I had almost concluded last night when the debate was adjourned. I should like, however, to refer to remarks made by the Minister in the course of this debate. As I mentioned yesterday, I should like to see CIE paying their way as early as possible. We all agree that subsidies are bad, if it is possible to avoid them. In the 1958 Transport Act, CIE were given the task of becoming an independent body, so far as State subsidy is concerned, by 1964 but we believe that the present trend indicates clearly that that cannot be done. If it were done, it would, indeed, be a miracle or it could result only from drastic measures being adopted by the Board such as they are adopting at the present time which may have an adverse effect on our national position later on.
The position was that for the year 1961 the deficiencies fell to a figure of less than £250,000 but we find that for the following year, 1962, the adverse balance was £1,696,000, which, indeed, is a sharp increase. As well as that, the Minister informed us that about as much more money was required from the central Exchequer to pay the charges on subventions to CIE over the past years.
In the Minister's remarks, the emphasis is on the closure of railways. He feels that the only way of making CIE a paying unit is to give them the unlimited powers they hold in closing railways which may be deemed to be uneconomic. I am satisfied that the Minister's view may be a sincere one and that he feels, with the trend of changes in transport, that it is just as well probably to close a railway completely as to wait for three or four more years, but in any case it is peculiar to find a man with that outlook making the statement he made on 14th November. I quote from Vol. 197, No. 7, column 1224 of the Official Report:
Deputy McQuillan spoke as though CIE were determined to close the whole rail system. It would be impossible for me to say what the railway system is likely to be five or ten years from now. I do know that CIE have asked for large capital grants in order to improve rolling stock and their premises and to modernise the whole system. We are lending millions to CIE for the improvement of their rail services.
That is a most peculiar statement in the light of the other statements made by the Minister in which he has approved wholeheartedly of the CIE policy of closing rail lines and that it is difficult, as he states himself, to anticipate what the situation in the country will be in five or ten years' time. Yet with such doubts in his mind, it appears that he has approved of lending millions to CIE to improve their rail services. Surely that is not a consistent policy? That part of the Minister's statement, to my mind, needs explanation. If the Minister has such faith in the railways that in the not too distant future the railway system will be wiped out save for the lines connecting the major towns in the country, why then is public money being utilised at the present time in handing over capital to CIE to improve its system? I think there is an obligation on the Minister to explain that reasoning of his, because I think there should be no need now for lending millions to CIE, in view of the policy which they are adopting.
If they are short of rolling stock on some lines at the present moment, will not the rolling stock used on the West Clare line, the West Cork line and on the other lines likely to be closed in the not too distant future be available to supplement the CIE service in any place where they need additional rolling stock? Indeed, it is very peculiar also to note that even though the Minister approves of the lending of millions to CIE he states that, by 1970, one person in every eight will have a car in this country. I hope that prophecy will come true because it would be a sign of progress, but if that is the position, it is evident that the need for a public transport service whether by rail or road will diminish seriously. I am sure the Minister took some time in making this calculation. If, as he feels, private cars will increase by more than 80 per cent. within the next eight years, why should he, as I mentioned, approve of big capital expenditure by CIE now on developing their rail service when he feels that rail service is likely to come to an end in the not too distant future in this country?
The Minister did not in the course of his lengthy statements make a case against this measure. I believe that the motive of the sponsors of this measure was to ensure that CIE would not adopt drastic measures that could not be repaired with a view to improving their financial position sufficiently by 1964 to warrant no further subvention from the State. The Minister did not answer the case made by the sponsors of this Bill. He mentioned that subsidies were bad and led to inefficiency and that where the State intended to wipe out any adverse balances in public companies it was not the best method of doing business. At the same time, he said that while there may be an arguable case now or later for amending or modifying this section in some very limited respects, to delete it altogether would be plain silly. The Minister clearly does not believe that CIE will be able to pay their way before 31st March, 1964. This section embodied in the Act is only wishful thinking.
I should like to mention again the capital expenditure approved for CIE at present. Will the loan charges on that expenditure not be charged against CIE in the ensuing years, or will those loan charges be added to any adverse balance they may have on their operations for that year? It seems to me that, instead of the adverse trend moving downwards, it is likely it may move in the other direction. CIE's main outlet for improving their revenue, increased charges, will soon defeat its own ends. Transport charges by CIE are exceptionally high. If they were to be increased any further, it would mean a loss of business to CIE.
I should like to elaborate on that. The single fare by road transport from my own town of Schull to Cork city is 17s. odd and about 35/- return. This is a rather steep charge. If three or four people turn up at the bus stop in Schull or Ballydehob and find they all intend to go to Cork city for the day, they may decide it is much cheaper to go along to a hackney owner and hire him to take them to Cork and back rather than avail of the CIE service. That is a big difficulty facing CIE service. present. It is difficult for them to stand up to that type of competition, which arises because of the sharp increases they have made in their road transport charges in recent times.
The people accepted the subsidisation of CIE because they felt CIE were providing a regular service in districts which could not be described as economic. Undoubtedly, there were a number of areas serviced by the CIE road and rail system which would not be economic propositions. Naturally, the people were inclined to subsidise CIE so long as they declared some of the services they were providing for the public were uneconomic. Now, however, they have turned over a new leaf. They state they are going to manage their business on economic lines and will wipe out all uneconomic business in future. Wherever a rail system is uneconomic—and, I understand, wherever a road system is uneconomic—they will delete it from their list.
If that is the case, the further question arises as to why CIE should enjoy the monopoly of transport they hold at present. The Minister states that this monopoly is of no great advantage to them. He states there are large numbers of public vehicles, merchandise plate vehicles and privately-owned vehicles, with all of which CIE have to compete. Despite the Minister's assertion, CIE have a certain monopoly, which they got from this House at a time when they were providing a national service. It appears CIE are no longer obliged to provide a national service but only to provide an economic service in areas where they can produce a favourable balance sheet.
Within the past 12 or 18 months, the Board of CIE have had to retract statements they made last year to the effect that once the three uneconomic lines—West Cork, Waterford and West Clare—were closed, no further rail closures would take place before 31st March, 1964. The people who made such statements did not display much keenness or foresight, because they had to retract them within 12 months and say it was necessary, if they were to achieve the target set them by the Transport Act of 1958, to examine the position of further railways with a view to closing them down.
Would not the best solution to this problem be a new Transport Bill, in view of the changes that have taken place in the past few years and the rapid changes that are taking place at present? Then the House would have an opportunity of examining the advisability of the Minister's policy in lending millions to develop CIE rail services and in continuing the monopoly CIE hold.
On this question of monopoly, every citizen who does not own a vehicle himself must have his goods carried for him by CIE or by the holder of a merchandise plate. They are the two sections at present enjoying privileged treatment under the Transport Act of 1934. We have had many changes since that Act was enacted 28 years ago. There is a completely different position now. There has been talk of economic methods of doing business. If I, as a private citizen, have goods to be carried to the market, to the fair or to the town, I should be allowed to decide the best and most economic method of transporting them. It is well known that, were it not for the restriction on transport here, goods from the farming community or any other section could be hauled at much cheaper rates than those of CIE or indeed those of the holders of merchandise plates.
If uneconomic districts will not get any preferential treatment in future, why then should monopolies continue? There is no case any longer for their continuance. Everybody knows that the merchandise plate, or plated lorry system, has been grossly abused. Those who had these plates in 1934 were entitled to preference, but it is a well-known fact now that some of these fortunate people are not now carrying on any transport business at all; they are remaining in their homes and enjoying an income of £1 daily for lending their plates to others in order to measure up to the requirements of that Act.
I do not know whether that practice is strictly illegal, but I certainly think it is a doubtful practice. Throughout the length and breadth of the country at the moment, we have these favoured people under the 1934 Act making good money from lending plates at £1 per day. So far as I know, the rate is more or less standard and, therefore, the holder of a merchandise plate enjoys a very special preference indeed. He enjoys a special type of treatment because the market value of his plate is £1 per day. I do not know if we should continue that type of treatment for such a person much longer. He has had the plate now for 28 years, right since the passing of the 1934 Act; he has been amply compensated and I think he should now be put on a par with every other citizen who might like to engage in the transport business.
I am asking the Minister now to give serious consideration and thought to this matter. I am asking the Minister and his Government to give serious thought to the introduction of a new Transport Bill and the implementation of provisions to cover our existing transport difficulties and solve our existing transport problems—road transport, rail transport, the monopolisation of transport by CIE and certain privileged citizens, the removal of certain illegalities that are known to exist in transport as it obtains at the moment, and the giving to private enterprise of the same opportunities to get into the transport business as CIE now hold.
I know that CIE must retain the railways because they cannot be managed by private enterprise. CIE have made it clear that they will maintain the economic lines but will have nothing more to do with the uneconomic lines. That is their business, but why should they have a monopoly of the road transport service? Why should they have a monopoly of the road freight service throughout the country? CIE are making a case for dismantling themselves. If they cannot do business economically, without the help of State subventions and without making drastic changes, and if they cannot cater for the lean areas as well as the fat ones, then the preferential treatment they receive should be removed. I have not the slightest doubt that, if that were done, transport would not suffer to any great extent.
I admit that CIE are providing regular services in all areas, and that is an advantage. At the same time, I feel that equally good services would be given in such districts if CIE were never operating. It is peculiar that such services are, in fact, being given at a rate in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent. of CIE charges, so that, if we are making the transport business an economic proposition for CIE and for everybody, it possibly would be a good idea to do away with monopolies. It would also be a good idea to give me, or anyone else, who requires the service of some person engaged in the transport business the opportunity of getting the man who will give that service at the most economic figure possible. Under the existing law, it is not possible to do that. Every private lorry owner is hounded by the police whenever he appears with a few pigs, a few cows, or some other type of goods in his vehicle. The law does not empower him to carry such goods for reward and that kind of traffic is, as I have said, left to CIE and those people who have enjoyed preferential treatment since 1934.
In conclusion, I ask that the House should consider very carefully the implications of the Minister's statement and the inconsistencies contained in his statement. On the one hand, he tells us there is not much of a future for the rail system, that it will possibly be closed down by 1970 and, on the other hand, he tells us that they are lending money to CIE for development. The Labour Party decided to support this measure because, having given it close attention and consideration, we felt that it was impossible for CIE to make ends meet before 1964. We also discount the statement made by the Minister that, if there is no fixed date for CIE to become an economically paying proposition, that would be likely to lead to inefficiency. I believe CIE is inefficient already. I am surprised to hear the Minister make such a statement because if, despite all the subventions CIE receive from the State and from the public purse, inefficiency exists, that is the responsibility of the Minister, of the Government and of the Board of CIE.
It is the Government and the Minister who nominated the Board. If the Board are guilty of inefficiencies in the discharge of their duties, it is the Minister's responsibility to report such inefficiencies to the Government and change the personnel of the Board. Possibly it would not be a bad day's work if the personnel of the Board were changed.