position as it stands at the moment. Let us take the position 12 months from now. If, in the meantime, directives have been issued, how will these be indicated to the House?

Mr. Childers

If in the course of 12 months, or in any period between now and the period of operation of this Bill, it is necessary to issue any general directives to CIE in supplement of what I have said, they will be indicated in the course of the passage of the Estimate for my Department.

If the matter is more urgent, it will be indicated on an occasion when I will have an opportunity of speaking on the subject of public transport. I cannot say that the Board of CIE will repeat exactly what I have said in their annual report but I shall speak to the Chairman and suggest that when he produces the next annual report he will say: "We were given the following directives by the Minister for Transport and Power."

Professor Dooge

On this question, I think it is important that the Minister has indicated that at any time the Dáil may discuss the annual report of CIE. I take it the Minister will be prepared to come to this House at any time for the purpose of a discussion, possibly by way of motion, on the annual report of CIE.

Mr. Childers

That is a matter which was first mentioned by the Taoiseach. He was speaking in Dáil Éireann and said in relation to the influence of the Oireachtas over the activities of State companies that he would agree to a debate at any time on the annual report of any State company. I am not sure whether he mentioned the Seanad particularly but I imagine, without committing him to the statement, that he would not have any objections if the Seanad, as distinct from the Dáil, asked for a debate on the operations of a State company.

Professor Dooge

I am thankful to the Minister for that statement. Such a debate would be very helpful. Those of us belonging to Parties in Opposition and those of us who are Independents are in difficulties, because if we put down a motion in relation to the annual report of CIE, there is an aura of the critical about such a motion. If machinery were set up whereby a motion could be tabled annually by the Leader of the House, something in the form: "That this House takes note of the annual report of CIE", we could have a debate then without any predisposition to criticism and could have a useful discussion.

Mr. Childers

I am reminded of the fact that it would hardly be possible in connection with this Bill to debate the annual report of CIE for 1964/65.

Professor Dooge

I am speaking of the next five years.

Mr. Childers

In that connection, as the House knows, we had a prolonged debate on the annual report of CIE in connection with the branch line closures. In the Dáil during the passage of the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power and during the debate on the Transport Bill, there was a suggestion that I had not given sufficient information. I went back on the records—I shall not repeat them in detail—and find that on the occasion of the debate on the annual report of CIE, I think for 1961-62, I gave a great deal of information on the circumstances attending the closure of the lines, including ample information on the financial position and the effect of the closing of the lines, socially and economically, and I would hope that if there is a debate of this kind in this House, we could have the same constructive discussion as we have had up to now on the Transport Bill.

Professor Dooge

I do hope some arrangement can be arrived at to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. McGuire

On this section I feel I can relevantly make a remark I put generally on the Second Reading when I suggested there should be a Parliamentary Committee to take the place of what in the ordinary way would be the shareholders of a company. The Minister, in his reply, said he thought such a committee would not work effectively without an enormous team of experts to assess the company's reports. That is not the case in an ordinary company. The shareholders would not need experts. Indeed, the Minister himself is not an expert. A Parliamentary Committee of the sort I have advocated would avoid a discussion on details, which would not be fair to the Chairman or to the board, on day-to-day running which would arise from having the report debated in this House or in the Dáil. The setting up of such a Parliamentary Committee would satisfy this House.

Mr. Childers

It is a matter for the Committee of Procedure and Privilege to decide whether a debate should be held in the presence of the whole of the Dáil or Seanad, or of a Joint Committee of both Houses. As the Senator knows, the number of debates held by either House in which only a limited number of members participate is very small. What I was thinking of on Second Reading was a Parliamentary Committee before which the Chairman of CIE or of the ESB would be summoned. I am sorry I misunderstood the Senator. The arrangement for participation as between the full Seanad, all members of the Dáil, or of a Special Committee is a matter for the Committee of Procedure and Privilege. I would certainly be willing to be present.

Professor Quinlan

I should like to pursue a little further a matter I raised on Second Reading. Under this section, the main duty laid on the Board is to balance their accounts with the aid of a subsidy of £2 million per annum. There is no other duty mentioned here. That is the main criterion by which success or failure will be judged. Suppose CIE carry out a certain operation abroad, in England, at a cost of £500,000 and that the same operation could be carried out at home, either by CIE or some Irish concern, at a cost of £600,000. My reading of this section suggests that CIE should take the lowest tender and that they would not be justified in incurring the addition of £100,000 by placing the contract here. I would ask the Minister if my contention is correct. I shall develop the rest of my supposition depending on the Minister's answer.

Mr. Childers

It is a very difficult question to answer. The Senator speaks of contracts into which CIE might enter and in which expenditure is involved. Under the Transport Act, CIE, when they seek tenders for contracts, are not obliged to accept the lowest tender. If a situation arose in which the national interest entered into the question of who should get the contract in any large way I would expect them to consult me, but I am not aware of such contracts.

I am not aware that contracts of the kind likely to be entered into by CIE would create controversy of that kind. As the Senator knows, there are general conventions in regard to the case of Irish materials. Irish factories are still highly tariffed and there is the protection afforded them by that tariff system. If a contract involving the sum mentioned by the Senator were under consideration and if CIE were in some difficulty in regard to its award, I would expect them to consult me if a national problem were involved. CIE buy materials for their hotels, rolling stock, rails, oil fuel. I cannot envisage a situation arising such as that to which the Senator refers, in any large measure.

Professor Quinlan

I think the situation arose quite recently in connection with the buying of buses in a more fully assembled condition. I accept the fact that it was probably impossible for CIE to carry out the work here at that stage but I want to make the point that I am not satisfied that there is a mechanism there for dealing with that. In other words, I should like, in the case of any substantial contract being placed by CIE or any other State company outside of the country, that some State Department, perhaps the Department of Finance or else the Department concerned, like the Department of Transport and Power, should have first of all to OK the placing of that contract outside.

If I may briefly give the effect of this. If CIE could have something done, whether it was building coaches or buses, outside, at a cost of £500,000 and if it cost them £600,000 to do that in their own works or to give the contract to some Irish contractor to do it, the difference between the two is that CIE are worse off by £100,000; their balance sheet would show that and, therefore, as a company they should not have done it. On the other hand, if we look at the national balance sheet, which is far more important, the starting of an activity here which produces £500,000, when it is reported on in the national income at the end of the year would have magnified and would show at roughly about 1.6 times that amount, say, at £800,000, and the tax yields would be up, due to the fact that the national income was up and the tax yields would in the average recoup about 25 per cent of that, so there would be £200,000 more in the Exchequer due to that activity.

I submit that it is self-evident that it is in the national interest that a job should be done here which costs £100,000 more but generates £200,000 additional taxation. In other words, even if the State has to foot the bill for that additional £100,000, there still would be a residual £100,000 left in the Exchequer.

I am not satisfied that there is any mechanism here to show how the impasse can be got over. Where the Minister OK's the incurring of this increased expenditure by CIE as being in the national interest, perhaps at least a step towards it might be if CIE in their report at the end of the year could list expenses such as these which were occasioned by CIE acting in the national interest rather than in the smaller company interest and where they could show in their balance sheet that due to the manufacture of so many carriages at home, there were increased costs of so much and therefore this part of the loss is a legitimate charge against the national expenditure.

We are providing £2 million and it must be provided for those cases where CIE are acting in the national interest because where CIE are acting in competitive capacity, as in the haulage of goods for private firms and so on, they are given the haulage of these goods solely because they are able to quote a price under what the companies estimate it would cost themselves to do it and therefore there is no reason why we should subsidise it.

Again, take travel. Large cities and so on are more than self-sufficient in that the receipts cover the expenditure on buses and so on but we would all agree that it is reasonable that in sparsely populated regions, there is a certain social obligation to provide at least a minimal service and we would not object in the slightest if we saw in the CIE balance sheet so much made out as being legitimately chargeable for providing this social service for these regions, just like the ESB balance sheet shows the loss they reckon they incur on rural electrification. There could be a segregation of accounts. If in the CIE balance sheet we could be shown where a large portion of this £2 million went, we would be far happier and CIE would feel that they were justified by being able to show that their expenditure was incurred in the national interest, like the building of certain vehicles here when they could have got them ready-made from abroad at lesser cost.

All these things are highly desirable. In the absence of the committee which Senator McGuire advocated here and which many of us have advocated on many occasions, at least CIE should be encouraged to segregate their accounts as far as possible and to try to segregate as far as possible the commercial from the social side—the obligation to maintain this minimal service for our people.

Mr. Cole

I am not quite sure that I could agree with Senator Quinlan's proposition at all. Surely, in the simplest form it would come down to a position where, if there were a contract in respect of which CIE were asking for tenders which might be accepted from inside or outside the country, a firm inside the country might easily, if Senator Quinlan's argument is followed, put in a tender at his figure—one-fifth or one-sixth above what they assumed an outside firm would tender at on the supposition that CIE, out of their £2 million grant, would be forced practically to accept the tender from inside the country. In its simplest form, Senator Quinlan's argument boils down to that.

I could not agree. I would say that it is the duty of CIE, taking everything into account, to run the railway company in the most lucrative way for themselves and the State and I think that is the instruction the Minister claims to have given them. I certainly could not agree that in the case of a large contract, or even small contracts, they should be compelled to place these contracts in this country now when we are hoping to put the industries in this country on a competitive basis with outside industries.

Professor Quinlan

I think the Senator has misunderstood the proposition and has simplified it far too much, insofar as the alternative may in most cases be to do it themselves in their own organisation and if it is going to an outside organisation, then we hope that there is competition between outside firms for it. In any case, my suggestion was that it should be necessary to get the consent of some Department to placing the contract outside. That means that the Department would have to be satisfied that the firm mentioned by Senator Cole was really profiteering and that therefore their figure was not a proper figure and that the contract should be placed outside.

There are difficulties and snags. One cannot close every loophole. The main thing I want to ensure is that the distinction between the national interest and the company interest is safeguarded. The Bill, as far as I can see, places only the obligation of safeguarding the company interest on CIE and I cannot see where the national interest is safeguarded.

Mr. Childers

First of all, in regard to the question of the publication of the accounts of CIE, the Pacemaker Report broke down the receipts and expenditure of a very large number of individual services, both by rail and road. The preparation of such a report is extremely expensive. It simply could not be repeated at yearly intervals. There is no such thing as an annual Pacemaker Report or an annual Beeching Report or Benson Report by any railway administration that I know of in the world.

During the next five years covering the period in which this Bill operates, CIE will publish as usual the profits or losses on the separate sectors of activity. It will be my duty to ascertain from year to year whether the Pacemaker analysis is obviously out of date and whether the services on a basis of need rather than economic profit have changed materially in their proportion to the total business of CIE. At the end of the five-year period, without having the detailed report of another Pacemaker, it will be possible for me to report on that matter.

The Senator can be assured that one of my duties will be to oversee the general operations of CIE in order to find out whether there have been any major departures from the profitability of services of CIE in the different sectors, and to ensure that within the limits of the subsidy the service is not deteriorating in a manner which is not in the public interest. In other words, if x per cent of the provincial services are losing money and y per cent are paying, it will be my duty to ascertain from CIE whether that proportion has changed or whether any other circumstances have arisen which would make it desirable for the proportion to change. I can assure the House the question of the need services as distinct from the economic services of CIE will be kept constantly under review during the next five years.

In regard to the general question raised by Senator Quinlan, I can only say to him the Government have not directed that the purchases of State companies should be considered in relation to the factors which he has elaborated. The Government, as I understand it, regard the tariff system as generally adequate to provide protection to Irish industry and I cannot enter into a long economic debate with the distinguished Senator on this matter. I can say that the adoption of his plan, however desirable it would seem in itself, would result in inflation, which would result, in turn, in an increase of imports. As is clearly indicated in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion the Government consider the tariff system to be adequate in that regard.

There may be individual exceptions in relation to that. Where absolutely new industries employing large numbers of people require temporary subsidies, there may be exceptions to that general principle but I cannot give any hope to the Senator that that system will be adopted in regard to contracts because I think they have worked fairly well. I had questions asked of me about purchases by CIE and when I examined the position, I found that even in relation to what the Senators observed, CIE had purchased as much material in this country as they possibly could in the circumstances. I had questions in regard to materials for the renovation and extension of hotels. I found that 90 per cent of the value of the materials purchased were of Irish origin. I do not think we need worry about this. I do not think it arises very largely in the case of CIE or the State companies. It is obvious that if the ESB were to purchase generating equipment on the principle that they must be assembled in this country, the total cost of assembly would far out-weigh any other considerations such as expenditure within the country.

The Senator is entering into a controversy which goes beyond the ambit of the debate and which relates to the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and to the general policy of the Government which has relied on protection and relied on the fact that a great many of our industries are now commencing to export and as a result reducing their overhead costs. I would hope any of the industries supplying materials to CIE in the course of the next five years will be able to become more efficient through productivity, work study, the expansion of exports, mergers vertical or horizontal or co-operative marketing arrangements with their fellow industries.

That is the real solution of the problem and it is a wonderful thing that we have a national productivity authority operating successfully and manned by representatives of the employers and the unions who are encouraging industry throughout the country to take advantage of all the equipment grants given by the Government and to rationalise themselves so that, in fact, except in very rare cases, this kind of calculation need not be made.

Mr. Prendergast

Senator Cole and Senator Donegan raised on the Second Stage this matter of the transport of livestock. As a representative of the cattle trade, I wish to state that we in the provinces are finding it very difficult to get CIE trucks to bring cattle on short haulages. CIE agree that it does not pay them to do this. There is a regulation applying to Dublin that a private owner may carry cattle for reward over a distance of 15 or 20 miles—I am not quite sure of the distance. If that regulation were extended throughout Ireland, it would be of tremendous benefit and would cost CIE nothing. As the Minister knows, the whole trend of the transportation of cattle has changed over the past 15 years or so. Twenty years ago, all the cattle were walked to the fairs. Today it is completely different. There are marts all over the country and if farmers have to go only four miles with cattle, they will look for public transport or any other form of transport. They will not walk them because, for one thing, with the traffic on the road, it is dangerous.

As I say, CIE would not be affected if this facility were extended throughout Ireland. CIE cannot afford to send a truck 20 miles to carry cattle six or seven miles, or even ten miles. If the Minister met that suggestion of mine, it would be very much appreciated by the farmers and other people connected with livestock throughout the country.

Mr. Desmond

The fact is that under this provision a large amount of finance will be involved. Contracts placed by CIE have come up in discussion here. These contracts may be open to outsiders as well as to suppliers in the country. Everyone is free to express his own view but I am rather surprised that, where a subsidy is given by the State to an industry, there should be any consideration in relation to materials from outside when it is possible to obtain the same materials inside the country. They may be a little more costly but we all know that the tariff system was introduced to protect our own industries. Any material manufactured here or any assembling done here provides employment for our people. Where loans, subsidies, grants or State finances of any kind are concerned, we are all agreed, I think, that the money should be distributed amongst our own people. The basic idea is to keep our own people at home and provide them with employment at home. Even if a commodity is more costly because it is home produced, so long as the manufacture of that commodity provides employment for our own people the money is well spent.

I know that diesel engines and certain rolling stock used by CIE are not manufactured in this country. As far as vehicles which can be assembled here are concerned, even if that assembling is more costly, provided it makes employment available for our own people, then such assembling should be done here. Large orders placed outside the country may mean that certain goods can be supplied more cheaply but the basic principle should always be to bring in only what we cannot manufacture ourselves, in the first place, and, in the second place, what we cannot assemble here. Even if the Minister had to increase the subsidy, everybody would endorse a policy aimed at keeping more people in employment here at home.

Mr. Childers

I am afraid that is not Government policy. The Government in their economic policy presume that free trade is likely to spread throughout the world in the next seven to 15 years and we must prepare for that eventuality. Though there may be special theories with regard to the spending of money within the country and the effect of that on employment, we must prepare for free trade conditions. Because of that, the policy of State companies in relation to their purchases is governed largely by the tariff system operating and tariffs are being regularly diminished, as the Senator knows, by ten per cent in each of two successive years, and by ten per cent in January 1965, and thereafter any future reductions in tariffs or quotas will be based on the prevailing economic conditions and on the extent to which such reductions in tariffs may be offset by better trading relations with the various countries, either through GATT, through the EEC, if we join it, or through the Kennedy Round tariff reductions. What might appear to be an arguable theory, therefore, in relation to the extent to which Irish goods should be purchased is overweighed by international considerations and by the crude realities which we face.

I cannot enter further into this argument now because it does not really relate to transport policy. It is a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He has made his position quite clear. I, as a member of the Government, have also made it absolutely clear that the Government's view is that in the course of the next seven to 15 years, tariffs will steadily reduce in one way or another and we must prepare to meet that situation.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Murphy

I oppose this section. I shall not suggest that the Board should wastefully spend capital, and the reason for opposing the section is really to find out from the Minister why it is thought this section is necessary at all. The Board of CIE have been operating a nationalised undertaking for quite a number of years. They have had several subsidies. The last subsidy was £1,175,000 per annum for a period of five years and there was no direction embodied in the legislation relating to that subsidy regarding capital expenditure by the Board. No such provision has appeared in any previous legislation. Neither does it appear in legislation relating to other semi-State undertakings.

If this section is passed the situation will be that the Board, appointed by the Minister and presumably with the full confidence of the Minister, will have to clear with the Minister's Department, and inevitably with the Department of Finance, each individual item of capital expenditure before the Board make any decision at all. It may be that the Minister or the officials in the two Departments are better able to operate CIE and we might be happy to release the Minister to do that job, but that is not the position.

The Minister has appointed a Chairman and a Board and the Minister can remove the Board and the Chairman at any time or reappoint them. Now they are either operating with the full confidence of the Minister or they are not. If we are to have a situation in which the Board must clear every item of capital expenditure, it might be better if the Minister took over responsibility altogether and was thereby answerable for expenditure to the Oireachtas. Here, an effort is being made to have more Departmental and Ministerial control over the operations of a semi-State undertaking without, at the same time, expanding the answerability of the Minister to Parliament for what happens in this undertaking.

I cannot understand why it is necessary now to write this section into this Bill in this year when it was not necessary previously. There is no similar section in relation to other semi-State undertakings and I should welcome some explanation from the Minister as to why this provision is necessary now. Have the Board wastefully expended their capital in recent years? Is that the reason why it is necessary now to write in this provision and get more control and authority over the Board and over the manner in which they expend their capital?

Does the Minister think the Board have been proceeding in a wrong direction? Is he now going to have a look at each individual item and if so, is he going to be answerable to the Dáil and Seanad for decisions he may take on these matters? I think he is going from one foot to another in this. He wants control here but when it comes to a question in the Dáil, the question will be disallowed on the basis that it is an ordinary day-to-day function of the Board and the Minister is not answerable and has no responsibility.

I should like to have an explanation from the Minister as to why this section has appeared in the Bill. I admit and accept that the amendment made to the section in the Dáil improved it very much. It was somewhat fantastic up to that, but you still have this sort of situation that it is now thought necessary to give the Board very specific instructions about capital expenditure and it must be either remunerative or it must be essential to the efficient operation of the undertaking. Has previous capital expenditure of CIE not qualified under either of these two headings? Have the Board of CIE been wasting the capital supplied? If so, the Minister should come out openly and tell us, because unless that is so, I do not see any need for writing this section into the Bill.

Mr. Childers

Previously the financing of CIE was effected by stock issues and the public, if you like, acted as judges as to whether it was worthwhile investing in CIE or not. Now, under this arrangement, the Exchequer is going to provide the moneys by way of repayable advances and interest and sinking fund will be defrayed out of CIE revenues. The estimate for this is included in the annual subsidy. It is for that reason that there is a direction to CIE that they should engage only in capital expenditure which is either remunerative or essential. In response to a proposal made to me by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, I amended the section so that in regard to the expenditure of capital regard should be had to section 7, subsection (1) of the Transport Act, 1958, which states:

It should be the general duty of the Board to provide reasonable, efficient and economical transport services with due regard to safety of operation, the encouragement of national, economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment for its employees.

I did that because the Irish Congress of Trade Unions pointed out to me that whereas probably the vast proportion of the capital expenditure would be for the maintenance of equipment, for the improvement of equipment to suit modern conditions, for the acquisition of new forms of equipment relating to modern methods, there might be occasions where one could say: "If you are going to have a successful operation, a successful company, there should be some capital expenditure for social amenities which, while not strictly remunerative, would be to the general advantage of the company and create happier conditions for the workers."

The Congress of Trade Unions admitted the great improvements that had taken place in many sectors of CIE with regard to canteens for workers, the general conditions under which workers operate, and the removal of the awful chaos in many depots and the substitution of better conditions, cleaner offices and so forth. But there may be some other improvements that are required. As Senator Murphy knows, there are one or two principal stations where these social conditions are far from adequate and therefore we put in the amendment in order to provide that whereas in general this capital expenditure must be purely and cold-bloodedly remunerative or essential to the proper running of the concern, there could be circumstances in which improved conditions for employees could be considered as a factor.

Apart from that, it seems to me that once the Minister for Finance makes advances, on my recommendation, for capital expenditure, it is our duty from year to year to examine the capital expenditure. In connection with that, there will be debates in the Dáil on the Capital Budget of the Minister for Finance and if anybody chooses to raise the question of the amount of capital given to CIE, he is entitled to do so. Equally, on the debate for the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power, it will be possible for any member of the Dáil to raise the question of whether CIE are being strangled through lack of capital or whether capital is being supplied too liberally. In that way, the Oireachtas will have some general surveillance over the Board's capital expenditure. Whereas before there was a general understanding between my Department and CIE in regard to the expenditure of capital derived from stock issues, now there will be more direct control for which I will be responsible to the Oireachtas.

Mr. Murphy

What the Minister has said about the change now in the capital supplied to CIE sounds reasonable, but I come back to the main question. The Oireachtas has supplied the capital to other semi-State undertakings and in those circumstances has there been written into the legislation a clause like this, directing the undertaking in detail how they should use the capital? If there has been such a clause, then the explanation is fully satisfactory to me.

Mr. Childers

I think it is true that this is rather a novel section——

Mr. Murphy

That is what I was afraid of.

Mr. Childers

It is due to the fact that this is the first occasion on which a large State company seeks an operating subsidy to balance current expenditure and receipts and it is for that reason that we have put in this disciplinary clause. I think on the whole the public would defend it.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is changing his footing. Now it is related to the subsidy. I am still concerned with how it will operate in practice. I have no particular axe to grind in regard to the trade union movement. Their point has been met by the amendment in the Dáil. The Minister referred to improvements in staff accommodation, offices and so forth, and in another capacity I would be happy to acknowledge to CIE the vast improvement which has been made. I am not entering into that field and I am not discussing whether or not money should be spent on that at all. That is covered in the section as it stands. What I am concerned with is the general parliamentary approach to this question.

It seems to me that in future the Board of CIE are going to have to account for, or get permission from two Departments, for every item of capital expenditure before they come to a decision at all. That seems to me to be a wasteful procedure. If there are people better qualified to run transport, it would be a good idea in the national interest to put them in and let them do it. We are going to have a situation in which individual items of capital expenditure will have to be agreed on and be subject to direction from two Departments without the Minister being in any way answerable to Parliament. That seems to me to be a very ridiculous and bureaucratic way of going on. The Minister is not going to come to the Dáil or anywhere else and accept responsibility for particular items of capital expenditure. The question will be disallowed. Instead of the Minister having as heretofore a general responsibility for semi-State undertakings, if this section stands his Department and the Department of Finance will have a control over each item of capital expenditure by CIE. I think that is ridiculous.

Mr. Childers

We could get into a glorious philosophical discussion on this subject. I would remind the Senator that section 3 says that the Board "shall not incur any expenditure that is properly changeable to capital unless it is satisfied..." Therefore, the first responsibility falls upon the Board in regard to this matter. Again, I am afraid this is a question that cannot be decided by statute. It is a question of the personal relationship of the Board to myself, as Minister for Transport and Power, and whoever else may follow and the Minister for Finance. We have discussions with the Board. We had discussions when the Board were issuing stock. We inquired what increase of productivity they anticipated even in relation to the stock they were issuing for which they required my consent and that of the Minister for Finance. We asked in a general way what was the productivity of the operation. Did it save money at all? Was it simply essential to keep the railways going even though they had earned nothing or did it, in fact, yield productivity?

To give one example, the alteration in procedures for palletisation and containerisation operations at the North Wall was a superbly productive operation in which the annual saving was a very large percentage of the capital expenditure. The Board were accustomed, even though perhaps strictly under the law they were not obliged to do so, to give us general statements in regard to the productivity of capital. Under the present position when the Board receive a large subsidy I see no reason why we should not have a close understanding with the Board, in which there would not be undue interference from me, whereby the Board indicate to us the productivity of their capital operations.

The Senator will realise that, although I have confidence in the Board, when we examine current expenditure and capital expenditure one flows into the other when it comes to depreciation allowances. The current losses of CIE can be reflected not only in an ordinary statement of revenue and expenditure but can be reflected in failure to earn depreciation allowances for the replacement of materials. Having regard to the subsidy arrangements with CIE, I see no reason why we should not exercise this control, which will be exercised wisely and which ultimately becomes a matter of personal relations between myself and the Board of CIE and the very close attention given by my officers to these problems. We are discussing a personal relationship. I can only say that I hope we will have the same satisfactory relations as we have had during the past five years and that this question can be settled in a way which will not result in CIE being starved of capital but, at the same time, will result in CIE spending a level of capital desirable in the public interest.

Mr. Murphy

Of course, but if I were on the Board of CIE I would regard this as an insult to my intelligence and integrity.

Mr. McGuire

I cannot resist interjecting that I think Senator Murphy has pinpointed something else in nationalised industry—the utter confusion that seems to arise between the Board and the day-to-day operations, capital and interference of all kinds.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Dooge

There are two points I wish to raise. First, I should like to ask the Minister in regard to subsection (2), which deals with the terms of repayment of interest and other matters, which are to be determined by the Minister for Finance, if these terms are to be fully published at the times the advances are made. The second point is that section 4 mentions a capital sum of £6 million. Without looking for any great detail from the Minister, could he give us broadly the basis on which the £6 million is computed?

Mr. Childers

These advances are based on interest and principal repayments such as those relating to other companies. I understand the Minister for Finance is not obliged to publish the exact terms, but it can be taken for granted that they will not depart materially from those relating to other companies.

Professor Dooge

On this point, I think there is a difficulty here in regard to this Bill. We have section 4, which deals with advances, and we have section 6 which deals with subsidies. The Minister is perfectly aware that it is possible to subsidise by means of the repayment conditions and of the interest charged on capital. If capital is given and the repayment period is unduly long in regard to the nature of the investment, this is, in fact, a subsidy given through the medium of the repayment conditions. Also, if capital is lent and interest is fixed at a rate lower than the rate appropriate to the investment, this also is a subsidy.

Here in the case of CIE the Oireachtas and the public should be assured that the subsidy will be completely covered by what is contained in section 6 and that the capital advances under section 4, which the Board of CIE have to be so careful about, should be purely economic advances of capital at periods of repayment and at terms of interest which would be exactly the same as if this were a completely commercial undertaking. I am disappointed that the Minister can do no more than say to us these will be no worse than those in regard to certain other State bodies. I am gravely dissatisfied with the failure to disclose these conditions in regard to other State bodies. I am convinced other State bodies are being subsidised under the terms of capital repayment. I am very anxious that this section should not be used for subsidy purposes.

Mr. Childers

I can give an assurance that the Oireachtas will have a right to know if the terms of repayment and interest are of a character such as constitute an additional subsidy to CIE. I think I spoke without sufficient accuracy. If a question were asked in the Dáil about the terms of advances to CIE, it would be answered. I certainly give an undertaking that there will be no concealed subsidy to CIE under any kind of arrangement made for capital, either by way of interest or the portion of sinking fund to be paid each year, which could be in the nature of an increased subsidy without the Oireachtas knowing fully about it.

Professor Dooge

I am very happy to have the Minister's assurance on that point. Can we take it that details of this will be made available in the same way? I also asked the Minister what was the basis on which the figure of £6 million was arrived at?

Mr. Childers

The basis was preliminary calculation by CIE in regard to capital expenditure which was examined in my Department and by the Minister for Finance, and which we regard as reasonable over the next five years. It was an ad hoc decision based on requirements. We made the calculation in the light of the facts as we saw them.

Professor Dooge

Can the Minister inform the House as to how this capital amount was divided between the operation of the rail and road services of CIE?

Mr. Childers

I am afraid I cannot. I would not be able to give that information.

Professor Dooge

Is the information available to the Minister?

Mr. Childers

It would not be possible at this stage to give the full information because, as the Senator will appreciate, this was a general overall estimate. There will have to be a much more detailed examination of the position. The figure given was a general approximate figure, and it would be impossible for me to indicate the precise particulars now, because we will have to go into them in detail. This £6 million was an overall figure which was decided upon, and naturally I could not give the exact details of what would be required over the whole five years for each section, because traffic conditions might change or revenue might increase in one sector and decrease in another. A general estimate was made, and it is not to be regarded as the final and absolute figure. This general estimate was calculated for the sake of being able to agree on a workable and possible capital commitment.

Professor Dooge

The Minister will appreciate that on Second Stage I expressed some anxiety that capital expenditure, particularly on the rail section, might well prove to be capital expenditure on sections of CIE activities which were becoming obsolescent through changes occurring in modes of travel. The Minister has indicated that the £6 million enshrined in the Bill is a broad estimate, and that there might well be distribution changes during the next five years. The total sum may change and we may find ourselves at the end of the five years with this sum somewhat inflated. Therefore, I am very anxious that information should be available as soon as possible as to what this capital is for. I should like to ask the Minister when advances are being made of portion of the £6 million, will he be able to indicate what proportion would be for each sector of CIE?

Mr. Childers

The capital expenditure will be published in the CIE accounts sector by sector. Capital expenditure on roads, freight, rail and other services will be fully published in their accounts.

Professor Dooge

Will the Minister publish it at the time the advances are made?

Mr. Childers

No; it will be published in the accounts.

Professor Dooge

We will have to wait for the annual accounts.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Dooge

Is section 5 complementary to section 4, or has it any other function?

Mr. Childers

It is complementary to section 4.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Murphy

I want to return to the question I asked on Second Reading in relation to the £2 million subsidy. I was trying to ascertain how this sum was arrived at. As the Minister knows, the view of the trade unions is that £2 million per annum is unlikely to be sufficient towards the end of the five year period. I think the Minister will go this far with me: it is a bad thing for the morale of the staff, and indeed of the Board operating the concern, that they should be operating in a situation where the subsidy is not sufficient to balance their books. They are entering a five year period with another stone around their neck, and subject to public criticism, including the Minister's idea that because a subsidy is necessary the undertaking is inefficient.

The Board of CIE must have examined this matter with great care and in some detail. I should like to know whether, arising out of their examination of the Pacemaker Report, they think that a subsidy of £2 million per annum for the next five years is a proper subsidy. Do they accept that if it is operated as efficiently as is humanly possible to get the most out of the undertaking, £2 million per annum will be sufficient? If the Minister can tell me that is so, I shall be relieved, but I have a suspicion, and the trade unions also suspect, that no one is particularly happy that a subsidy of £2 million per annum will, in fact, be sufficient. I suspect that we will be running into trouble again towards the end of the five year period, with a demoralising effect on the staff, with another big question as to the future of CIE, and with everyone fed up and wondering what is going to happen.

My experience of and my contacts with the staff of CIE convince me that they do their work far more efficiently, and put more heart into their work, when they know they are doing well and there is no public criticism, rather than in a situation such as that which has obtained for the past six, nine, or 12 months, when there was a large question as to what was going to happen and whether the job was going to fold up. In that situation they are looking over their shoulders rather than getting on with the actual work. I do not think that is good for the staff of CIE or for the economy of the country.

If we decide that public transport as it is constituted at the moment must be maintained, we must also go the further step and provide a subsidy which will be reasonable. The Minister has said he has looked at various estimates. I think those were his words. I want to know from him whether the Board appointed by the Minister, who have the responsibility of operating our public transport—and I am sure they have examined this with care—accept that a subsidy of £2 million per annum for the next five years is adequate for the efficient operation of CIE.

Mr. Childers

It is my responsibility, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance, to settle, in this Bill, the subsidy to be awarded to CIE for the period concerned. It represents the difference between the best estimates that could be made between revenue and expenditure over the five-year period. These estimates depend, in turn, on all sorts of factors which can only be the subject of speculative prediction, if you like.

I indicated already in my Second Reading Speech a series of provisos or assumptions with regard to the future planning of CIE. We assume various things. We assume that the Board will induce more efficiency and retain existing traffic. We assume that the Board will be able to gain some traffic as a result of the rise in the growth of the general national economy. We assume that there will be increases of remuneration and that these will in future be based on a system related to the growth of productivity in the nation and will be the result of the advice of the National Industrial Economic Council and will relate to national productivity. We assume that the staff and management will recognise the special characteristic of the railway finances and their dependence on important customers and on excellent services. We also assume that the staff, while securing better remuneration as the nation advances, will recognise that any changes in work procedures which would gravely affect the company's deficit position should be considered with great discretion. When I stated that, I also said that this subsidy is 25 per cent of all rail revenue. I stated that it is a very large subsidy by international standards. I admitted the particular difficulties of rail transport in this country.

There was a misquotation in the Official Report, which I did not correct at the time, of what I said on the Second Stage which would seem to indicate that I thought 60 miles as a length of arterial rail line where the closing of the service would not be desirable. In fact 160 miles was the figure in my mind. An arterial rail service of 300 miles would make success easier for CIE to achieve, whereas 60 miles would be too short to justify a rail service, save for suburban traffic.

Could any Minister come before the Seanad five years from now and say: "You now are asked to contribute 10/- for every £ of rail revenue"? That is what it amounts to. The staff and management of CIE must recognise that, we are now giving 5/- for every £ of rail revenue, to preserve the railway. However, if it rises to 10/- we shall have to think again. Therefore, we have devised the subsidy on a basis that seems to be a matter of common sense.

There is no sanctity in figures. It has some sort of human effect on the mind —"ten per cent, we will accept that; 15 per cent, we will accept that." You can go up to 25 per cent. Once you go beyond 25 per cent of the rail revenue of CIE, you start thinking again. That is why I hope the Board and the staff of CIE will take as indications of the Government's view the five assumptions I have clearly stated on the Second Reading and that they will do their utmost to see that these assumptions will be acted upon. Some relate to the national economy and are outside the operation of CIE. Some relate to the operation of CIE.

Although percentages are merely cold-blooded terms, there is a tremendous difference between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of rail revenue. We all hope that in the next five years we shall not have to go beyond 25 per cent of rail revenue as a subsidy for CIE. I am sure the Senator will recognise the very great difference between 25 per cent and 50 or 40 per cent in the mind of the public.

As I have stated, we have included an assumption that wages will rise in conjunction with national productivity and that is included in the general subsidy of £2 million for the next five years.

Professor Dooge

I want to make a minor point in regard to the subsidy. Apart from the £2 million which the Minister now proposes to give to CIE, down through the years, CIE have received, as it were, minor subsidies. Take, as an example, the last Finance Act under which, when there was an increase in taxation on fuel, the Minister for Finance exempted CIE from the operation of the tax in order that the burden would not fall on transport, so that fares would not go up. Once we take the position that CIE are to receive an annual subsidy of the order of £2 million, would it not be better that all the subsidies going to CIE should go through this £2 million? Would it not be better to have this once and for all payment of a subsidy, so that CIE, apart from this subsidy, would be paying their commercial costs in regard to the various other materials which they are using in their actual operation?

Mr. Childers

This diminution in the duty to which the Senator refers goes to other bus operators in this State, of which there are a large number. Therefore, the Senator is introducing an anomalous kind of argument into which I could not enter. There is something to be said for the idea that the subsidy should be all-inclusive, but, as this remission in the duty goes to other bus operators— there are about 40 licensed bus operators—I do not see how we could do it when the others are gaining at the same time.

Professor Dooge

I appreciate that. The Minister will agree that, in principle, it is highly desirable that whatever advantages are given to CIE should be given through the main subsidy and that no other advantages should be given.

Mr. Childers

In principle, it might be a good thing, if it could be effected.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (2), line 17, before ", the" to insert "or of any scheme for the reorganisation and more economical operation of any department of the undertaking affecting any section or category of workers".

In this Bill, we are providing that compensation will be paid to certain staff on the occurring of certain events in CIE. If they are made redundant because of the cessation or permanent reduction of a rail service or inland waterway, or the substitution of diesel for steam traction, or the conversion of a level crossing to automatic barriers then they would be entitled to compensation. I think the closure of inland waterways is no longer relevant. Conversion to diesel traction is something which is past. What remains here now is the closure or reduction of rail services or the introduction of automatic barriers at a level crossing. This portion—the reduction or closure of a rail service—is designed presumably to improve the finances of CIE, to enable the Board to operate more economically. We are saying that in such circumstances compensation will be paid to the staff.

I am saying in my amendment that there is no essential difference between such circumstances and the situation created by staff made redundant as a result of the reorganisation of any section of the undertaking. If CIE reorganise office procedure, for example, and buy a computer and, as a result, staff are made redundant, essentially they are in no different position from that of staff made redundant as a result of the closure of a branch line. Both are made redundant because the change over represents an economy to CIE. It represents a saving and it is right in such circumstances that we should legislate to have compensation paid to the staff affected; in other words, we should provide that CIE are obliged to pay them compensation.

This has been the position in the 1958 Act, with the further qualification that the cost of compensation was met by annual grant rather than by the savings made by CIE. That gave rise to certain anomalies. The Minister referred to those in his speech on the Second Reading. I am not entering into the question now as to whether CIE or the Government should meet the cost of compensation. I am only dealing with the obligation to pay compensation to the staff made redundant as a result of the changes designed to produce a saving. Essentially, there is no difference, I submit, between the saving arising out of the closure of a branch line, the introduction of an automatic crossing and the introduction of new work procedures which cause redundancies in staff. I say, in those circumstances, the staff, irrespective of the circumstances giving rise to the redundancies, who are employed by the same employer, CIE in this case, who are making a saving by the change, should be paid compensation.

We cannot distinguish between redundancy in one case and another. It is an invidious situation that we should pay compensation where a particular branch line is closed and staff are redundant and do not pay compensation in another case. That does not apply in other situations where Parliament has entered into the question of compensation. In the Civil Service, if a civil servant is made redundant and if he has ten years' service when his position is abolished, he is entitled to compensation. Similarly, under the Local Government (Superannuation) Act of 1956, we provided that a man with ten years' service, who was made redundant, was entitled to compensation.

Under this Bill one person is entitled to compensation and another person is not. The section should be amended to provide that where CIE make a person redundant, that person is entitled to compensation, where the redundancy effects a saving. If a person who is redundant because of a railway closure is entitled to compensation, another person rendered redundant because of the installation of a computer, is entitled to compensation. Under the Bill the latter is not entitled to compensation. That is a bad situation and I do not think Senators desire that we should have that invidious position. That is why I hope the Minister will accept this perfectly reasonable amendment.

Mr. Desmond

I should like to support the amendment and ask the Minister to consider it. As Senator Murphy said, it is a very reasonable amendment. There is nothing really difficult in this amendment for CIE or for the Minister. It is only really carrying out a principle which CIE were prepared to carry out under the previous Act, where workers who were forced into redundancy, were entitled to get compensation. There was redundancy in various parts of the CIE system and compensation was given, not to the extent that the worker was entitled to in relation to his full earnings if he continued in employment but to the extent of a fair retiral allowance, even though it was only portion of the earnings he had been getting.

That compensation was paid even in those difficult times. This Bill appears to allow compensation to certain classes but, as Senator Murphy stated, it is reasonable and fair that compensation should be paid to every worker, no matter in what department he might be. There are various departments in CIE and different categories of workers. Compensation should be paid to all workers, no matter in what department they may be, as the amendment seeks.

Mr. Childers

I have already dealt with this question on the Second Stage of the Bill. The position of employees of the railway is very different from that of employees on the road and the other services, where it will now be up to CIE to negotiate with the trade unions on a rate of redundancy pay, if such is required. On the non-rail side, we have a world of expanding employment and possible alternative employment for people who are displaced.

I am not aware of any surplus in the country of first-class clerical workers and good typists. It is hard for me to believe that it would be essential to provide compensation for people whose general qualifications were such that they could obtain employment easily. We do not believe the road services will really contract in the next five years. The road freight services of CIE are expanding; the motor coach tourist services are expanding; and the volume of people carried by bus is very satisfactory. In fact, in the provinces, it has shown a slight increase. We believe that as the economy grows, there will be some categories of the population who will move from using public bus services to driving their own motor cars. There will be others who will move out of the economic level of not being able to travel at all but who will be able to travel by bus. It is because of the different position of workers not concerned with the railway that we made a differentiation in the redundancy arrangements. There are also the provisions for re-training which have been agreed in principle by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or are being examined by him, which will enable quite a number of workers to be retrained for employment elsewhere.

As I have already indicated, the redundancy rate established under the 1958 Act was tremendously high by any standards in the world of which I have cognisance. It was so high that there were people in CIE who were queueing up for redundancy and the Senator knows that very well. The basis of the redundancy arrangement in 1958 was to enable CIE to effect a rapid reorganisation of so novel a kind that it would undoubtedly have occasioned very deep discontent within the ranks of the workers, unless there had been a special measure of redundancy compensation guaranteed by the State. This reorganisation was a very expensive business. It cost something like £4,000 a worker. The wastage rate of employment is three per cent per annum. I hope when the major reorganisation is effected in the future, CIE will be based on (1) wastage and (2) re-training or available transfer, and (3) such redundancy arrangements as they are able to enter into freely with the trade unions.

I should like to make it clear in this connection that if the trade unions, in regard to any particular sector of CIE, have an agreement with CIE in regard to redundancy, this Bill does not break that agreement. The only difference is CIE have to pay any redundancy compensation required under that agreement from their own funds, or else re-negotiate the agreement. There is nothing in the redundancy clauses of the Bill which overrides any firm agreement made with the trade unions. We should come down to earth on this question of redundancy. I am not suggesting that the motion on redundancy passed by the Irish Congress of Trade unions in July, 1962 could be necessarily a basis for a policy in regard to redundancy in CIE on the road side of the undertaking, or in connection with sectors where the provisions of the earlier Acts no longer apply, but it serves as an illustration. The provisions proposed are far from what was actually paid, even allowing for the obligation of the State companies to set a special example to the rest of the community in industrial relations.

Proposals made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in July, 1962 are as follows:—

(a) where redundancy is threatened management should negotiate early consultation with the unions.

This is obviously an essential provision.

(b) It should be the responsibility of the employer in the first instance to provide reasonable alternative employment.

It is a good provision.

(c) Where alternative employment is not possible minimum severance pay should be paid following appropriate notice, providing at least one week's salary for each year of service.

Those were the proposals solemnly made by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions as an indication of what severance pay conditions and redundancy conditions should be in private industry. If it is admitted that a State company might have different conditions because the employees expect to be perpetually employed, that as the company had continued over a great number of years and had not been subject to the winds of competition, being protected by the State, even making allowances for that, it would seem to me that redundancy provision re-negotiated between employers and the trade unions, when we do not see any sign of imminent collapse or major reorganisation could be intelligently devised.

I am sure Senator Murphy will agree with me that it should be possible for CIE and the unions to agree amongst themselves on this. I hope that the re-training for other jobs and the facilities for finding employment that undoubtedly exist in this country at this time will help to ward off a problem. I can say without danger of contradiction that there are large areas of full employment in this country in various categories of industry. There are other areas where there is not full employment. There is a varying pattern all over the country. I hope the Board can negotiate successfully with the trade unions and that this matter can be settled on a commonsense, equitable and human basis. I have no intention of trying to affect adversely the conditions of the workers for whom there is no statutory rate of compensation provided in this Bill. I believe a good job can be done, provided both sides are prepared to state the position dispassionately. I am sure Senator Murphy appreciates my sentiments in this regard.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister can say: "Leave this to the trade unions and the Board of CIE." We have had the situation that up to 31st March this year any redundancies arising out of the reorganisation scheme in CIE were provided for. Legislation stated that compensation should be paid at a certain level. There is a situation that the people have had that expectation and the trade unions are faced with this position. They cannot reasonably be expected to agree to something different and a disimprovement on the previous position.

The Minister rightly made the point on the resolution of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions that it is the prior obligation of the employer to try to provide reasonable alternative work himself. Let me put this to the Minister: if this compensation is written in, there will not be any redundancy in CIE, who will make very sure they will provide alternative employment. That has been the experience not in CIE but in UTA where there is written in a level of compensation something on the lines of this amendment.

The cost is such that it would be better for the company to do their utmost to try to absorb redundant employees elsewhere in the undertaking. The principal concern of the trade unions is to get over redundancy. Their principal function is to maintain their people in adequate paid employment and one of the reasons behind this amendment is to make sure there will be this obligation, this very onerous financial pressure on CIE to ensure that where they make a saving as a result of new working systems, at the same time they will equally provide that people rendered surplus will be absorbed elsewhere.

You could have a situation where CIE might seek to get rid of such people. The unions will be in the difficulty that their members will know what happened between 1958 and 1964 and will now, with the background of that experience, seek to ensure that their redundant members will be treated honestly. I hope the Minister will look into this matter again. It would not result in a heavy financial burden but in extra pressure on CIE to see to it that when they make savings as a result of reorganisation, they will take equal trouble to absorb the people made surplus into other parts of the undertaking.

Professor Dooge

In his reply to Senator Murphy, the Minister indicated there was no need to worry about people in the road freight section of CIE, that they would be well catered for by the re-settlement and re-training schemes which the Minister appears to think exist at the moment. If there were proper schemes of re-settlement, proper schemes of retraining—if indeed there were a proper man-power policy—what the Minister said would have some considerable force but the fact is that, despite the pleadings of many people, the Government have not yet moved towards a man-power policy.

The Government have preferred to try to establish a policy of economic growth, plus stability of prices, without a man-power policy. The whole history of planning in Europe in the past few years indicates this is just silliness—that without proper man-power policy, the balance between growth and stability cannot possibly be maintained. To say so is not to advocate the complete direction of labour but to advocate the things the Minister appears to think are in existence. If there were a general code of re-training and re-settlement, then the Minister's reply would have been reasonable, but in the absence of such a code and in the absence of any possibility of a man-power code or a man-power policy worthy of being called a man-power code or a man-power policy, there is considerable force in what Senator Murphy has said.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 28.

Tá

• Butler, John.
• Carton, Victor.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• Desmond, Cornelius.
• Dooge, James C.I.
• Fitzgerald, John.
• Fitzpatrick, Thomas J.
• McAuliffe, Timothy.
• McDonald, Charles.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• Mannion, John.
• Murphy, Dominick F.
• O'Brien, George.
• Ó Conalláin, Dónall.
• Prendergast, Micheál A.
• Quinlan, Patrick M.
• Stanford, William B.

Níl

• Ahern, Liam.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, John J.
• Browne, Seán.
• Cole, John C.
• Connolly O'Brien, Nora.
• Costelloe, John.
• Donegan, Bartholomew.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Flanagan, Thomas P.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Nash, John Joseph.
• Nolan, Thomas.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• Ó Maoláin, Tomás.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Ó Siochfhradha, Pádraig.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Ryan, William.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Yeats, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Desmond and Murphy: Níl, Senators Farrell and Ó Donnabháin.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Murphy

The Minister will know that proposals are under consideration in Northern Ireland to close the line from Portadown to Derry. Employed on that line are people who are employees of CIE because their station happens to lie on the right side of the Border. It does appear as if by reason of the withdrawal of the rail services by UTA, they will be out of employment. There is under the present provision no cover for them because they are not employed on a branch line of CIE. They would not be made redundant because of the withdrawal of service by CIE; it would be withdrawal by somebody other than CIE. I was wondering if the Minister has had an opportunity of looking at this problem. There are not very many involved but it is a very major personal problem for those immediately concerned.

Mr. Childers

In reply to Senator Murphy, I did make inquiries from CIE in regard to this matter and they have told me that it is not possible at the present time to give any indication as to the future position of the Board's employees in County Donegal who will be affected by the proposed closure of the Derry-Portadown railway line. The position, however, of the employees concerned will be sympathetically examined by the Board during the next few months and, in accordance with the Board's policy, the employees and their trade unions will be given adequate notice of the Board's intentions.

The Senator can be assured that the Board of CIE will do everything they can to give assistance to these people. They certainly have the question in mind but there is no final decision in regard to this at all. No one knows what exactly is to be the position if and when the Portadown-Derry line closes and CIE will do their best either to place these workers somewhere else within the system or to take whatever action seems open to them to safeguard them.

Mr. Murphy

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, to delete paragraph (g), lines 24 to 27 inclusive.

This amendment is to delete paragaraph (g) which makes provision, in effect, for the employment of temporary clerical staff. My objection to this is that it leads to an abuse of a situation where temporary staff may be urgently required for seasonal work. If we provide here for such employment, the inevitable tendency, I am afraid, will be that these people will be employed temporarily from year to year with no chance whatever of being made permanent employees of the Board and may eventually be thrown out of employment when they are in the 30s. I am very vexed and very concerned as to the problem created for individuals like these who may be offered employment temporarily and are kept on week after week, year after year, and by reason of that, the chances of other permanent employment are slipping by. They probably stay on, hoping against hope they will be made permanent when in fact they cannot, under the terms of the legislation.

It may be inevitable that a certain amount of temporary clerical employment will be necessary because of seasonal demand, and so on, but if that were so under the previous arrangements where a rather elaborate procedure was involved by reason of the will of the Oireachtas to recruit and appoint permanent male staff, I do not think it necessarily arises at all under the new section as proposed in this Bill.

One of the arguments, I believe, in favour of the new arrangement here is that it will be more flexible. It will permit the Board to recruit at short notice. In those circumstances, it seems unnecessary that the Oireachtas should write in a provision here to provide for the employment of temporary clerical staff. Many Senators will agree with me that if it is necessary to employ clerical staff, they should be properly recruited, taken in at the agreed trade union rate, given all the conditions appropriate to their grade, pension rights, and so on, and allowed to proceed by annual increments, instead of this rather haphazard situation of bringing in a man, leaving him there on the minimum rate of pay, keeping him on a temporary basis year after year and then eventually throwing him out on the side of the road. That is an injustice and we should not encourage it. If this provision were necessary up to now, there is not very much argument in favour of it in the new legislation. It is a bad thing that the Oireachtas should be asked to underwrite this haphazard method of employment, employing temporaries. We have seen the situation in the Civil Service where temporaries have been employed for many years. I am asking the Minister if he will agree to delete the paragraph.

Mr. Desmond

I support the plea made by Senator Murphy for the deletion of this clause. I am surprised to see it in the Bill. Could the Minister indicate why it is necessary to introduce a new method of recruitment into the clerical grade of CIE? As long as I know the company and the company operating before it, Great Southern Railways, there was a certain system of employment. There was a strict examination. It is not set out by the Minister whether the temporary worker in the clerical grade is to be employed for a day or a week. It may be for any period. We know there are other peculiar provisions in section 12 of the Bill but this is completely new and has never been put into any measure relating to CIE or indeed any other State company. The introduction of this provision is not right and it should be deleted.

Mr. Childers

I should say at the outset that section 12 is a unique section in relation to any State company over which I have supervision. In other State companies, there are no legal provisions in regard to recruitment to a given grade of employees. I agreed to this only because it was traditional within CIE. The other State companies have complete liberty in the choice of their staff. They have a very fine record of impartial recruitment, providing the necessary rules of competition, and so forth. I agreed to this because it has always been there. CIE are the only State company in which this provision exists.

There was no similar provision in section 35 of the 1950 Act governing conditions of employment in the clerical grade of CIE but CIE did recruit temporary staff because they felt they could recruit the temporary staff outside the provisions of section 35 of the 1950 Act. All we have done in this Bill is to make clear what always appeared to be clear before without any particular section giving legal sanction to it. CIE have no intention of recruiting a horde of temporary employees, temporary clerical officers, without stability of employment.

Senator Murphy should know that, in prevailing conditions, if one requires first-class clerical staff, male or female, they must be given reasonable condition of employment and stability. They are no longer in vast surplus as they may have been some ten or 15 years ago, thanks to the expansion of the economy. The Senator knows there was a time when a huge number of persons passed a given examination in the State and were trained for nothing but for being a clerical officer, storekeeper or positions of that kind. That has long ago passed away. I cannot conceive the Board of CIE believing that it would do for them to appoint a large number of temporary staff. That is confirmed by the fact that the Board's personnel manager has already communicated with the secretary of the group, Senator Murphy. I think he should be satisfied with that communication.

The letter, which I have permission to read, is as follows:

The Board's intentions are that temporary clerical staff would be employed only where there is not a clear prospect that continual employment would be available, for example, to meet temporary demands for extra clerical assistance to deal with seasonal traffics and in cases where schemes of reorganisation are under examination which would lead to a reduction in clerical staff numbers.

In effect no change from the present practice in regard to the employment of temporary clerical staff is proposed and the effect of subsection (2) (g) of the Bill will be to give recognition to the existing practice. I believe that Senator Murphy, together with the other officers in his union, is quite capable of keeping CIE to that obligation. I do not think he need worry about this. This section is simply giving legality to what has, in fact, been the practice for a long time but without any specific provision in legislation.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister will understand I am not here as secretary of the group——

Mr. Childers

I quite agree; the Senator is here in his senatorial capacity.

Mr. Murphy

——but, in my capacity as secretary of the group, I shall be happy to call the Minister as an expert witness when we are looking for a reasonable salary vis-a-vis other salaries.

Mr. Childers

I am not talking about salaries at all. It is a matter of the interpretation of the Bill.

Mr. Murphy

I take it the Minister will not accept my invitation. The problem, of course, will be taken care of by the trade unions but what I am concerned about is the Oireachtas providing for temporary clerical staff when there has never been any such provision hitherto. It seems to me we are giving our blessing to something which I regard as undesirable and that is why I was hoping the Minister would delete the section and not ask the Oireachtas to give a blessing to this undesirable practice of taking people in temporarily and then throwing them out again.

Mr. Childers

We are not encouraging temporary employment in CIE. We are merely putting into the section provisos necessary to make the section operate in accordance with what has been the practice in CIE. I am not particularly keen on section 12 at all because it is not usual to have these provisions, particularly in relation to a particular grade, in State companies. I think, however, the clerical grade of CIE can be satisfied that, almost as a unique exception, their conditions of employment and recruitment are made the subject of legislation and I have given a certain interpretation to the meaning of the section in both my Second Reading and Committee Stage speeches and I think there is a certain amount of security for the workers in that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Murphy

I move amendment No. 3:

To add a new paragraph as follows:

"( ) A competition held under this section shall not differentiate on the basis of sex."

This amendment deals with differentiation on the basis of sex. I am concerned that CIE should not create a situation in which they will recruit female clerical staff on a different standard of education from male clerical staff. The Minister probably knows that CIE are employing female clerical staff to an increasing extent to positions formerly filled by male clerical staff. The Minister is no doubt aware that CIE have told the Secretary of the Clerical and Supervisory Group that for recruitment to the post of male clerical officer Leaving Certificate standard will be necessary in future, plus an interview and possibly an aptitude test, or something like that. I do not want any differentiation on the basis of sex and I want to ensure that the same standard of education will apply for both male and female clerical staff.

The Minister may suspect that the reason for this amendment is the ILO Convention No. 110. We hope that eventually the Government will see the light of day and ratify that convention, which deals with equal pay for equal work. We are not at this juncture dealing with rates of pay but I am asking the Minister to agree to a common educational standard for male and female clericals and to have no differentiation between the sexes from the point of view of education. I trust the Minister will see the sense of that and agree that the standard of entry should be the same for both.

Professor Stanford

On principle, I should like to support this amendment. It is somewhat unusual in that it is a levelling up rather than a levelling down. It is all the more commendable for that. I do not know whether the Minister could give us any information as to the likelihood of the Government accepting the ILO Convention in relation to equality of the sexes in matters of employment but we should certainly remove as many anomalies of this kind as possible. I warmly support Senator Murphy's amendment.

Mr. Childers

I am afraid I really could not accept any amendment involving the Oireachtas in getting deeper into this question of control over the appointment of clerical staff in CIE. As I said, I agreed to section 12 with some reluctance because other State companies operate very happily without any of this statutory control. Naturally I have conditions of employment in State companies under my general overall supervision and I have had observations to make from time to time. I have had no volume of complaint which would indicate that these companies, not being under statutory obligation for the recruitment procedures of any of the grades they employ as CIE will be under obligation under this section, treat their employees badly or recruit them in an undesirable way. I could not envisage any further addition to the controls.

This is a matter for the Board of CIE. There are different grades of clerical work and the Board have decided that female clerks do not require the same educational qualifications that other grades require and I regard that as a matter for CIE. I do not think the purpose is to discriminate between the sexes. It is a question of the right person for the particular job. Separate competitions are held for male and female clerks and apparently that practice will continue. Separate competitions confined to females are held for typists, shorthand-typists and machine operators. Female clerks are in a minority at the moment. They are employed on fairly routine work and their rate of pay is different from that of male clerks.

Mr. Murphy

That is not the reason for the difference.

Mr. Childers

That is the position. This situation exists in other State companies over which the Oireachtas has no control through legislation. I do not propose to go beyond the control indicated in section 12. My view is that CIE will continue in conjunction with the trade unions to recruit staff to the clerical grade in a proper manner. I do not propose to accept the amendment.

Professor Stanford

The Minister is presenting the situation denounced by Parnell: he is setting bounds to the march of Seanad Éireann, saying: "Thus far shall you go and no further". That is regrettable. He has been very reasonable, very helpful and very illuminating all through this debate, and I do not quite see why he should dig in just at this point.

Professor Dooge

I, too, find the Minister's reluctance to go this further inch somewhat disturbing. The Minister has expressed reluctance but nevertheless he has put section 12 into the Bill and in opposing the amendment, has said that he does not see why he should add to it in any way. He says that two different functions are being carried out by CIE clerks, certain types of work are being carried out by male clerks and certain types by female clerks, but if this is the position, if CIE wish to create two grades of clerk, surely they should leave both grades open to both male and females. Surely the position is that we are all in agreement with, and all wish to implement as far as possible, the principle of equal pay for equal work and the Minister is being unreasonable in his attitude to this amendment.

Mr. McGuire

I feel called upon to say something relative to this discussion. I agree with the Minister in this case, because Senator Murphy, who is making the case, would be the first to agree, and has in fact said, that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions has repeatedly said that matters relating to wages and conditions of employment should be argued as between the organised employers and the organised workers. I feel that this Bill could easily be used in insinuate into our wages and conditions of employment structure matters—even principles— that have not yet been established through the ordinary negotiating machinery concerning equal pay for equal work. This is a greater problem than one would think at first sight. It might not be good for men and women if this were created.

As Senator Murphy knows, this matter was argued for about 20 years in the ILO before the Convention was arrived at. We may not yet be ready to ratify this Convention in Ireland. I do not think it would be right—and I hope Senator Murphy will agree with me; he is to be President of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, and I am President of the Federated Union of Employers—to insinuate something about wages or conditions which will be irrevocable and which will be quoted against employers generally if the Minister is prepared to do something of this sort, as he is being asked today. The idea may be very good, there may be a lot in favour of Senator Murphy's proposal, but this is not the way to put it into effect, or the time or the place for it.

Mr. Nash

Surely in every type of employment the type of work done by female clerks, such as telephonists, typists, shorthand or copy typists, and so on, is completely different from the type of work done by male clerks, and therefore, of necessity, the standards of payment are different. If the standards are going to be different, then the type of examination or education will be completely different.

Mr. Murphy

I am afraid we are getting a little confused. Perhaps I did not put the matter as clearly as I should. I am talking about clerical staff, not about telephonists, shorthand or copy typists. That is completely different matter and these people are recruited as a separate grade. What I am saying is that where staff are recruited for clerical work, doing exactly the same type of work, there should not be one standard for males and a different standard for females.

Senator McGuire need not get too upset about this because in fact that has been the position in many employments for many years. The Civil Service recruit clerical officers and I do not think they differentiate between male and female clerical officers. There is an examination and you do that examination, irrespective of whether you are male or female. You are not expected, because you are a male, to have a higher standard or anything like that. Local Government also recruit on the basis of an examination and again there is no difference between males and females. You qualify in the examination on the basis of your ability and it is well known that the females come out pretty well. I am not quite sure of the position in the ESB. That is on the basis of the marks obtained in the Leaving Certificate, but I do not think there is any distinction between males and females. What I am against is an educational distinction in respect of an appointment to do exactly the same work, the same clerical work, and the situation that if you are a female you can have a different educational standard from a male to do exactly the same work.

The Minister said, quite rightly, that the female staffs in CIE are in a minority, that they are largely employed on routine, repetitive work. That is true because they are people who have been recruited in recent years. Males, if they had been recruited in recent years, would similarly be starting on the same routine repetitive work, but it is work which would otherwise be done by males. All I am saying is: do not let us enter into an argument about equal pay for equal work, but at least let us carry on the principles which are accepted by the State and semi-State organisations, whereby you recruit males or females for clerical work and you require the same educational standards. I know that the Minister will find difficulty in accepting this amendment. I know what the facts of the situation are, and that even if I spoke very eloquently for the next hour, the Dáil is in recess. Could the Minister meet us in this respect, by saying that he will make representations to CIE that it is undesirable that they should have a different standard of education for the recruitment of males and females for one type of work? We are not talking about shorthand typists or copy typists.

Professor Stanford

Senator Murphy has made a very strong case. He has shown that in terms of equality of justice and in terms of education the present arrangement is a bad one. He has offered a very reasonable compromise to the Minister, for the Minister to undertake to state to CIE that he thinks this is a bad thing having been persuaded by the wisdom of Seanad Éireann. We would all be satisfied with that.

Mr. Childers

I am not going to enter into a controversy over sex differentiation in regard to one grade of employment in a vast organisation like CIE, when, as indicated by Senator McGuire, there are no statutory regulations or provisions in this regard concerning the rest of the State companies or private employment. To satisfy Senator Murphy, I will ask the Board of CIE to ascertain whether there are any disqualifications or circumstances in regard to the appointment of clerical officers which are directly in the nature of discrimination against one sex and I shall have the Senator's representations considered seriously because I myself, in absolute theory, agree with what the two Senators have said, but there are long traditions with the trade union movement and all sorts of customs which have grown up and which cannot be changed quickly. As I say, I shall make representations to CIE that during the course of this debate suggestions were made that they should review the matter. I must make it clear that CIE are going to make these regulations. I am not going to make them. CIE have the clear power to make them. They may still consider the present method of carrying out these examinations the most suitable. I hope that that is sufficient.

Mr. Murphy

I did not quite follow the Minister in certain aspects of what he said, but I thank him for his offer to make representations to CIE and withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Fitzpatrick

This section deals with the recruiting of staff for the clerical grades of CIE. It is provided that staff shall be recruited to these grades by either open examination or confined examination. Subsection (2) (d) gives very wide discretion to the Board. It reads:

A competition shall consist of such one or more of the following types of test as the Board may specify in the rules relating to the competition, namely:

(i) a written examination;

(ii) an oral examination;

(iii) an interview;

(iv) any other test or tests that the Board considers to be appropriate.

That seems to be wide enough for anyone. However, the next paragraph states:

Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competition under this subsection.

It is to this paragraph I want to address my remarks. I presume that the object of this paragraph is to encourage the revival of the Irish language. With that sentiment I am in entire agreement. However, I believe this paragraph, instead of attaining the object it sets out to achieve, namely, the restoration of Irish as the spoken tongue, will have the opposite effect. I understand the Minister stated there is nothing new in this paragraph, that it has been in the law since 1926. That is the very reason I urge on the Minister that he should delete it from this subsection. Experience has shown beyond doubt that this type of "big stick" and bullying has killed the language instead of reviving it. I suggest that this type of approach to the restoration of Irish is the approach that left the schoolboys and girls of the 20s, 30s and 40s with a hatred of the language when leaving school instead of a love of it. There can be no doubt about that.

Other provisions have been put into Acts of Parliament as far back as the 20s. I may refer to an Act regulating the solicitors' profession in which it has been laid down that it shall be compulsory for each apprentice, before he qualifies as a solicitor, to pass an examination in Irish. The standard is that he should have a sufficient knowledge of Irish to be able to take instructions and conduct a case through the medium of the Irish language. That is a very high standard. That has been in force as a compulsory measure for considerably more than 30 years. But I venture to suggest that no more solicitors are speaking Irish now as the spoken tongue than if that provision had never been there.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Because that provision is farcical.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

If that provision had not been there at all, there would be more people in that profession speaking Irish as a living tongue. Provisions like that and like the provision in the Bill before us are the sort of thing that have instilled hatred and detestation of Irish into people who have had it rammed down their throats against their wishes. If the Minister and the Government are really interested in the restoration of Irish, as I am sure they are, they should endeavour to create an atmosphere in which young adults and not so young adults would consider themselves uneducated unless they could speak Irish. That approach would have much more beneficial results than the approach we have here.

If there is a necessity for this paragraph, it proves the absolute failure of this approach to the revival of Irish. Apparently, it is an admission that people will not learn Irish unless they are compelled to do so. This seeks to compel them to do so. The result will be that people will become proficient in Irish in order to attain a particular position and, having done that, as experience has shown in the past, will proceed to forget all about it.

This paragraph does not say that English or mathematics should be compulsory, but I am sure the Board of CIE would not dream of appointing anybody to one of these positions unless he or she is reasonably proficient in English, mathematics and other subjects. This is a renewal in a statutory form of policy that has failed miserably in the past. In the other House, the Minister gave as his reason for putting in this paragraph that it was nothing new, that it had been there in the past; but experience has taught that new thinking on this subject is badly needed. This is the year 1964. With the present facilities for teaching and learning Irish, to put into an Act that Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competition under this subsection is an admission of defeat and an admission that the people are not interested in the Irish revival. Why? Because the policy for the revival of Irish has not been acceptable to the people. This is the sort of policy that has not been accepted— the "big stick" policy, the bullying policy, the policy of compulsion. If there is any word more resented by the Irish people than the word "compulsion" I do not know it. Therefore, I would say to the Minister it is a pity he lent himself to putting in this section in which he obviously does not believe.

Another part of the section says that employment in the Board shall be open to people residing within the national territory. I take that definition to mean people residing outside the 26 Counties. In putting in this statutory provision in respect of Irish, the Minister is putting an obstacle in the way of these people and I am not sure that the Minister is not acting against the interests of some of his own constituents in Monaghan in this sphere.

As I have said, the Minister would have been much better off to leave the section wide open. He would have avoided this dreadful approach—those are the only words I can use—to the revival of the language that has been the fashion since the foundation of the State. It was perhaps pardonable to try it in the early years of the State, but now when it has proved to be an utter failure and an absolute fiasco, there should be new thinking on it and a new approach to it.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It is too bad that Senator Fitzpatrick used the occasion of this Bill for an onslaught on the policy obtaining with regard to the revival of the Irish language. I shall not follow up his speech now because a White Paper on the Government's programme with regard to the measures to be adopted for the revival of the language will be the subject of a debate in the other House and in this House in due course, but I should like to say that it is deplorable that an educated person such as Senator Fitzpatrick should be guilty of the many stupidities of which he was guilty during his rather "het-up" speech a few moments ago. I shall content myself by saying at the moment that his objection to the phraseology that "Irish shall be a compulsory subject at every competition under this subsection" is based on the mentality of people with an inferiority complex about their own country, their own nationality and their own language.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I think the converse is the case.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This is a State company in which millions of pounds of the Irish people's money are invested, and will continue to be invested, and if those working in this company should not know the language of their own country, then in what company should they know it? With regard to compulsion, Senator Fitzpatrick is dead wrong. If he addressed himself to the compulsion that exists in this country and in his own profession in regard to the use of the English language, we might get somewhere near a reasonable debate.

As I say, we will have a very good opportunity of debating the whole policy with regard to the Irish language in due course, and I hope the Senator will then have ample time for a really good discussion based on facts and not absurdities.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

The facts are the failures of the past.

Mr. Childers

In the course of the debate in the Dáil, we had an overheated emotional discussion on the whole question of the revival of the Irish language associated with nothing that is in this section of the Bill and which did not help in any way towards the maintenance or revival of the language, because everyone was trying to debate at short notice in an ill thought out way this immensely important problem. Perhaps I could prevent a similar display in this House by pointing out that a commission has already reported on the question of the language. That report is being considered by the Government, and it would be entirely wrong for me to make any change in this Bill, in one direction or the other, which would have the effect of almost pre-determining Government policy, or giving a hint of Government policy in regard to this matter.

If there were an indication that the Government intended to adopt a different view, and to reduce the compulsory element, I would have no intention of putting a section in this Bill relieving CIE of having this test in Irish simply because of some information of a prior character which I had gained and which would make me say: "Let us start off by eliminating this section". Similarly, if this section were not in previous legislation and it was clearly envisaged that the Government were going to take a very much more stringent attitude towards the use of compulsory Irish, I should not dream of putting in this section for the first time. Obviously, that would be entirely wrong.

The best course is to leave these regulations as they are. They have served the interests of the country for a long period. I have no complaints from mothers of children taking these examinations. The unions have had no complaints from mothers and fathers of children taking these examinations. The Irish test at the moment, de facto, is passing the Intermediate Certificate and the Leaving Certificate. There is nothing of an explosive or extraordinary character in this section. Let us wait until we can debate this very important subject in a calm deliberate manner, and not enter suddenly upon such a debate on a subsection of a Bill governing one grade of officers in one State company.

I appeal to the House to forgo the type of discussion we had in the Dáil in which tempers were raised and heat was engendered on a matter that should be considered most deliberately. I have no intention of altering one way or the other any regulation in any State company under my supervision governing the institution of compulsory Irish for examination. As Senator Ó Maoláin said, this question will be the subject of debate in the Dáil and the Seanad in the future.

Dónall Ó Conalláin

I rose to endorse what Senator Ó Maoláin said in regard to the onslaught which Senator Fitzpatrick made on the language. I was going to reply in terms similar to those used by the Minister, but in deference to the Minister's statement in which he refrained from getting "high" about the question of the language, I shall deal with it no further. I am glad the Minister has dealt with it in what I regard as an adequate fashion.

Another aspect of the question of recruitment by CIE is that apparently of all the semi-State bodies under the Minister's control, this is the only one that does not accept the Leaving Certificate per se as an absolute standard. CIE insist on running their own examinations. I think that is a pity because it is rather a slur on our public examination system that CIE do not accept the results of the Leaving Certificate as evidence of the capabilities of people in particular subjects.

In addition, strain and hardship are involved for the people who have got their Leaving Certificate and are looking for employment. When they have completed their examinations, they must scramble for jobs, and they have to undergo other examinations in order to qualify for particular types of employment. That imposes very severe additional strain on them. I know section 12 does not impose on CIE an obligation to run separate examinations. The company may accept the Leaving Certificate. I should like to know if there is any reason why it is not accepted, without CIE running examinations in various subjects already covered in the Leaving Certificate. I know that in the case of the ESB and Aer Lingus, Leaving Certificate honours are required. I would be against that because I know that various schools in the country are not geared equally to produce Leaving Certificate honours. I believe that many people who have only a pass in the Leaving Certificate are more capable of qualifying for employment with CIE than people who come out with high honours in certain subjects which CIE require, such as English, arithmetic and Irish. CIE should accept the marking in the Leaving Certificate and perhaps hold interviews after that to assess the personality element that must enter into all appointments.

I should like at this stage to pay tribute to CIE and their personnel department for being particularly assiduous in promoting the Irish language. They have done a great deal within their own sphere to familiarise not only our own people but tourists also with our language. When they use the language, they impress foreigners by their knowledge of it and show that there is an Irish language.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I have no intention of losing my temper about this topic. I made it clear, I thought, when I spoke a few moments ago that I was against the policy at present employed for the restoration of the Irish language and the policy which has been employed for some time. It is not correct for Senator Ó Conalláin to say that I attacked the Irish language: that is not so.

Senator Ó Maoláin came back with the usual crack that people who adopt that line of argument have not confidence in the Irish people. I say that it is people who put compulsory provisions like that into an Act of Parliament who lack confidence in the Irish people to do the right thing and to encourage the Irish revival.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Nonsense. Why do you pass laws against drinking after hours?

Mr. Fitzpatrick

You might know as much about that as I do.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I do.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

I also understood from the Minister earlier on that this is the only State company in respect of which standards of education are provided by statute in the recruitment of employees. I understood the Minister to say in his reply that he would not interfere with the regulations applying to this and other State companies. I understand from his words that this is the only company to which this does apply. However, I am glad to hear that there will be a debate on this topic in the near future——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

You may be damn sure of it, boy.

Mr. Fitzpatrick

——and that the Government will consider this matter seriously. With the greatest respect, I say it is time they did so. I hope that the result of the careful consideration will be a new approach to the whole subject. If they do that, I, for one, will be satisfied.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We hope you will.

Professor Stanford

This section deals with the recruitment of clerical staffs. Twice, recently, I have had complaints from visitors to this country that the guides on CIE tour buses have given partial and biased accounts of Irish history.

Mr. Childers

That has nothing whatever to do with the section of the Bill.

Professor Stanford

It concerns CIE and the good name of the country. I may be out of order but I have said it. I should like the Minister to think over it. I should further like the matter to be conveyed to the authorities in CIE. It is doing this country harm.

Mr. Childers

We would make a farce of the Committee Stage business if I dealt with a subject like that on this subsection of the Bill.

Professor Stanford

Some of these clerical people might be put on to this job: it is conceivable. There is no need for anybody to get impatient at this stage.

Mr. Sheldon

There seems to be an idea that if one says one is out of order, it is all right.

Professor Stanford

Is it possible that clerical personnel recruited under this section might be sent to accompany tours of this kind? If that is possible, will the Minister take steps to ensure that they will not make biased or partial statements about Irish history?

Mr. Childers

The people appointed to this job are not from clerical grades.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What are partial and biased statements about Irish history? Is this the Senator Fitzpatrick mentality again?

Mr. Sheldon

There is the point about CIE using the existing examinations. I would point out that section 12, as it stands, in fact gives them power to do that. I have worked out that you can have the odd result of having an open competition which consists only of an interview.

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Sheldon

So there is no reason why they could not accept the examination results and make an interview under section 12 as the open competition so described.

Mr. Childers

They can do that.

Dónall Ó Conalláin

I stated that. I stated that there is no obligation in the section and that they are quite free to take the Leaving Certificate.

Mr. Murphy

Again on this question of Irish, this has been in the legislation since 1924. It is there a long time and there has been no complaint about it. The probability is that the person coming in with secondary education has a competent knowledge of Irish. Equally, it is necessary that he should have a competent knowledge of Irish because for some CIE business, Irish is needed.

Mr. Childers

Correct.

Mr. Murphy

There is one aspect that worries me. As the Minister knows, there is a situation in the North where former employees of the GNR, who happened to be on the wrong side of the Border at the time, may now find themselves facing the prospect of disemployment. Equally, we have a situation in CIE on this side of the Border where CIE require and would welcome experienced clerical officers. The trouble here is that these people would qualify as being Irish citizens or the children of Irish citizens. Probably, they could equally be eligible for a limited competition, as provided in this section. They may, however, find difficulty with regard to the Irish question. I should love to have a situation where we could provide employment for our brothers across the Border. We should do everything possible to welcome them and give them employment here, if they are willing to come. These people are facing unemployment and they could be of good use to CIE because of their experience. It looks, under this section, as if it would be impossible for them to obtain employment with CIE.

Mr. Childers

The particular people about whom the Senator is speaking are, in fact, caught by reason of the fact that they are unable to pass the Irish test.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 13 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 6.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.