The debate on the question "that this Bill be now read a Second time," which was continued yesterday, was further adjourned to to-day, on the motion of Deputy Gorey.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS BILL.—SECOND STAGE (RESUMED).
My contribution to the debate will be as short as I can make it. I understand the Government are anxious that this matter should be got through this evening, so I shall endeavour to facilitate them as much as I can. During the debate I heard it said, and it was news to me, that we have 170 Directors attempting to administer the railways in the Saorstat. That appears to mean extraordinary state of affairs amounting almost to a scandal. A line was instanced in Scotland with the same amount of capital that is ruled by 7 or 11 Directors —it does not matter which. Speaking as a member of the public I think it would be a good thing if we had some means, whether by unification or grouping or some other system, which would do away with these 170 Directors and reduce them down to something reasonable. I say that as a member of the public, and I will go further, and say as a small shareholder, that in the interests of the shareholders it is about time to remove a considerable amount of these parasites off the backs of the ordinary stockholders.
Deputy Davin last evening, in dealing with this question of railway nationalisation, gave me, and the Party to which I belong, as much space in his speech as he did the subject matter of the Bill. He gave us a history of the elections down in Leix and Offaly, but that history was as remarkable for what it omitted as for what it contained. He told us we had three candidates and that we only polled 5,400, but he never mentioned the fact that there were two other farmers' candidates in the field, and that we were fighting amongst ourselves. Neither did he mention the previous election at which he polled something like 15,000 votes, while at the last election he only polled 6,000. I think when giving us the history of the elections, in Leix and Offaly, he had a right to give us all the history. His statement yesterday evening was so exaggerated and so inaccurate, with regard to things that I happen to know, that it left me in considerable doubt. I doubt very much, judging from what I know, and hearing his statement with regard to the things I know, the accuracy of his statements in regard to the things I do not know anything at all about. He said something about taking ships at the port here of Dublin for three months and then handing them back to English companies.
I do not know why we have so much mention of English companies, and of English this, that and the other thing. These boats were always the property of the company that owned them, and after we had used them they still remained the property of the company that owned them. We never owned the boats at all, and if they went back to an English company, they went back to the people who owned them. This matter of introducing mention of English companies appears to me to be done in much the same spirit as the mention, last evening, of the English King. It is done to mislead, and in an effort to throw mud. When I was listening to the Deputy last evening, the impression left on my mind was that I was listening to a platform politician and not to a statement of facts. When a man refers to either English or Irish, I would prefer if his references had relation to efficiency, integrity and honesty, and that the references were not made merely for the purpose of calling attention to where a man or a company came from. When I hear a man going about and saying, this is an Irish company, or this is an Irish firm, or an Irish invention, when I hear him prefacing his remarks in that way, I begin to think that I am dealing with a rogue who is trading on nationality as against merit. That sort of talk is not argument at all, and I think we ought to have done with beating that old drum. In fact, I thought it was beaten to death long ago.
Deputy Davin last evening referred to a speech of mine made in reply to the Governor-General's Address. He appeared to express a pious horror at my view point, which was, that it was the duty of the people themselves, or the duty of the Government of the country, to see that industrial disputes between two parties were not allowed to exercise a stranglehold on the whole life and trade of the country. That, of course, may be a matter of absolute indifference to Deputy Davin and his people, but it is not a matter of absolute indifference to the rest of the community. Why, I ask, because of these disputes, should they be left hungry, or their produce be allowed to rot on the land? As I say, that may not be a concern of Deputy Davin, but it is a matter of vital concern to the community as a whole. It may be a matter of very little concern to the community generally what the merits of these disputes are; what concerns the people is to be able to live, to avoid loss as much as possible, and to preserve the life of the nation. I do not think it was the duty of the people to sit quietly for months and see their produce rotting, to see their children hungry or to be obliged to suffer all the inconvenience, hardship and loss caused by strikes here in Dublin, where the point at issue was whether a man should be paid 15/- a day or 16/-. I think if Deputy Davin took into account the human element involved in these disputes, that he need not be surprised at the determination of the people of this country to find an outlet for themselves, independent altogether of the parties to these disputes. Unless the people were imbeciles or sots they certainly should take steps to provide for themselves.
If the Government of the country is going to govern in the interests of the people of the country, they will set up an organisation to secure that no section of the people shall be victimised while some parties are engaged settling their disputes on a question, perhaps, as to whether a docker in Dublin is to be paid 15/- a day or 16/- a day.
Is the Deputy aware of the matter under discussion?
I am aware of the matter under discussion, but I am also aware, with all respect, of the speech which the Deputy delivered here last evening, and I have that in mind now.
I had not the pleasure of hearing Deputy Davin yesterday evening, but I desire to remind Deputy Gorey that he has not touched upon this Bill yet.
On a point of explanation, I wish to say that when speaking last evening I quoted the exact words, which Deputy Gorey used, from the Official Report, and I do not think the Deputy can take exception to that.
I am not going to go into that. The question now is, whether this Bill should be read a second time.
It was because of references the Deputy made in his speech last evening that I alluded to these matters. Deputy Johnson, when introducing this Bill, said: "This, I may tell the Dáil, is not a Bill which fulfils all the equities, as I would conceive them. It is very generous in its interpretation of the rights of stockholders. It is such a Bill as might, without any stretch of imagination, have been introduced by Deputy Hewat combined with Deputy Gorey. It is not, as I say, a Bill which fulfils all the equities as I conceive them, but it is a Bill designed to secure general support. Certainly such a Bill as I would like to see enacted would require a considerable period of education of the public, and the circumstances of the day do not justify, perhaps, experiments of a kind which might be risky." [Official Reports 23rd November, 1923, p. 1198.]
I would like to know really what Deputy Johnson would have in his Bill if his idea of equities had full play. I think he had a right to take us into his confidence and give us a rough outline of what he would do if the thin end of the wedge, which this Bill represents, gets any kind of an effective foothold. The Bill, he said, did not fulfil the equities as he conceived them. It is a pity he did not tell us how much further he would have gone. One of the reasons, I take it, why this Bill has been introduced is that the State would be a preferable master to a Company. From our experience of public bodies we have learned this, that they have always been more liberal employers than private Companies. Public bodies, such as County Councils, have always been very liberal in their terms of employment. That is not to be wondered at, especially in recent years, when a good many of these employers, in their capacity as representatives on public boards, are absolutely irresponsible. They contribute nothing whatever to the rates. Therefore they can easily be liberal in their terms of employment. Some of the County Councils, and other public bodies throughout the country, have reached the stage now that they are almost semi-State controlled, and they are anything but a credit or a tribute to efficiency or economy.
I would like to tell the Dáil my conception of the real reason. The real reason is that the present enormous freights and passenger charges must be radically reduced, not by ten or twenty per cent., but by a different percentage altogether. To meet this inevitable reduction, money must be found somewhere, if the present overhead charges are to continue. The real reason is that the revenue of the railway companies in future will not be sufficient to carry the present overhead charges, and that the money of the State is needed to subsidise the earnings of the companies. The help of the Central Fund is needed in order to continue to pay the present rate of wages, to keep the eight-hour day in force, and to keep the present staffs employed. We have been told about efficiency, better service, and all the rest. It would shorten this debate considerably had we been told the real reason at first.
With regard to the terms offered, a comparison has been made with the recent Land Act, and that comparison was very much enlarged upon by Deputy Johnson. Deputy Cooper also alluded to this basis of purchase, and Deputy Davin, I think, further emphasised it. It strikes me that these Deputies, whatever they may know about railways, do not know very much about the land question. I am not surprised at Deputies Davin and Johnson, but I am surprised at Deputy Cooper. Let us take the position of the railways. The companies bought the lands and constructed the railways. Therefore, they have a proper and just right to their property. What comparison is there with land or homesteads? I will not go into the question of whether the landlords bought the sites of our Irish homesteads or not. That is rather too old a question now. When we did not consider that matter before passing the last Land Act, it is a bit late now to talk about how the landlords came into possession of the land. We will, however, talk about who erected the homesteads and the other property on the land. Did the landlords erect the homesteads or the fences? Did they carry out the drainage and provide access to the holdings? Did they sustain the fertility of the soil? In ninety-nine per cent. of cases the landlords did nothing. I am wrong in saying that the landlords did nothing. They did. They levelled the homesteads over considerable tracts of country. I apologise to the landlords for making that mistake.
I will not now discuss the Land Act terms, or whether the price given to the landlords was fair or not. I hope, however, that the Minister for Agriculture will remember who levelled the homes on the untenanted land of the country, and see that the cost of the erection of the new ones is charged to those who levelled the old ones. There is no comparison whatsoever between land purchase and State purchase of railways. The landlords' interest is more than fairly met in the terms of the Land Act. What is the price of the tenants' interest in Irish land? That interest has been going on and has been growing for years. The railway companies own both interests. Do the terms of this Bill, based on the price of the landlords' interest, meet the tenants' interest and the landlords' interest? There is no sensible or fair comparison, even according to the equities that Deputy Johnson referred to. This Bill, Deputy Johnson tells us, does not give us the expression of his mind. I would like to get the real expression of his mind, his line of thought, and what he would do if he had a free hand. This is a child of compromise—a child of opportunity! Deputy Davin tells us that to meet dividends, recently, the companies had to draw on Government subsidies.
Tax-payers' money.
I do not know anything about the honesty or dishonesty of the companies' balance sheets. That is a question Deputy Davin could have raised in another way. If he had chosen to charge the companies with issuing dishonest balance sheets, or with dishonest administration, there were other occasions to do it. We should not imagine, when we are dealing with this Bill, that we have the real article. This is only a pussy cat, but it might grow into a lion cub and become very dangerous to the community. This Bill is the beginning of nationalisation and of socialisation. Before we take a step in that direction we ought to be very careful where the road leads to. I listened very attentively to Deputy Davin, and his remarks in reference to matters that I am acquainted with were so exaggerated that they were almost inaccurate. However, I believe a good deal of what he has stated. I believe that if we cannot subscribe to nationalisation—which I certainly do not—that it is time for the Government to map out a bold policy in connection with the railways, in order to remove the present scandal and the inefficiency that exists. I believe if it were a question of benefit to a company or shareholders as against loss of a directorship, that most of the directors would choose the loss to the shareholders and retain the directorship.
I have read with a great deal of care, with a great deal of interest, and, I must admit, with a considerable amount of sympathy, the Bill which Deputy Johnson has placed befor the Dáil, in reference to the nationalisation of the railways, and dealing with the transport problem of the country in general. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to Deputy Johnson for the introduction of this Bill which, with all its faults and demerits, and they are many, will, at any rate, have the advantage of focussing public opinion upon what I consider to be one of the most vital problems in connection with the general agricultural and commercial prosperity of the country. Deputy Johnson, in introducing the Bill, said: "I want to say that it is not put forward in deference to any pre-conception regarding nationalisation or State ownership, or collectivism or anything of the kind."
took the Chair at this stage.
Mr. EGAN
I felt at a loss to understand why such an enthusiastic advocate of railway nationalisation as Deputy Johnson is, should find it necessary to dissemble his love for his Bill, because whatever preconceptions he might have had when he approached it first, in the course of the preparation of his Bill he certainly did succeed in educating himself into a very considerable enthusiasm for his subject. With regard to the question of railway nationalisation in general, I may say that at one time it was a question to which I gave a considerable amount of study, and I must admit frankly it is a subject to which I am very considerably attracted. I go further and say that I believe it is quite probable that eventually some form of State nationalisation will be found necessary. I wish to emphasise the word "eventually," because nationalisation of railways is, I think, a matter that should be approached by slow degrees and by steps. I think Deputy Johnson himself, in the course of his remarks, when introducing the Bill, did use the word "eventually."
No one who has really studied the railway system of this country can for a moment hold that it is a perfect system, that it is a system which fits in with the needs of either the agricultural or commercial community, or that it has for its object any serious intention of trying to develop the natural resources of the country. In criticising the railway system of the country I would like to lay stress on the fact that I do not criticise the personnel of the railways, the directors or the management. I do criticise the system. It is the system is wrong. There are various characteristics of the railway situation which might be referred to, and Deputies on the other side of the Dáil have dwelt considerably on some of them. To my mind one of the outstanding features of the railway situation is the fact that the railways of the country are undoubtedly over-capitalised; that there is a good deal of watered capital. One has to go back a considerable time to find a cause for that. Probably the greatest cause of the over-capitalisation of the railways of the country was the tremendous sums of money which were paid originally for acquiring the land upon which they were built, and the tremendous sums of money which the Bills themselves cost when promoted in Parliament, as well as various other extravagances and abuses which cropped up in the forties and fifties when a lot of the railways were built.
Reference has been made to the number of directors, and unquestionably nobody can logically maintain that 170 directors could conceivably be necessary for running the railways in such a small country as Ireland. I am aware that amongst these directors are men identified with some of the biggest commercial interests in the country, and that they are men who have made their mark in very many commercial ventures of their own. The system by which the railways of the country are run primarily in order to earn dividends for shareholders, rather than for the purpose of developing the resources of the country as a whole, is wrong. Although a certain number of these directors have undoubted commercial experience, I am afraid it must be admitted, with very great respect to them, that very few of them have any actual railway experience whatever. Accordingly, many of them hold the position by virtue of having made their mark in other spheres of the commercial world. One of the greatest grievances that I personally have against the railways is that concerning the preferential rate. That is a matter I feel very strongly about indeed, and it is one that affects nearly every trader and nearly every farmer in this country. By the preferential rate I mean one by which people send goods from the other side into Ireland and are able to send their goods at a far cheaper rate than people can send goods from one part of Ireland to another. I am not going to worry the Dáil with figures. Deputy Davin, in the course of the very able speeches he made on this matter, gave a good many but it would be very easy to multiply them ad infinitum.
I think, on the whole, that Deputy Johnson and the Labour Deputies have, to give them their due, established a fair prima facie case for some sort of eventual railway nationalisation. There are, of course, a good many faults in the Bill.
It has to be remembered that various Commissions have inquired into the railway situation in Ireland and that at least two of them, to my knowledge, have pronounced in favour of State nationalisation. I do not want to refer at great length to the success of State railways in other countries, but it is undoubtedly a fact that in nearly every other country there is some form of State railway or State control. There are two notable exceptions—and I admit they are notable—England and America. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that there is, as I have said, a good prima facie case for some form of eventual nationalisation.
I wish to refer to the terms of purchase of the railways, and in that connection it is a very curious thing that, although we have heard a good many speeches from the promoters of the Bill in reference to railway nationalisation, and although sundry red-covered books have been quoted with which I am familiar, it has not been mentioned that all these books refer to the fact that there is at present on the Statute Book of the English Parliament an Act brought in by Sir Robert Peel's Parliament enabling the Government to take over the railways on the basis of twenty-five years' purchase of three years' average profits prior to the time of being taken over. It was a very remarkable fact, though perhaps it was not so very remarkable, that no refer ence was made to Sir Robert Peel's Railway Act enabling the State to buy over the railways. I suppose the explanation was that the provision regarding twenty-five years was a little difficult to stomach. Contrasting Peel's terms of purchase with those of Deputy Johnson, I am afraid the unfortunate shareholder has not any particular reason to congratulate himself upon the generosity of the terms offered by Deputy Johnson. A great deal has been made of the analogy of the Land Act but I do not believe that there is any analogy at all. It must be remembered when the original shareholders put up capital to build the railways they did so under the protection of an Act of Parliament, and it is not right to take from the successors of those original shareholders part of the money subscribed under the protection of the State. I do not think that that is a procedure which would stand in common fairness. Deputy Johnson in this Bill says that Section II. constitutes a railway tribunal to consist of three persons who will determine the terms of purchase. The tribunal would be appointed by the Executive Council. The Chairman must have held high judicial office, and the other two Commissioners would be qualified accountants, one of whom would be appointed after consultation with the railway companies. In other words, the unfortunate railway shareholders would find themselves in a distinct minority and would have very little voice as to the terms upon which their property is to be taken over. What is the particular object of appointing a railway tribunal to deal with the terms of purchase when you immediately tie their hands and tell them that they are to buy at fifteen years' purchase? I think any fair-minded person will admit that there is a vast difference between fifteen and twenty-five years' purchase.
Deputy Johnson, in his address in introducing the Bill, also referred to the particular class of certificate which the various kind of stockholders will be given. He says: "It is intended that railway stock will be issued by the State in exchange for present holdings, the stock being either in the form of redeemable stock certificates carrying 4½ per cent. or terminable annuity certificates carrying 4½ per cent. for the first five years and 4¾ per cent. for sixty-seven years."
Now, with regard to that, and looking upon it from the shareholder's point of view, it is utterly immaterial what particular class of certificate he gets in exchange for his property once you have determined that he is to be bought out under a definite number of years purchase. Fifteen years purchase are the terms he is getting, and the particular class of stock certificate which he is going to get makes no difference to him as he is getting fifteen years purchase and no more. All this talk about different kinds of certificates really amounts to a certain amount of exuberant verbosity. It means nothing so far as the pockets of the unfortunate shareholder are concerned. Now, although this Bill deals mainly with railway nationalisation, there is one Section, the very last one, which gives me a considerable amount of food for thought. I refer to Section 48 which "enables the Executive Council to transfer to the Minister the powers of any Department of State in reference to transport and communication, and requires him to consider the present position of such services, the facilities provided thereby, and the possibilities of their further development, extension and co-ordination in conjunction with the railways and postal services, as part of the national system of transport and communication services and shall submit to the Oireachtas a report thereon." I am sorry that Deputy Johnson and the speakers who followed him did not explain that Section more fully. All the rest of the Bill practically deals with railways, but this particular Section opens up an extraordinary vista of possibilities. It seems to be like legislation on a somewhat wholesale scale—road, motor, aerial and other transport and communication services—in fact Deputy Johnson wants to nationalise the atmosphere. Although I am in considerable sympathy with the general principle of nationalisation, I think it is a case in which we should hasten slowly and it is because I would like to see railway nationalisation started on a decent footing, and with a reasonable chance of success and with everything in its favour, I cannot see my way, in spite of my strong predilections towards nationalisation of railways, to vote for this Bill.
Furthermore, it must be admitted that there has been an enormous amount of legislation put through this Dáil. The legislative pace has been rather hot, and unless we are careful, the country will suffer from legislative indigestion. I think that measures of this kind, which affect the material interests of the country to such a vital extent, should be thought out very carefully, and I believe the first step in the preparation of the country for an ultimate scheme of nationalisation should be some form of unification or co-ordination of all the existing railways. There are undoubtedly too many railways, and there should be one definite co-ordinated policy. I sincerely hope in the near future the Government will tackle the railway situation in some fashion or another, and prepare the ground for eventual nationalisation, but I shall vote against this Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Deputy Egan is to be congratulated on the fact that he is one of the very few speakers against this measure who has kept in mind the motion before the Dáil. Most of the others were inclined to get off the rails a bit. We are engaged in the Second Stage of the Transport and Communications Bill. It is a fact, according to our Standing Orders, that the debate must be confined to the general principles involved in the measure before the Dáil. Before Deputies make up their minds as to how they should vote, therefore, they should address themselves to finding out the general principle involved in the measure on which they are to vote. It seems to me quite clear that the general principle involved in this measure which we are now discussing is whether or not it is a good thing that all the available means of transport should be acquired by the State and owned and controlled and directed by the State. That is the principle involved, and the ways and means by which that is to be brought about seem to me to be details. Deputy O'Mahony spoke of this measure being something equivalent to confiscation. The question of confiscation does not arise. The principle of State purchase, and the rights of property stockholders are a portion of this measure.
State purchase on certain stated terms.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That is the point I wish to draw attention to.
One is the complement of the other.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Those responsible for introducing the Bill have given the Dáil an idea of what they think reasonable terms considering all the circumstances. It is not they who have the decision of those terms. It is for the Dáil to decide whether a maximum of 15 years' purchase is a proper and fair maximum, whether, another maximum should be fixed, or whether there should be any maximum. The principle involved is State Purchase. The terms are matters of detail and are not involved in this stage of the Bill. What is involved is the extension of a principle which has already been admitted and is already in practice. Deputy Gorey spoke of getting in the thin end of the wedge or giving the wedge a foot-hold. Apart from the fact that wedges have not feet, the thin end of the wedge is in already. Some forms of transport are protected by the State. Some are controlled by municipal authorities, and some are the property of private individuals, concerns and companies. If those who are opposing this principle of nationalisation were to be consistent, they would argue that the Post Office should revert to private enterprise or to private trading concerns, or that the roads of the country should be handed over to private companies who would run them and charge people who travelled on the roads a toll for the benefit that would accrue by travelling on them. That appears to me to be the consistent attitude of those opposing the principle of nationalisation to take up. The opposition to nationalisation arises principally from preconceived notions. We have in this country the knack of fixing on shibboleths and setting them up as gods to be worshipped or demons to be dreaded. We have the god of private enterprise, for instance. There are some people who seem to think of it in terms no less than if it were deserving of worship. We had an instance on the other side the other day. I think it was the Minister for Agriculture, in speaking of some proposal in connection with a meat factory, who said "Socialism." That clinched the argument. We all felt our flesh creep when that term was used. It is the same with Deputy O'Mahony in connection with nationalisation and Bolshevism.
Deputy Johnson used the expression "Bolshevism."
Mr. O'CONNELL
We conjured up in our minds the leader of the Labour Party, stalking through the land with a dagger in his teeth and a pistol in each hand, thirsting for the blood of Deputy O'Mahony. We are more afraid of an abstract idea than the reality. It is enough for some people to mention the word "nationalisation" to set them against it.
Private enterprise, socialism and nationalism are either good or bad according to whether they make for the good of the community or are detrimental to it. There are forms of private enterprise that not only should not be encouraged, but should not be tolerated, as the Minister for Home Affairs would, no doubt, tell us. The very progress of civilisation is a getting away from private enterprise of one kind or another. I suppose primitive man was the greatest exponent of private enterprise, and then we have also had the family and the tribe. Progress and civilisation mark the subordination of self, of individualism, to the good of the community as a whole. We hear a good deal from time to time—and such talk is fashionable— of the inefficiency of State-managed enterprises. It is fashionable to believe that the State as a body can do nothing efficiently, and it is equally fashionable to believe that if a body of businessmen had to do the work of the State they would do it very much more efficiently than those engaged on it could. As I say, that is only really a fashion, just as it is a fashion for us to think that our political opponents, on all occasions, are the last word in scoundrelism of every shade. What are the facts? The State does its business—and perhaps this is the cause—under the fierce rays of the searchlight of public opinion and criticism. I have often wondered if the same searchlight were turned on some of our private concerns and enterprising companies would it not reveal inefficiency to a much greater extent even than in the case of State enterprises. One dare not say the things about the ordinary private concern that one can say against the State; we would be all up for libel. To my mind there are no essential reasons why a State-managed business should not be carried on as successfully and as efficiently as the business carried on by private enterprise.
It seems to me, too, that if we take this question of transport and communication what we should keep in mind is, what is the object to be served and whether the first object of the existence and maintenance of railways is to make a profit for the shareholders or serve the interest of the public as a whole. And if we can agree that the first and the main object should be the good of the community as a whole, then I think there can be no question whatsoever as to whether the railways should be owned and controlled by the State or left in the possession and subject to the control of private individuals or companies, because there is no doubt that the body most likely to work the railways for the benefit of the community is the State. Under private control the object is to secure a maximum of profit with a minimum of efficiency and with the least possible concern for the interests of the public. I think in the other case the position would be reversed, that while the object would be to make the railways a self-supporting concern, at least the main object would be to serve the interests of the community as a whole.
We heard a good deal about preferential rates. We heard that goods could be sent more cheaply from districts in Ireland to districts in England than they could be sent from point to point in Ireland. I think it is most important for this country that the point we should keep most in mind is its internal development, and facilities for sending goods from point to point in Ireland and within Ireland, and not so much for sending them from parts of Ireland to England or getting them from districts in England to Ireland. Certainly the prime consideration should be the development of internal communications. We all know that in the past this was not the prime consideration, and it received indeed very little consideration at all from the companies.
There is another point in this connection. We must consider the whole community as an entity. If we did not, then the interests of those most favourably situated would be the interests which would receive most favourable consideration. Take the Post Office, for instance. If the Post Office was run purely as a business enterprise it would never think of delivering letters down in Connemara, or in the Dingle Peninsula, because the cost of delivery would be prohibitive compared with Dublin or Cork. But people who live in these out-of-the-way districts have rights, too, and their rights must be looked after. I suppose if education were run on a purely commercial basis you would never think of establishing a school in Inisboffin, Arranmore, Tory Island, and these places. Similarly, if railways were to be run purely for the purpose of making a profit many of the railways at present in existence would be closed down because they are non-paying concerns.
The objections which have been put up seem to be pre-conceived, objections to the terms, or perhaps it is the conservative objection to a change of any kind that we have in Ireland. This may be exemplified by the statement made by, I think, Deputy O'Mahony, that the devil he knows is preferable to the devil he does not know. If it would not be unparliamentary I might ask him how the devil does he know. We do not know. But in any case none of us are satisfied, as Deputy Egan says, with the devil we do know. The other devil might be quite a beneficent chap and I doubt if he could be a much worse devil.
We heard, too, of the injury to the stockholders, but as I pointed out, that is a matter of detail. In any case, I think that the stockholder would be making a good bargain if he exchanged for a certainty something that is now extremely uncertain and perhaps in some cases does not exist at all. As against that we have all the advantages which arise from unified control, and I think nearly everyone who spoke referred to the advantages which would come from the unification of the railways. We would have more economical working; we would get rid of all these overhead charges referred to by Deputy Davin and this overlapping and waste of effort—for there is waste of effort undoubtedly—and we would have all the advantages that arise from competition without the disadvantages due to waste of effort and overlapping.
Deputy Hewat made one statement which, coming from him, seemed to me to be rather surprising in this connection. He was not satisfied with the railways any more than anyone else, and his suggestion was that if the railways were not giving satisfaction the traders of the locality concerned should set up a means of transport for themselves. I think that the traders of Loughrea, or Roscommon, or Claremorris, would put up with a good deal of inconvenience from the railways before they would set about establishing a fleet of motor cars to transport their goods.
Mr. HOGAN
So they do.
Mr. O'CONNELL
Well, if they do they should not be asked to do it. Traders should not be put to that trouble or expense owing to the unreasonable action of the railway company. We have had various comparisons between State-owned railways and privately-owned and managed railways. I do not think it is really possible to make any comparison worth taking into account, because the circumstances of each individual railway are different. It may be the case that in some countries where you have the two kinds of railways, and I believe it is the case, that the State took over the least satisfactory railways, or those that were in outlying districts, and worked them for the benefit of the people and not as a paying concern as a whole. In any case we have the fact that, I think, up to 50 per cent. of the railways on the Continent have been nationalised, and we have no case, or at least I have not heard of one, put forward in which the railways having been taken over and nationalised reverted to private management. There may have been, but if so I have not heard of a railway taken over by the State that the service of the railway deteriorated as a result. One of the main objections of Deputy Cooper was to the position in which the public would find the railway servants. He seemed to give the impression that the railway servants at present have no political rights, and that the railway companies prevented their servants from having or exercising any political rights. Of course, as we all know, railway servants have full political rights, and we have a railway worker a member of the Dáil. I would like to ask Deputy Cooper, or those who think with him, seeing that this is the case, whether these rights have been abused by railway servants. Has Deputy Cooper on any occasion on which he went into a railway station to buy a ticket been canvassed? A railway servant has the right to do so, as he has full political rights. Has he been followed about for the sake of getting his support for one measure or another, and has every station under present circumstances, as Deputy Cooper told us would happen under the proposed change, been turned into a committee room? There is no evidence whatever that the railway servants have abused their political rights. If that is the case we can reasonably conclude they would not be abused under the new conditions. I cannot conceive why Deputy Cooper would deny the right to a railway servant that he himself possesses. There is nothing to prevent Deputy Cooper, or any other member of the public, from going into a railway station and pestering a railway servant to give his vote in a certain direction. I have been always opposed to this idea, another preconceived idea, that because a man happens to work in a certain position he therefore should not have the full right to exercise his civil and political rights. Civil and State servants are tax-payers and ratepayers, and they have and should have as much interest in seeing that the State is properly managed, and that the proper people are chosen to manage the affairs of the country, as any other body of men and women. If Deputy Cooper's ideas were to hold good, all shop assistants, too, would be deprived of their political and civil rights, for Deputy Cooper, when he goes into some shop, is just as likely to be pestered to give his vote in a particular way as when he goes into a railway station or post office. We know in reality these things Deputy Cooper fears do not happen, and will not, under the proposed new conditions.
We are not asked, as I say, to decide on the details of the measure at this stage. The Dáil is not asked to agree, by voting for this measure, to everything contained in the Bill. What is now before the Dáil is the main principle, whether or not transport and the means of transport are to be acquired, owned, and controlled, by the State in the interest of the community as a whole, or whether they are to continue to be run for the private profit of individuals.
I think any Deputy who looks at the question at issue from that point of view can only come to one conclusion. This question of nationalisation of railways is like many of the others we heard of in the past, such as old age pensions and the enfranchisement of women, that for years and years were matters for debate, though everyone knew who gave the matter serious thought, that it was only a question of time until these things would come into operation. This is only a question of time too, and I think most of those who spoke against giving the Bill a Second Reading used that argument. You could see while they were in favour of nationalisation, and felt it was bound to come, they thought it better to keep it away as long as they could. That is after all, I think, a mistaken policy.
The nationalisation of railways is bound to come, and it is only a question of whether it should be now or later on.
I do not wish to take up the time of the Dáil, having regard to the length of the debate that has already taken place on this great problem. But I think it will be generally recognised that there is a great demand by the general public, by traders, and even by the railway companies themselves, that a definite answer or a definite decision should be arrived at on this very important national problem. The people of the country demand improved transit facilities, and a reduction of high rates. That has already been dealt with by practically every Deputy who stood up, either in support of or against the Bill. It is not necessary, therefore, to go any further into that part of the question, except to point out that inland industries are at a great disadvantage owing to the long journeys goods have to be brought for the purpose of exporting them. There, undoubtedly, must be something radically wrong when manufacturers find it much cheaper, instead of using railways for the transport of their goods, to ship them through Glasgow or Liverpool from one Irish port to another Irish port. That is an illustration of the necessity for a reduction of Irish railway rates. It is a very urgent problem. I am convinced, and I think most of the Deputies, even those who stand strongly for this Bill, believe that it is a problem that needs very careful and wise consideration before taking it up on the lines set out in the Bill. As to the principle of nationalisation or amalgamation, I will say that I, at any rate, have been an exponent of nationalisation for a number of years. With the principle I agree, but I fear, at the moment, having regard to the abnormal condition of affairs in the country, that it is rather a huge problem to undertake. I think my feelings on the matter are better expressed by the comment made by Deputy Hewat, when he said that Deputy Johnson had taken some of the chestnuts out of the Government fire. In my opinion he has taken too many chestnuts out of the fire, judging by the scope of the Bill in which he includes the control of road, canal, transit, and postal communication. The reason I think so is that all these problems, all very important in their own way, and all adding to a very great extent to the progress, prosperity and industrial development of the country, each and all are institutions in themselves. If they were worked, there would be some good grounds for amalgamating them. Until they are I think it would be too great a task to undertake what is outlined in the Bill.
I have listened very attentively to the criticism, particularly of those who have opposed the Bill, that it takes a good deal away from the profits that are to arise from such business concerns. That is the point that I find in Deputy Johnson's Bill. It gives the argument to those who are opposed, and who always will be opposed to the change of any great concern, that it does not pay them personally. It is always put forward as an excuse for not changing and making a concern work as it ought. Some of those people, particularly Deputy Gorey's party, feel that they have a right, because they have some pecuniary interest in it, to carry on a concern without any regard to anybody else affected. Our principle ought to be, the greater good of the greater number. As railways are, in fact, the great arteries of the nation there ought to be some control, so that great concerns like these should not be used for the benefit of any one particular section. In my opinion that is what has been done with the Irish railway systems since they were formed.
I think, now that we have got our own Government, with possibilities for the development of our own country in our own hands, it is about time we started to put these institutions under proper control. The management of Irish railways is, undoubtedly, for a layman, a very delicate question to touch on. There are many irregularities, if I may use the word, that one can refer to. Yet, one feels that one may not be able to put forward one's point in a way that it might convince people that there are such irregularities going on to such an extent as to prevent proper administration being carried out. I certainly say that there is a great need for a change in the administration or management of railways. It is up to the Government of the country to make some effort to change the system that has been in operation and that has been left to us, perhaps, as a legacy from the Government that we have just got rid of. There are in the whole of Ireland too many directors on the railways. I forget what the figure exactly is.
There are 117 directors.
Mr. DOYLE
The point is whether there are too many directors or not.
There are too many directors.
Mr. DOYLE
I am glad you admit it. The question of appointing an official staff for working on the railways is the chief business concern of the combined systems. It is not possible for a clerk, or for some person who has certain qualifications or interests, from a commercial point of view, to have a full knowledge of railway working. At present, the system in vogue is that managers are transferred from one railway to another. Changes are so often made —particularly in the workshops—that the output is not as great as it ought to be in the interests of the works and the shareholders. In most cases the managers are not Irish, and consequently they have not that interest in the working of the railways that Irishmen would have, especially Irishmen brought up in railway work, and who have a good knowledge of it.
An Irishman is turned down in his own country and he has to go abroad to earn a living. In connection with specifications and contracts on the railways, there is a system in operation that prevents Irish manufacturers tendering. The bulk of railway requirements is imported from abroad. I could cite a number of articles that have been applied for, but were turned down because the companies would not change their contractors, although it was obvious the articles could be got in Ireland for half the cost. I venture to suggest that if these changes were possible in railway management, they would add considerably to the dividends of the shareholders.
As regards the manufacture of rolling stock, which was referred to by Deputy O'Mahony, the difference between home-made and foreign rolling stock would amount to £300, touching, for the moment, on coaches. The home-made article would cost £300 more than the article imported from England. I would like to go more fully into that matter, but I hold that this is not the place to do it. A few months ago a mistake, I believe, was made in regard to certain railway work. That work is now being carried out at Inchicore. There are a number of items arising out of rolling stock manufacture that I could refer to, and I will just quote one at a pre-war figure.
Is it necessary, in connection with a question of this sort, that we should hear about every linchpin and every nail that is driven into rolling stock?
It might be as well if the Deputy did not go so fully into details.
Mr. HENNESSY
I think, with all respect, that we should have every point brought out in order to discuss the matter fully.
I think there is really ground for protest against interruptions. When a new Deputy stands up to speak for the first time, he ought to be allowed to continue his speech without interruption.
Interruptions should not be tolerated.
Perhaps I may be allowed to intervene? It may be necessary to sit beyond 8.30 to-night. I have no desire to interrupt the Deputy, particularly when he is making his maiden speech; on such an occasion I agree he should not be interrupted. I move now that the Dáil do sit beyond 8.30 to-night. There is a general feeling that we should deal with this matter now under discussion and get it finished. In order that there would be no accident, I move as stated.
Mr. HOGAN
I beg to second.
Motion put and agreed to.
Mr. DOYLE
The question of rolling stock is a very sore one, because, in a sense, it pricks some of the consciences of those who cannot see their way to support Irish products, either in their own domestic life or when they are using other people's money. In pre-war times waggons were imported by the Midland Great Western Railway Company from England at a cost of about £150. At that time waggons were made in the Great Southern and Western Ralway's Works for £80. Quite recently there was an instance of where an article was manufactured here at £150, and abroad it would cost £190. At the moment, Irish railways are sending huge sums of money out of the country for rolling stock. I presume that is in the interest of the shareholders. I will confine myself now to saying that if the Government cannot accept the Bill presented by the Labour Party. I sincerely trust they will accept it as a basis for some decision in regard to the future control of Irish railways. I was going to refer to an incident which occurred some years ago in connection with propaganda for the nationalisation of railways. I will just touch upon it because I believe the influences then at work against nationalisation are working to-day to obstruct if possible, any effort on our part to control our own railway systems.
At that time I was closely in touch with some members of the Irish Parliamentary Party who were interested in nationalisation and undoubtedly had done good work. I approached them, I may say confidentially at the time, on the question as to the possibilities of nationalisation being realised in this country within any short time. The answer I got was that it took ten years to convince the Irish Party of the importance of it, and they believed it would take twenty years more to convince the British Government. Now that is an accurate statement of what I got at that particular time which might be ten years ago, but I sincerely trust that we ought to take a different view now from that opinion, and as I have said before, it is up to the Government now to endeavour as far as the circumstances permit to solve this great national problem. I do not think anyone on these Benches needs any convincing that the railway system in Ireland, if properly worked and properly controlled, means a full development of the industrial life of the country as regards new industry in particular, and almost all property in the country in general.
I do not propose to speak very long on this matter. Deputy Egan has said very much of what I wished to say. I also congratulate the Labour Party—it is becoming quite the fashion —upon their Bill, but I propose to vote against it. This much at least can be said for it. It is the first concrete proposal which we have got towards the solution of an extremely difficult, an extremely intricate and extremely complex question. There was another proposal made by Deputy Hewat, speaking as a business man, but you can hardly call it a concrete proposal, and it was hardly a proposal towards the solution of any problem. His position was—and I was surprised to hear it— that there was no problem to solve. That is a laissez faire with a vengeance. He said that this question, this perennial railway question was a mere stalking horse, and he personally could not see why we should treat a commercial undertaking like the railways in any different way from any other commercial undertaking. That was his position frankly. That is a surprising position for a business man to take up. We all complain at the present moment of high freights, of inefficient service, and we all know the reason well enough. We all know the reason and we can all agree on some of the reasons at any rate. I am sure that Deputy Hewat would agree that the fact that the railway system of this very small country consists of over 30 separate companies built up haphazard, not according to any plan, cannot but lead towards inefficiency.
Whose fault is it?
Mr. HOGAN
That is not the question; but there it is and we are dealing with existing circumstances. We all agree that that fact is one of the big causes of high freights and inefficiency. Does the Deputy seriously take up the position that it is not only not the duty of the Government, but that the Government have no right to intervene to lower freights by insisting on something like efficient organisation? I am not speaking for the Government. I am speaking as a Deputy; but I would be very much surprised if that was the Government's position, and I am very much surprised to find that that is the contribution of a business man towards the solution of this problem. I am not in favour of nationalisation at this stage and in existing circumstances. I should like to say a word or two in this connection. There are no principle involved in a business matter of this sort, there are only questions of expediency, and nationalisation is really a matter of expediency. It is a matter of expediency, a business matter, in considering which you take into account the expediency of the case and give justice to all parties concerned. That is all that is to it. I am not in favour of nationalisation at this stage. I do not hide from myself the fact that in a country like this which is predominantly an agricultural country, and which is likely to continue to be predominantly an agricultural country for a very long time, it may be the duty of the State to take special and particular measures to put the railways in at least as good a position as they are in a highly industrialised country where there is a big population and very large traffic both in passengers and goods, and where, consequently, very satisfactory and favourable freights can be given. Railways present a different problem in a country like ours to what they do in a country like England. In a country like England you have big businesses, an immense population, huge loads, so that the railways can be run efficiently, and at the same time freights can be favourable. I do think that as far as the Government can go it would be their duty in an agricultural country where the conditions cannot be so favourable from that point of view, no matter how efficient agriculture is, to intervene to see that freights give fair play to the citizens and to the main industry of the country.
Is this the time to consider the question of nationalisation? Deputy Davin made a very long speech yesterday and he pointed out what tremendously high freights we had. We all know that. He pointed out that the present system is inefficient. We all know that, too, and we all agree with it. Like Deputy Egan, I would say that the blame can hardly be laid upon the management. It is the system that is wrong, but whatever the reason may be we can all agree with Deputy Davin that the present system is costly and inefficient. We need not labour these points or make very long speeches about them. They are common cause. The question is how to remedy all this—how to remedy it in view of the fact that the boundary has not yet been determined, in view of the fact that the Irish railways carry an immense traffic to England and carry an immense traffic back; that a system of through rates has grown up, that very complicated relations exist as between the English railway system and the Irish railway system; relations which were bound to develop considering that the Irish railways carry to the Irish ports, and through the Irish ports send across to England, over one hundred million tons of export every year and bring back almost the same amount.
These are the factors which make the problem at this moment extremely complicated. We could go a long way to solve all our difficulties if we could do what Deputy Johnson felt himself entitled to do in the Bill, and that is to write off ten million pounds worth of capital. We do not feel entitled to do that, even though Deputy O'Connell may object to me referring to that on a Second Reading debate, but he will have to allow me to refer to it because it has a very direct and important bearing on the whole principle of the Bill. If we could afford to write off about 30 per cent. of the capital, and about 40 per cent. of the interest, we could go a long way towards solving the problem. That appears to me to be the biggest flaw in the Bill, and it is the only difficulty in the way. But is this, I ask, the right time to do that? Remember the history of the Irish railways for the last 10 years. They were controlled during the war. In his speech yesterday, Deputy Davin went to great length to show that the control was inefficient, and that we could hardly judge nationalisation on the experiences of the Irish railways under control during the war period. I agree with him on that, that the control of the Irish railways and the result obtained during the period of the war, when they were controlled, is not a fair test of nationalisation. They were controlled, and controlled not exactly with a view to economy.
They emerged from that control and passed through, I think, two years of revolution; they emerged from that revolution and passed through more than a year's rebellion, when the energies of a very large number of people in the country were concentrated on smashing them up. To take the railways at that point, after going through these experiences and to say "We are going to nationalise you, we are going to take you over on certain terms and we are going to give you these terms because the results you show as a business commercial concern do not deserve any better terms" is not, I suggest, fair play.
Is the Minister not aware that we are dealing with pre-war earnings?
Mr. HOGAN
I am quite well aware of that, but Deputy Johnson knows perfectly well that if, at the present moment, the railway companies were showing a profit instead of a loss that that would change somewhat the terms of his Bill. At least I hope and think so. Though I have not been taken into the councils of the Labour Party, I think that the Bill has been drafted with a view to the exact position as it exists at the moment. I see Deputy Davin smiling, and I am sure he is smiling because he knows that to be true. Is it fair in the circumstances, I ask, to take over any concern after such experiences and say "We will nationalise you at 15 years' purchase"? I say it is not fair.
Mr. O'CONNELL
What about the landlords?
Mr. HOGAN
I will come to the landlords in a moment. It is not the simple problem that Deputy O'Connell said it was. His point was that the railways should be run for the benefit of the nation, or for the benefit of the shareholders. There is no use in attempting to settle the problem in such simple terms, and anyway that is not the question here. I will accept the principle stated by Deputy O'Connell. He said that his position was that the main object of the railways was to utilise them for the national good. We all accept that, but there is no use in confusing the issue by trying to persuade people that the problem can be stated simply—the national good, or the shareholders' profits—and saying to them: "If you are in favour of the nation, if you want to see the railway system of the country serving the nation exclusively rather than serving the shareholders exclusively, then agree to nationalisation." That is not a fair way to state the case. That is not even the position taken up by the Labour Party themselves as expressed in their Bill. They realise that the shareholders have certain rights or otherwise they would not recognise, as they do, these rights in the Bill.
I have no doubt myself that unification must come, and that it must come quickly. I have no doubt that it is the duty of the Government to see that unification comes and that it comes as quickly as possible, and to see that the system, as we have it, with over 30 separate companies in charge of the railways of the country, is scrapped, and that a unified and efficient system is put in its place. But that can be done without nationalisation. All the advantages which Deputy Davin claimed for his policy of nationalisation really are attributable, as he made it clear in his speech, to unification. I do not admit, and I think few will admit, that with the unified system and with efficient direction and management, that the State would not get better service and better results than with the unified system and nationalisation. I do not admit that at this stage. Experience may show that it is so, and I am quite willing to keep an open mind on the matter. Experience may show the necessity for nationalisation, but my position in the matter is that we must give unification and private enterprise, properly controlled by the Government, a chance first. I will say that Deputy Johnson was quite consistent in his attitude towards the Land Bill, just as he has been quite consistent in his attitude in this matter, and he was perfectly right when he asked the Farmers' Party this simple question: "You are in favour of taking over property in land on much worse terms than 15 years' purchase, and hence you cannot call this confiscation." That was a perfectly fair point.
I cannot resist the temptation of reminding the Farmers' Party in this matter that when we were debating the Land Bill I pointed out, and I hope I am consistent in this matter, that once you begin playing around with property it may lead in directions that you do not dream of. I believe that property has rights actually, but I believe and I do not distinguish between persons, that landlords have the same rights as railway shareholders, and that one man is as good as another before the law, and that is the only principle worth fighting for. The landlord who got land from his father has the same right to it as the man who got a thousand pounds worth of railway shares from his father. If we were to enter into an inquiry as to how their respective fathers got the land or the money represented by the railway shares we would, I am afraid, be going down the steep and narrow way. That is to say, we would be going nowhere, and getting nowhere.
There is absolutely no parallel. I pointed out that the present proposal was to take over the railways at a time when they had emerged from five or six years of inefficient control and three or four years of destruction. On the other hand, with regard to the land question, we were simply finishing a bigger problem. One hundred and thirty millions had been spent on land purchase. We were merely spending £30,000,000 more. The lines had been laid down for us, fair rent courts had been set up, and we knew exactly what we were buying. Every element of the case was before us to enable us to come to a correct conclusion which would do justice to all sides. Though we may disagree as to whether it did justice or not, all the elements of the case were before us. The exact opposite is the position with regard to the railways. I think the railway shareholders are entitled to a chance. The Government, on the one side, must see that the lines are unified and that the management is efficient. After that the railway shareholders are entitled to show what the railways can earn, and at the same time that the freights they charge are such as are fair to agriculture and industry in the country.
Deputy Wilson, Deputy McKenna and other members of the Farmers' Party, and also Deputy Davin, have on various occasions asked me what I am going to do about the freights on cattle from one station to another, quoting the stations, and about the freight on pigs and freight on agricultural produce. Now the fact is that at the present moment, even with the present freights, as everyone knows, the railway companies are not earning enough to pay dividends on their existing stocks. That is the fact. You cannot solve that problem by going to the railway companies and saying, "Cut down freights on such and such an article between any two given stations." Deputies can pick out a specific case that shows a gross anomaly, where some article is carried between two given stations at a rate that absorbs practically all the profits, and then come to me and say, "What are you going to do about it?" To reduce the present freights by 1d. you must either have more efficient management and a more efficient system or you must cut down interest on the stocks.
May I ask the Minister if it would not be necessary to have some form of Rates Tribunal in order to bring about the state of affairs he is now dealing with?
Mr. HOGAN
What I said was that to reduce the present freights you must either have more efficient management, a more efficient system, or reduce the interest. Supposing we had a Rates Tribunal and supposing we brought before it the case that Deputy Davin put before me a fortnight ago and said, "Look at what freight I paid for this article from one station to another." If the Rates Tribunal were to reduce the freight they would have to face the alternatives that I have stated. That is the position. There is no use in regarding this railway problem as a simple problem, and, on receiving a letter from a constituent, getting up and asking me, "What are you going to do about such an article?" In his speech Deputy Baxter warned me some time ago that the agricultural position at present was extremely serious. I know it is extremely serious. The Deputy warned me, further, that it was quite impossible to deal with it efficiently without the co-operation of the Farmer's Party and every other Party. I know that. This is a very big question, an important question, a complicated and a difficult one, and it affects farmers more than anyone else. We are entitled to have some constructive help from the Farmers' Party. I am entitled to have it, and I am speaking for myself as Minister for Agriculture. I have not got it.
You have not asked it. You want people to go round with propositions in their pockets.
Mr. HOGAN
When I say that, I expect that we would have here in the Dáil some constructive suggestion to meet this extremely difficult problem which affects agriculture so intimately. We have not got it. If the Farmers' Party do not like to face this question as it should be faced, they should not ask me afterwards, "Why is the freight on pigs so high between Ballyhaunis and some place else?" I want to warn all whom it may concern that freights cannot be reduced without reorganisation.
You will do without revenue if you do not.
Mr. HOGAN
We will do without revenue if we do not! I said we could reduce freights, and I put the alternatives. We can take over the railways. We can write off a certain amount of the capital and a certain amount of the interest. Which does the Farmers' Party stand for? They cannot have it both ways. I think they ought to state it, or at least not come to me afterwards and say, "This is a disgrace. I sent a waggon of cattle from Ballinasloe to the North Wall, and look at what I was charged." The reason I am saying this is that I want to impress upon the Dáil, and on the Farmer's Party in particular, that this railway question, which affects farming so much, and which has so much to do with the depression in agriculture, is an extremely difficult problem that cannot be solved without the good-will and co-operation of everyone, and without hard thinking and hard work. I am anxious to have constructive suggestions from them on this question.
Do you want a Bill?
Mr. HOGAN
Someone suggested, I think it was Deputy Hewat, that we should solve this problem by giving free play to competition. Competition between whom? Whether we solve this problem by giving free play to competition, whether we solve it by unification, or whether we solve it by nationalisation—and I do not think that is likely at the moment—the problem must be solved as quickly as such an intricate problem can be solved. We are prepared to face a solution of this problem from one point of view, and from one point of view only, the control of Irish railways by Irishmen, giving the best service to the country that can possibly be given in all circumstances, whether that takes State intervention or not.
Following on the excellent and lucid statement made by the Minister for Agriculture, I feel that it would be rather difficult for me to contribute anything enlightening on this matter, because I feel that he has in his usual logical and lucid way given a very clear exposition of the condition of affairs. There is a possibility, however, that there may be some trifling point which the Minister and other Deputies have overlooked and which I might bring to the notice of the Dáil. It seems to me that there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of nationalisation. The only thing which is wrong with it is the human factor. It is a fact that the human factor, whether under socialisation or nationalisation, does not show its best results. Some peculiar kind of stagnation seems to affect the human being when he gets into a nationalised or socialised service. I think this is largely proved by facts which are well known. There are two conditions which would justify the nationalisation of Irish railways in my opinion: (1) that the nationalised railway service should be self-supporting; (2) that under the system of nationalisation you should get better service and lower freights. I think it was Deputy Johnson stated that one of the objects of this Bill was to see that the railways were administered in the interests of the general public and he either implied or stated that the railways in the past had been run in the interests of the shareholders. If I might say so, that is a very cheap form of propaganda which is very commonly used. Judging by the actual facts I do not think it can be honestly or truthfully said that the railways in the past have been run in the interests of the shareholders. It must be acknowledged that shareholders are entitled to a certain return for their capital. I do not know if the Labour Party will acknowledge that but I think it is generally acknowledged by responsible people.
On making a calculation I find that the actual facts are that for the years 1904-1913 4 per cent. was the average dividend obtained by shareholders. Excluding the railways in Northern Ireland I find that the actual return received by shareholders was 2¾ per cent. These shareholders could have obtained at least 4 per cent. or perhaps 5 per cent. in certain Government stocks. In face of those facts is it right or fair to suggest that railways in the past have been run in the interests of the shareholders? I do not hold any shares in a railway and I have no brief for shareholders. At the same time it is only right and fair that their point of view should be given when the matter is being discussed. The Bill is not introduced in the interests of the general public because, as far as I know, the general public do not approve of nationalisation. Certainly the shareholders do not approve of it. The only conclusion I can arrive at is that the object in introducing this Bill was that railways should be run in the interests of the railway employees.
Some remarks have been made with the object of proving the success of nationalisation in other countries. I do not know very much about some countries, but I know something by hearsay. I do not think that nationalisation has proved a great success. I understand that in Holland where the railways were nationalised and taken over by the Government, they have been again handed back or leased to private interests. Deputy Davin yesterday held up Belgium as an example of a country where nationalised railways had been a success. I believe that nationalisation has been a fair success in Belgium, but there are influences at work there which make the running of railways, whether nationalised or privately owned, a comparatively easy matter. The country is very level and the laying down of the railroads was a comparatively cheap process. The haulage of the traffic also is a comparatively cheap process. The result is that those very reasonable rates for tourist traffic were available. If the Belgian railways had been run as a private enterprise, there is no reason why they should not pay equally as well or why those reasonable facilities should not have been given.
We have had some experience in this country of what amounts to nationalisation, because after all the Post Office is a nationalised service. I would say that our experience of the Post Office is not of such a kind as to lead us to welcome nationalisation with open arms. We know that the Post Office service has not been run at a profit, and that during the past year it was run at a considerable loss. We know that the State has had to make up the deficiency. I do not know if the Post Office has ever been run by private enterprise, but if it were possible to run it as a private enterprise, it could hardly be run at a greater loss than it has been up to the present. Then there is the case of the telephone system, which at one time was in the hands of private individuals. I believe it was paying and gave a fairly efficient service—not a very efficient one. That system was taken over by the Government. I understand it is not paying, and it is generally acknowledged that it is giving an inefficient service.
I will acknowledge that State control, as we have experienced it in the past, is not the same thing as nationalisation as expounded in Deputy Johnson's Bill. I know that in England the great desire after the war was to get rid of State control. Even the farmers were very desirous to get clear of State control because it hampered their undertakings and because the dead-hand of State control prevented any enterprise from prospering. So much so that the farmers were anxious to run their business as a private enterprise with free open competition, rather than have State control with a State subsidy.
There is one country where nationalisation of railways has been tried to a very large extent, and I must say that the results do not appear to be satisfactory—that is Canada. The principal railroads in Canada are now in the hands of the Canadian Government— that is, they are nationalised. With the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway all the railroads in Canada have been taken over and are run and controlled by the Government. The Government has control of the Canadian Northern Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific.
How long has the Government the control of the Grand Trunk Railway?
Since 1920. I think the Government built the Canadian Government railway and it controls and has been running it for years. I think the Government has had control of the Canadian Northern Railway since 1918. I will give some figures which might be of interest to Labour Deputies. In 1922 the gross earnings of the Canadian Northern Railway were 60,679,033 dollars. The operating expenses were 63,625,763 dollars, giving an operating deficit of 2,946,729 dollars, or roughly £580,000. Those figures make no allowance for fixed charges, that is interest on capital. Allowing for interest on capital, which was 32,711,546 dollars, the gross deficit for the year was 34,310,572 dollars, or roughly £6,800,000. I might mention incidentally that the operating deficit added to the interest on capital will not amount to that sum, because there is some other item to be taken into account for non-operating expenditure which I do not understand. That will make the case still worse. Therefore, the total deficit since the year 1918 on the Canadian Northern Railway was 120,346,777 dollars, or £24,000,000. This amount has apparently to be made good by the State. The Dominion Government advanced 350,032,748 dollars, or £70,000,000 to the Canadian Northern Railway. I do not think I will bore the Dáil by giving the figures for the Grand Trunk Railway.
I think it is desirable that we should have them, if they are to illustrate your argument.
I will give them to the Deputy privately. The State has been obliged to make good this loss out of State funds.
Who ran these railways?
They were run by private companies, but now they are State railways.
Why had the State to take them over?
Because owing to the unusual conditions prevailing since the war they were not worked at a profit. The Canadian Government Railway was built by the Canadian Government and was controlled and run by it, and it has been run at a loss. When it was in competition with the private railways it was said that its services were not as good as those of the other railways and that the civility and so forth of its servants was not as satisfactory as that of those employed by private companies. The Minister for Agriculture mentioned in his usual logical fashion that two things were necessary if rates were to be reduced—that interest and also management expenses must be reduced. He left out of account the possibility of reducing freights by reducing wages. I hear "Oh" from the Labour benches. I have no particular desire to see wages reduced but I would like to see them kept up as high as conditions would allow. I understand that wages are higher in this country than in similar services in England.
No.
I say that subject to correction, but if that is so I think it would be reasonable to reduce wages to the level of those obtaining in similar services in England in order to reduce rates here. Taking the figures given before the Railway Commission, the wage of an unskilled labourer in 1914 was from 13s. 10d. to 17s. 5d. per week, but now I understand he gets 48/-, an increase of, at least, 300 per cent. I do not know if any particular class of labour is entitled to such an increase in comparison with other classes. The wages of an agricultural labourer have not increased, I understand, beyond about 80 per cent. Would it not be reasonable that the wages of railway workers should be reduced to a certain extent in order to help to reduce rates? I know you have in the country an agricultural labourer working at a comparatively low wage and living side by side with a railway worker who gets probably twice as much for less work. That strikes the agricultural labourer as being very unjust, and it may be one of the foundations of the causes of agricultural trouble in this country, regardless of the fact that it is impossible for agriculture at present to pay wages on a level with those paid on the railways. I have taken out some of the figures given before the Railway Commission last year regarding the increase in freights. For potatoes (omitting the Great Northern Company) the rate has increased from 151 per cent. to 317 per cent.; for butter, 101 to 177; for eggs, 123 to 161; and for bacon, 148 to 256. These are the prevailing rates at present. The increase in the selling price of farm produce, according to my calculation, which does not agree with that of the Minister for Agriculture, is in the case of cattle about 20 per cent. while there is no increase in the price of oats and wheat compared with the price in 1914. The increase in the price of pigs is 20 per cent. and milk 10 per cent. A 4lb. loaf that used to be 5d. now costs 10d. Freights have gone up 300 per cent. and agriculture is tremendously hampered by such excessive rates. I consider that it will be almost impossible for agriculture to maintain itself and continue as a living industry if it has to pay the present excessive rates. The Minister for Agriculture stated recently that a reduction in the cost of living of five points would be of more advantage to the farmers than the wiping out of their rents. I cannot agree with that. I think that if there was a reduction of five points in the cost of living and if all wages came down——
The Deputy is not in order in discussing the wages question except in reference to the Railway Bill.
I accept your correction. The Minister for Agriculture suggested that he would like to hear some constructive suggestion. I am not without some suggestions in a constructive direction and they are somewhat similar to those, apparently, in the mind of the Minister. I suggest that the grouping of railways is a most useful thing, as nationalisation will not be recognised as suitable.
Unification or grouping?
I would suggest grouping as the most useful, because I think it will not eliminate all competition. In all businesses it is necessary to retain a certain amount of competition and although the railways will not be in direct competition with one another it is an incentive for one railway to compete with one group and to see that their freights are not higher than those of the other railways.
There are other matters which might be taken into account by the Government when bringing forward their Bill. I believe that a wages tribunal should be set up. That wages tribunal should re-arrange the freights, if possible, in the direction of lowering them. Either that tribunal or another should be responsible for the fixing of wages. There should be adequate representation of labour and capital upon it with a neutral Chairman, and when proper and final arrangements have been made both sides should bind themselves to accept the decision of this tribunal. In connection with grouping, there would follow a reduction in directors. I suggest no more than six directors for each group, or about ten in the case of the unification of all the Irish railways. I do not believe, as Deputy Doyle stated, that there is a director for every mile of railway, but there are too many railway directors, and the consequent expense is altogether more than is justified by the circumstances of the country. Finally, I would like to refer to the comparison between the financing of the nationalisation of railroads as expounded in Deputy Johnson's Bill and the financing of land purchase. I do not think it is fair to put them on the same basis. I do not intend to refer to any extent to the past history of the holding of land, but I think some consideration must be given to the fact that a great part of the land of Ireland was held by confiscation rights. That happened a long time ago, and it is hardly worth taking it into account. We must not overlook, however, that land owners in Ireland have had for years an excellent opportunity for selling their land, or their landlord's interest in the land, for a price that would secure for them a capital sum which, if invested in reasonable industrial securities, would purchase for them an income, at least as good as that which they had from their land. That being the case, it was open to all landlords to get rid of their land.
Are we discussing the Land Bill or the Railway Bill?
I think the Deputy is in order, because he is making a comparison of the price. The comparison has been quoted by other Deputies.
Taking all those circumstances into account, I do not think it is reasonable to make this comparison. The stockholders invested their money in the railroads within the past seventy or eighty years. I think time must be taken into account in such matters. I do not think it is reasonable to pass a measure which would have the effect of confiscating the property of shareholders who risked their money in these undertakings.
After the very lengthy speeches which have been made on this Bill, I do not intend to intervene at any length. We have practically been deluged with figures, and I am afraid those figures remind me of a statement of a very able lawyer who, when acting as a junior counsel, had to meet the case of a very able counsel on the other side. He said these figures reminded him of his boyhood days when returning from school with other boys he watched an Indian juggler in the street. I believe it was George's Street in Limerick. The juggler produced volumes of paper from his mouth, but when they looked at this paper there was nothing on it. A great many of those figures we have listened to have not gone to prove any case, either for State ownership of railways or for the shareholders.
I am, on the whole, open-minded on the question of State ownership of railways, but I am opposed to it for one solid reason. My life's experience of companies run by committees, where any body of men acquired any industry, has been that nine out of ten of those industries have been failures. What is everyman's business is no man's business. I have not heard a case made out to prove that railways under the State are to be run for the benefit of the public or that they are to be run under better management if the State controls them. I have not heard that there is to be for the workers a higher rate of wages paid than that paid under existing circumstances. No concern that is not paying can pay a wage. The present system of railways is faulty in its management. That the State should have more control over railways is to my mind an absolute necessity. You have many directors receiving salaries for so-called management of railways which they do not earn. The public are paying those salaries by excessive rates on all the produce of this country that is sent to the various markets. Unification, to my mind, in Ireland is going to be of advantage to the public. But if the Government brings forward a scheme for unification, or the scheme that I believe is already being considered, I would suggest that they should retain in their hands a certain power of control over the railways. At present we are aware of the fact that though there has been a reduction in wages and though shareholders have been getting smaller dividends, the increased rates are still in existence and the farmer is simply paying exorbitant rates for his cattle, oats and barley. On all the Irish railways the rates compare unfavourably with those in any country like Ireland with the same population and the same railway mileage. That has to be met. I do not believe it will be met by State ownership. I believe it will be met by the Government having some power over the railways, to see that the people who pay the rates, the people who send their purchases to the various markets, will not be used as a medium for creating wealth, sometimes for shareholders who perhaps got their shares, as the landlords got their property, not as men that earned them—in some cases possibly their fathers did not earn them —but the main fact is that they are shareholders. In the past they have been paid dividends at the expense of the public. I believe that there will be a unification scheme, that it will be necessary for the Government to see that the public are protected. I think that the Minister for Agriculture should take steps to see that stock is handled in a proper way. The farmers are charged exorbitant rates, and their cattle are placed on the market in a greatly depreciated state owing to the mismanagement of the railway companies in transhipment from the wagons to the boats. The present system of handling cattle means an absolute dead loss to the farmers. The time their transhipment takes and the abuse and beatings they get mean a depreciation which the farmer has eventually to pay for, amounting to ten, fifteen and twenty per cent. in some cases, owing to railway mismanagement. I do not believe that State ownership will remedy this.
I am quite well aware of the fact that companies under private ownership, in almost every case, are far more successful than an undertaking governed by a committee who have not the real interests of the work at heart, because it is not a question for them to see that there is no mismanagement and that every penny expended brings its proper return. The Government must have more control over the railways in the interests of the public, and that must be seen to in any scheme brought forward. I certainly have heard no argument in support of nationalisation that appeals to me, nor have I seen any successful undertaking in this country except under private ownership.
I desire, in a very few words, to support this Bill. I want to say that, so far as I can see, a good case has been made for it, not alone by members of this Party, but by practically every Deputy who has spoken. Almost all of them have condemned the railway companies in all their moods and tenses, and justly so. The very mention of nationalisation seems to be a bogie to a number of people here. They condemn it without going to the trouble of finding out whether it would be advantageous to the country or not. The tenor of most of their statements seems to be that the Labour Party has put forward this Bill merely for the purpose of trying to increase the railway workers' wages. That is not a fact. The Labour Party are alive to the fact, the absolute fact, that the Irish railway companies are not using their lines in the interests of the country. The Minister for Agriculture congratulated Deputy Johnson on the fact that this was a good Bill, and that it was the first tangible proposition placed before the Government to deal with this very difficult problem. I think he said also that that was the opinion of the Government. If that be so, and if that is how it is looked on from the Government Benches, I do not see why this Bill should not get a Second Reading, and if the Government have any amendments to submit, that they should do so on the Committee Stage and make an earnest effort to tackle this very intricate problem.
Most of the Deputies who are supposed to have spoken against the Bill have really spoken in its favour. They have condemned the railway companies, and some of them have said that the time is not opportune for railway nationalisation, owing to the state of the country. While I am prepared to admit that one of the reasons the country is in such a bad condition, economically, to-day, is the chaos and the internal warfare of the last twelve months, I hold that in no small way the railway system has contributed to it. Ask any Irish manufacturer who has to send his goods through the country, and he will tell you that the railway facilities are responsible for the bad trade. The facilities offered by the companies in the Free State are anything but desirable. Most of the Deputies have told us that the Government should control the railways, that is to say: "Yes; we want nationalisation, but do not pretend to anybody that it is nationalisation." That is what it really means. Everybody is agreed that the time has come for Government intervention in this important matter, and I believe that before very long every Deputy, and everybody who wants to see this country develop as it should in the interests of the State, will realise that nationalisation is the only hope for the development of industries. They say the time is not opportune. I say this is absolutely the right time to approach this question. Industries require to be developed, and under the present system of railway working this country will never be developed, and the sooner we realise that the better. I hope that Deputies will support the Second Reading of the Bill. The Labour Party has put it forward with an earnest idea of solving this very difficult problem. It is not a question of interest from our point of view; it is not a selfish point of view that we take, but it is in the interests of the country as a whole.
Like other Deputies, I wish to congratulate Deputy Johnson on bringing forward this measure. If it served no other purpose than to give the Government an opportunity of putting forward their proposals with regard to the future of the railways, it will have served a very useful purpose.
As has been stated by many Deputies, the time has arrived when something must be done, and the general feeling throughout the country is that something should have been done sooner. We all understand the very difficult time the Government have had, and the troubles they had to contend with, and for that reason we forgive them a good deal. However, the question has to be now faced, and, as the Minister for Agriculture asked, what is going to be done? Deputy Johnson has put forward, as he stated, a concrete proposal. He has introduced this Bill, and we have a good deal of evidence already before us. This question was considered and reported on by a Commission which sat for four years in this country, from 1906 to 1910, namely, the Scotter Commission, which included some very able Irishmen—Lord Pirrie, one of our greatest financial experts, Mr. Thomas Sexton; and I think Col. Sir Hutcheson Poë. After getting a good deal of information from other countries, as well as Ireland, regarding the working of railways, they made their report in favour of nationalisation. We also have the report, after four months' sittings, of the Commission appointed by the Dáil, and of which Deputy Johnson was a member. On looking at the findings of the Commission, I notice that Deputy Johnson has altered his opinion from what it was when he signed the majority report of the Commission.
That report is in favour of State ownership with an independent Railway Board. It states:—
"We recommend that the Government should purchase the Irish railways, and that the management should not be directly under a State Minister but should consist of persons representing the interests most vitally and directly affected by railway management. A national Railway Board— should be constituted which would have absolute powers of management. That Board might be constituted as follows."—Then they gave eight of a Board.—"The Chairman should be a railway expert of wide managerial experience, his nomination to be with the Government. He should hold office for a period of five years, and he should have a salary commensurate with the importance of his position. He would be in effect the managing director of the entire system." Then the second recommendation suggests representatives of the manufacturing industries of the country to be nominated by the manufacturers. And, thirdly, that a representative of trade and commerce be nominated by the Chambers of Commerce; two representatives of agriculture to be nominated by the Council of Agriculture or other vocational council attached to the Ministry of Agriculture, which may hereafter be set up in connection therewith.
If we look at the Bill we find, as I have stated; that Deputy Johnson has altered his opinion with regard to the question of an independent Railway Board, because he asks the Dáil to allow the Ministers to nominate the Board of Control. Clauses 22 and 23 state:—
"The Director of Railways shall be a person experienced in railway business, and shall be appointed by the Executive Council upon the recommendation of the Minister and shall hold office at the pleasure of the Executive Council. The Railway Commissioners shall be appointed by the Minister. One Commissioner shall be appointed upon the nomination of the Minister for Finance. One Commissioner shall be appointed upon the nomination of the Minister for Industry and Commerce after consultation with such organisations as appeared to him to be most representative of manufacturing industries."
It leaves in the hands of Ministers the appointment of the Board suggested in the Bill. The Deputy may state that the same principle is involved, but it places in the power of the Minister the appointment or rejection of anyone suggested by the various trade organisations. I do not say that I am opposed so much to the Bill, and I do not think it a crazy measure, or that the Deputy is crazy for having introduced it.
The settlement of this question will be by nationalisation, but I agree with the Minister for Agriculture that the time is not yet ripe for that. What is the alternative? That is a question the Minister for Agriculture has asked us here on these benches, and he invited us to put up some suggestions or give a concrete case, something similar to what the leader of the Labour Party has put forward. Some people favour unification, and some grouping. Personally, I am in favour of grouping, and I will give you my reasons. I have had considerable experience in a branch of the farming industry, namely the live stock trade, since I left school. When I went to business in the west, in places where there was opposition between the Great Southern and Western, and the Midland, and Great Northern Railways, at every fair I went to I had canvassers on behalf of these railways pulling the coat tails off me for traffic, and it was the same with every man doing business at these fairs. This was before the Midland Railway got running powers into Limerick, and when they got these powers they became more active canvassing for traffic. Every fair you went to at Claremorris, Athlone, Clara, and other centres, there was opposition, and you had these canvassers. After a time, two of the Companies saw they were injuring one another, and they started a private pooling arrangement at the various centres. Then the only opposition was from the Great Northern. They tried to bring traffic via their system to the northern ports. Competition is the life of trade and we welcome that opposition because it helps to develop an industry that affects the lives and fortunes of so many of our people. For that reason, I believe that grouping is better than unification, and I think very careful consideration should be given by the Government to this question before they decide. They are dealing with very astute men in railway directors, and they are dealing with a clever man in Deputy Johnson. It may be that Deputy Johnson's Bill is a sprat to catch a salmon, and that while he is aiming at nationalisation, he would be satisfied with unification, which would be the thin end of the wedge. I do not blame him for that. The feeling of the country is, as the Minister for Agriculture stated, that the time is not yet ripe for nationalisation. The Minister for Agriculture referred to excessive railway rates, and said there is not much hope unless there is a reduction.
We are crippled with excessive railway rates in this country. Everybody knows that. What is the remedy? We see we are losing our trade. There is a country similar to ours, Denmark, and we have to meet that country in competition in the industry that affects so many of our people—the pig industry. When the war was on, Denmark's stock of pigs was reduced to nearly 600,000. The Government of that country subsidised the pig-breeding industry, and did not allow the killing of sows. The result is that to-day they have 1,800,000 pigs in Denmark and they kill from 60,000 to 70,000 a week. In some cases the number went as high as 90,000 in one week.
What is the position in regard to our pig industry? According to the statistics we had during the war, our pig population was 794,000. There has not been any increase; on the contrary, you will find, when the statistics appear, our pig population is decreasing. Largely because of the excessive railway rates, we are unable to compete with Continental countries, and unless those rates are reduced we cannot continue to compete with any hope of success. I have a good deal of sympathy with Deputy Johnson's Bill, and also with the railway men. There is another thing we must face, and Labour must face, and it is this: the people of the country are nervous about allowing the Government to nationalise industries until Labour has more commonsense than it displayed here during the last few years at the Port of Dublin. Its action at the Port was uncalled for, and it would not be allowed in any country.
The Port of Dublin has nothing to do with railway nationalisation.
The Deputy cannot discuss the Port of Dublin in the debate on the railway question.
I think I have the right to refer to the situation with regard to the stock conveyed on the railways through various channels to the markets. However, if you rule it is outside the question, I bow to that ruling.
It is outside the scope of the Railway Bill to refer to the recent position at the Port of Dublin.
The situation at the present time is that the agricultural population, forming as it does the bulk of the community, has to bear the greatest cost of taxation. For that reason I would like to call attention to the fact that according to the summaries of exports from this country in 1920, there went through the Port of Belfast £93,000,000 worth of material. Of that £15,507,000 represented agriculture and £77,888,000 represented industrial exports. Through all other Irish ports £89,000,000 worth was exported; £68,387,000 representing agriculture, and £21,265,000 representing industrial products. That will show you that the farmers are the wealth producers of the country. They are bearing the biggest part of the taxation. If the Government want revenue, as they do, and if they wish the State to succeed and prosper, they will have to pay a good deal of attention to the stricken, paralysed condition that exists amongst agriculturists.
We have passed over three bad years —three of the worst years known in this country since the famine. It is all fine enough to talk to the effect that wages will not come down. There is a lot of talk about land. The Bank safes of this country contain more that affects the land of the country than the people generally are aware of. The farmers for the last three years, owing to the depreciation in the price of live stock and other things, have had such a hard time that unless they get some consideration, particularly in the matter of reduced railway rates, they will not be able to carry on. When we have the Government proposals before us, we will have a further opportunity of discussing this matter.
I would like to mention that from my experience of railway systems in this country, we are not improving. The present system of management has passed under two juries, and those two juries have condemned it. It is time something was done. It is most confusing to have 28 Boards of Directors in a country with, roughly, 3,000 miles of railways. At the time of the Scotter Railway Commission, the manager of the London North Western Railway said he would manage all the railways in Ireland on two days a week and have the rest of the week for fishing. It is ridiculous to have 28 Boards of Directors managing 28 companies. I favour the setting up of a Board such as is recommended in the report of the O'Connor Commission. With the present railway companies, we have had no opportunity in recent years of putting forward any grievances we had. We had not even a Rates Tribunal such as they have in England.
at this stage resumed the Chair.
In England if one had a difficulty about railway rates one could go before the Railway Rates Tribunal, but in Ireland one would merely get the usual red tape reply: "The matter will receive immediate attention." That might mean it would not be attended to until Tibb's Eve. Unless one kept knocking at the front door one would be waiting months for a reply, and even then might receive no satisfaction. There is an obsolete Act which I hope the Dáil will remedy. It is known as the Railway, Canals and Traffic Act of 1864, in which there is the Owners' Risk rate. Anyone who signs under the Owners' Risk rate is bound down by regulations and has no case if he puts forward a complaint. If you sign for a waggon of cattle, sheep or pigs, and suffer loss, you will be allowed £2 for a pig or sheep, and £15 for cattle. Suppose goods are stolen in transit, you cannot recover any damage. You are given the usual sympathy, but it ends there. In England they have a remedy for those grievances, and we want a similar remedy here.
There are other complaints with regard to the transit of live stock. The other day I saw it stated that in the opinion of some of the most experienced men in the live stock trade, we are losing £3,000,000 a year owing to the cruelty inflicted on cattle in transit. A big man in the live stock trade said to me the other day: "If you want to see the damage done, go to Birkenhead and see one of your cattle stripped and see the bruised mass of flesh; look also at the bacon in the shops and you will see the stroke of the stick quite clearly." In many places, particularly in the West of Ireland, they have short railway banks, and the loading of pigs is rendered very difficult in consequence. The railway companies do not move with the times. The country men have to lift pigs of 2 or 3 cwts. on their shoulders into the waggons, after being out, perhaps, all night and morning. You can well imagine the cruelty, not alone to the animal but to the human being. The railway companies could remedy this by building a few hundred yards of a bank where a special train could be run in. That is the position. At present in Northern Ireland they have this question under consideration, and they also have it under consideration in England. At an early date the matter is coming before the British House of Commons. Here is a statement on the subject:—
"Serious complaint has since reached us through Birkenhead and Glasgow as to the terribly bruised condition of cattle arriving from Ireland. A trader has pointed out that in a bunch of twelve beasts from Ireland every carcase was found to be a mass of bruises and torn flesh. At present he asserted it was the exception to see an Irish bullock free from blemish, whereas Canadian animals, after travelling 3,000 miles, did not show a trace of ill-usage. A report just received from Northern Ireland states that in a shipment from Belfast, in one case 56 cattle were dead, 33 died during the voyage, and 23 were in such a condition that they had to be slaughtered on board. It is altogether too horrible, and steps should be taken to deal severely with those parties responsible."
That is a matter that requires a lot of consideration. How are we going to compete with Denmark and other countries unless our Government here can do something in these matters? I am glad we have a Government now in the people's own hands. It is the duty of the people to nurse this infant State and to make it strong and powerful, and to develop the industries of the country, particularly the live stock industry, which is one of our principal industries and one of the principal things on which we depend. These things will be protected only by improved transit facilities. It is appalling to see what is going on at all the ports. The shipping companies and the railway companies are not pulling together. I have seen cases at the North Wall where the minute a special came in, the engine-driver walked off and the live stock were left there under the canopy of heaven for hours, and poor unfortunate men left there exposed for hours because they would not allow them into the yards. Men have been kept there day and night to protect the cattle. The result is that a lot of the cattle trade has been diverted to the North of Ireland for shipping through their ports as a result of the situation existing in Dublin. That is the reason why something should be done. We are all anxious to support Dublin. Dublin is the premier port and Dublin is the capital of Ireland, and we want to see Dublin the main artery so far as the live stock industry of this country is concerned. Without the support of the Government that cannot be done. I consider the speeches made by the Labour Deputies have been very reasonable. I hope the Government will give consideration to the views put forward by them. So far as the Party with which I am associated is concerned, we will do all we can to co-operate and to make a success of whatever scheme is put forward.
I will be very brief because this matter has been debated at considerable length. I just want to refer to the strictures of our friend, the Minister for Agriculture. He has stated he has never got a constructive idea from the Farmers' Party. I take it our duty is to point out to him where our industry is affected. It is his duty to remedy those conditions. If it came about that we had behind us 50 or 60 supporters, and had the finances of this State at our backs, it would not be long until we would find a remedy for the situation that confronts us at the moment. The question that we are all so concerned about is—how are we to obtain cheaper freights? If we can obtain cheaper freights by any other means rather than by nationalisation, then it is our duty to try those means first. I believe that as good results will be obtained by means of unification as you will obtain by the proposal set forward from the Labour Benches. Every argument which we have heard from Labour in favour of nationalisation would equally apply to unification. The savings which would be effected by a unified management would be such as to enable us to get those reduced rates. The grouping of railways put forward by Deputy McKenna would not give us those savings, because the returned empty waggons from one group to another would have to be hauled back and thereby expense would be incurred. So that by the grouping of railways we would not get the same saving we would get from unification.
I quite agree that when we have a series of groups we will have competition at various points. But in the conditions that exist in this country, and with the railways as they are built, unless you have all the railways under one jurisdiction and administration we cannot have any results in the way of savings, except at a few points. We can count on that saving if we bring in a Unification Bill and we can set up a Rates Tribunal.
The question raised by Deputy Davin of having three separate staffs working a town of 300 people could be remedied by unification. To my mind every argument used by the Labour Party in favour of nationalisation would be equally an argument in favour of unification. The savings which we could obtain by their scheme we could obtain by unification. We should not until we have tried unification, interfere with private enterprise, and we should not pledge the credit of the State on behalf of any system which would mean taking money from the Central Fund to pay expenses. The whole trouble in the matter is this—that we have not enough traffic to go around to pay for the upkeep of all the railways. As the Minister for Agriculture has put it, we cannot obliterate 46 million pounds worth of capital. By unified management and by a unification system we might be able to carry on and to get these reduced rates. Failing that the only hope we have is to revert to the Labour Party.
Mr. O'CONNELL
There is hope for you yet.
I am more than pleased to learn from the speeches of the Deputies on the farmers' benches that they seem to be entirely in favour of the Bill put forward by the Labour Party. There is one thing to be thankful for at least, and that is that we are unanimous on one thing, even if we are not unanimous on the question of wages. To my mind the Bill put forward by the Labour Party is a most interesting and economical one, and above all things it is one that I believe would solve the most pressing problem that we have to deal with at the present moment. That problem is to break the link in the chain of unemployment.
We have heard from directors of the railways that owing to the rates of wages paid to their employees they cannot possibly reduce the freights. If this Bill gets proper consideration from the members of the Dáil I am sure it will be found that nationalisation will do as much good as amalgamation. This Government, when it started to function, adopted the policy of amalgamating the different poor law institutions in the Saorstát for the purpose of economy. By their amalgamation they held out the plea that the different counties would save some £6,000 to £9,000 per annum. If through the amalgamation of workhouses in the 26 counties we effected a large saving and a great benefit to the people, I think the same would be found to apply if we amalgamated all the railways of Ireland into one body. I ask the Deputies to vote for this Bill when it comes to a division, and I am not appealing on behalf of the labourers or the farmers, but on behalf of the people as a whole. I may be merely a bird of passage, but that is the appeal I make. We are being told that owing to the wages and to the demands of the labour movement the railway directors cannot possibly reduce the fares or freights.
If a man living 50 miles away from Dublin has a beast to send to Dublin Market he has to pay £2 5s. or £2 17s. for the carriage of the animal. That is a very exorbitant figure. Then we have a Canal system, but that is worked by the railway. Why not adopt the proposals laid down in the Bill of the Labour Party? I think the Labour Party have done one thing in bringing in this Bill. It has shown the Directors of the Railway Companies that there is one body in Ireland at least anxious to apply the principles of economy in the country and also has shown how that principle could be applied. I know we have some members of the Dáil who say "What about the shareholders?" But if these shareholders would really look to the proper use of the money they have invested in the railways of Ireland they could see that it would be better employed in giving proper facilities to industry and commerce than in paying large sums to Directors. These Railway Companies frequently spend £20,000 or £30,000 in getting an engine built abroad which could be built much cheaper at home. Two years ago they had an engine in Dublin that cost £24,000, but that engine was never yet started. That was done for the purpose of showing by the way that owing to the demands of labour they could not run the railways without reducing the wages of the workers. By supporting this Bill Deputies would show that they were genuine Irishmen and good citizens of the Saorstát. If they voted for the Bill and for nationalisation they would be voting in favour of keeping the workers of Ireland in employment and at the same time reducing rates and fares to the public.
I think it is due to the draftsman of the Bill that he should know we are in agreement as to the lucidity and also as to the brevity of its provisions. It is certainly a very remarkable contribution to constructive legislation and I hope we will have many more such examples but that the speeches relating to them will be shorter and perhaps fewer. I think Deputy Johnson deserves all that has been said about him in dealing with this matter, and I think he ought to be very well satisfied with the reception the Bill has got. I am certain from what I have known of this particular problem, and I have been consulted about it now for a very considerable period, that it would not be possible to have brought in this Bill without the very closest study and very great knowledge of the railways generally in Ireland and of the whole subject. This matter of the railways in Ireland is a very intricate and complicated one. We have, I believe, 38 different railway companies in the Saorstát; and they are of various orders from the great big companies down to such railways as the Dublin, Blessington and Poulaphouca, and the Dublin and Lucan Tramway Company. I do not think in any Bill we will introduce that either of these companies will be included. There is also, I believe, a remarkable contribution to railway road construction in the South.
A DEPUTY
The Lartigue.
With rolling stock of a very unique kind.
Very much rolling.
These 38 separate undertakings have, for the most part, separate management, staffs, rolling stock, repair establishments and other incidents of railway systems. They differ materially and radically from each other in methods, policy, service rendered, revenue earned, equipment. From the opinion given to me on the subject, I believe, that to regard them as one system the imagination has to make an effort which the facts do not support. The system, as it is, is not self-contained. In the North of Ireland it consists of undertakings which go in and out many times over the Boundary, and we must remember that that Boundary is not yet permanently fixed. Apart from that consideration and regarding the system as an internal one in the Saorstát, there are problems arising from the fact that a large proportion of the Irish trade is carried on with places outside the Saorstát, in Great Britain and in the Six Counties, and that the Saorstát railways for much of the traffic they carry are part only, and often the smallest part of the through-routes on which the system of trade has grown up to great dimensions carried at through rates. These railways form a link with Cross Channel trade and are owned, some of them, by Railway Companies, and some by Shipping Companies. The third link is formed by the great English Corporations that deliver Irish produce over Great Britain and that collect produce in Great Britain for transit to Ireland.
In any scheme for reorganisation these factors must be taken into account. The nature of Irish rail-borne traffic must be considered, the services rendered by the Irish ports and by the shipping that uses them, must be understood, and the interests which all the parties to this great system of communication have, not only in the portion under their direct control, but in the directions from which they receive traffic, must be properly appreciated. When the problems confronting the Government for solution during the past year are considered, and when the complexity of this railway problem is appreciated, I think the Dáil will not be surprised that the Government has not within that time been able to present them with a detailed reorganisation scheme. The Bill promoted by Deputy Johnson, however the complexities of the system may have been known to the draughtsman, throws very little light on their detailed solution, but the essential principle of this Bill, as I think Deputy O'Connell said, is nationalisation, and it is, of course, on that principle, coupled with the financial provisions, that I would prefer to discuss it. The Government, I think, has come to the conclusion, not without some reason, that the Saorstát is a country that is pretty considerably governed, and to add to it the responsibilities of a very complex railway organisation, such as this is, in its very early stages, is certainly adding a burden which, I think, the State is scarcely sufficiently strong to bear just at present.
It has been compared, in so far as the proposals for the acquisition of the railways are concerned, somewhat to the Land Purchase Act, which has been passed, and which was really a sort of step-brother to a previous Act that was passed in the year 1903. Before that Land Bill was introduced in 1903, a certain agreement was reached between the two parties to the transaction, and the State came in with its credit. In this particular instance we go in with more than our credit, and we go in, not to make an arrangement between two parties, but rather to take over the assets and the liabilities of the one, and to pay to the other what would be considered a fair price. That was not exactly the situation which confronted the people concerned with finding accommodation between the landlords in 1903 and the tenants of that period. In this particular case it is proposed to take a certain income, the average, I think, for five years, and to multiply it by fifteen, and to let that be the nominal value of the transfer. In turn, that would produce what would be a 4½ per cent. stock. Whatever the agreement as regards the capital sum, it would bear 4½ per cent. interest. It would be rather difficult, and I am sure the draughtsman of the Bill would admit this, to get anything like a normal year without going back to the year 1913. One could not accept, I think, any of the figures which deal with the intervening years.
Taking that particular year as the standard, my information is that something over one million pounds was paid in dividends to the shareholders, and in considering the question of shareholders Deputies ought to remember that shareholders in concerns such as railways are not exclusively the well-to-do. Many of their stocks, being regarded as trustee stocks, one should be very careful about tampering with a security of that sort, because you may be faced with another problem, not, perhaps, as serious, but in the long run it may have greater disadvantages even than some of the problems we have at the moment to consider. Taking the figure of one million pounds as the sum which it would be fair to purchase at——
I suppose the President is referring to the figure of one million as an example, because in reality it is much more than a million.
The figure would probably be one million two hundred thousand pounds. Taking that as the figure at which it would be fair to purchase at and multiplying it by fifteen you get a total of about 16½ millions. The amount of capital on which interest or dividends was payable was twentyseven and a half millions, so that someone has got to lose a very considerable sum of money, and if we took the figure at sixteen and a half millions the dividend payable on that would amount to about £742,000. There would be in that case a very considerable loss, falling not altogether on those who probably buy luxuries for whatever dividends they get from the railways, but perhaps on orphans, widows, and people of that sort, as well as on charitable institutions. If you deprive any of these people, or these institutions, of revenue they will certainly look to you to supplement it in some other way. It may be reasonably stated on behalf of these people that in the case of well managed companies at that time, from the point of view of dividend paying and of consolidating their interests and of having reserves and so on, there was a sum earned over and above that which they would be entitled to claim as having some sort of interest in. It is customary, when one sees the reports of company meetings in the papers, to find that after a certain sum has been devoted to the payment of dividends, that so much is carried forward and so much is put to the reserve fund.
We must also remember that for the last two and, possibly, three years or more, these railways have been subjected to very considerable interference. I recollect hearing last year that the revenue of one of these railway companies was something like 50 per cent. short by reason of the interference with its business. It would, therefore, seem, from the point of view of nationalisation, that at this time when we come to consider taking over those concerns they are at their very worst, and that they are going to be sold for something like scrap. I would say to the Dáil with regard to that, that just now, in our very earliest years, we ought to approach the consideration of a subject like this very carefully, so as to maintain the position that we have acquired. That is, that our credit is fairly good and that there is generally prevalent throughout the country a feeling of confidence that there is not likely to be, either now or in the future, any schemes put forward here for consideration of a confiscatory nature. I would say that Deputy Johnson and the Labour Party have met us quite fairly with regard to that; that they do say that the real issue in this business is nationalisation, and that the details are matters upon which they are prepared to be convinced, granted that a case is put up accordingly. Since 1914, I think, it would also be right to say that with all the faults of the railway management, or all the complaints that one may make against railway directors, they have scarcely had a free hand in the management of their respective concerns.
The Government idea is that there ought to be a period of trial. Possibly that period of trial may be a period in which a great many errors may crop up. But I do not think it is at all likely, having regard to the general condition of affairs, that railway directors will be utterly unmindful of the real needs of the country, of the general feeling that there is that more consideration should be given to traders and business interests, and that the railways should realise that their sole object is not to have comfortable directorships and not to be paying big dividends, but that the public generally have some right to benefits which those systems should provide for them. I should say that it would be for the railway companies and their employees, when reorganisation was carried through, to apply their best energies to the successful working of the reorganised system. The prospects of stockholders, directors, officials and employees alike, in respect of dividends, salaries and wages, must ultimately depend upon the efficiency of the railway system.
I think that it has come to this, not alone with regard to the railways but in regard to every other interest in the Saorstát, that both employers and employees alike must cut their cloth according to the measure, according to the needs of the country and the various other services. Because I do not think that it is put forward that any service in this country, either agriculture, railways, or any of the other industrial concerns, can be really independent of one another. There is a link between them, and any failure on the part of one, or failure of one, will ultimately have its reactions upon the others.
I think that it is unnecessary to assure the Dáil that neither thought nor trouble has been spared by the Government during the past 12 months in working on this question. Deputies may smile at that, but I think that most Deputies of all parties in the Dáil will realise that when there are questions, divisions, disputes or other things of that sort, it does take months to find accommodation on them. There are occasions on which accommodation is not found, and we have got to come here and put up proposals, which in some cases do not appeal to either of the parties to the dispute. Still it is the duty of the Government to see as far as possible how accommodation may be found. We have had evidence of that quite recently. We had it some months ago in connection with the Farmers' Party, and I suppose that the turn of the Business Party or the Independents is coming, and that we will also have the same story to tell.
In addition to the great lines there are the smaller lines, some of those which I am sure the Farmers' Party know quite well—the Baronial Guaranteed Lines. There are burdens there which these Deputies understand quite well and which they find it rather difficult to bear just at present. Reorganisation as far as they are concerned is absolutely essential. The real question is, if we cannot have nationalisation, what is the next alternative? I think that the problem to be solved is how far management can be centralised. There are, of course, limitations in connection with this matter of central management which must be admitted. The Northern Boundary has not yet been determined, and no final settlement of the railway problem is possible before a final settlement of the Boundary question. I think that fact is admitted, even in the Bill, so that I am sure Deputy Johnson will have nothing to quarrel with me about that. Nothing would be gained, and many disadvantages would follow, from the application now of any drastic scheme of organisation of the several undertakings whose lines go in and out over the present boundary, and it would not be commonsense to propose to sever them. There are other considerations which require examination by any Government anxious to devise a policy best suited to the free and harmonious interchange of traffic in future between the Irish railways and the shipping lines and railways in other countries working in conjunction with them. It is well known that the English Railway Corporations, particularly the railways on the West coast of Great Britain, are interested in Irish traffic. They have incurred large expenditure on railway and harbour works in this country, and have performed many great services to the Irish trading public in the provision of shipping and railway facilities. I think it will be admitted that much Irish trade is dependent upon these facilities.
The Irish public, whether it sends or receives goods by rail, or whether it consumes the goods after they have been delivered by the railways, is under an obligation to the successive managements of English railways for the services rendered to them. I expect that we may rather rely on the maintenance and development of these facilities according to the changed needs of the time. The Government will, certainly, do whatever it reasonably can to continue to promote close working relations with these companies, with the shipping companies engaged in the Cross Channel traffic, and with the railways beyond our Northern boundary should it prove that the boundary is fixed anywhere south of the north coast.
I mention these considerations to show that the Bill now before the Dáil is perhaps a little too plain and simple and that this question is a very intricate and delicate matter of business. I am not in a position at the present moment to give a detailed indication of the Government's views on railway re-organisation. The Government has not completed its examination of all the factors involved in the problem, but it would be neglecting its duty if it put forward a scheme in which the bearing of any particular important point was obscure. I hope to present the Government measure to the Dáil before long. It is not intended to do so until we are satisfied that it is the measure best calculated to promote the interests of the Saorstát. Other than unemployment I do not know that there is any other subject which has absorbed more of our time and attention. Though we have not yet found a solution that we would be satisfied to present to the Dáil, nothing has been lost by reason of the time that has passed since the matter was first raised here. I think I have nothing further to say except that I appreciate, like every other member of the Dáil, this great effort of Deputy Johnson and the people supporting him, and the considerate manner in which they have dealt with this big subject. They have put it forward and they have been met generously on all sides. Those who differed most with them certainly had to admit that there was great genius shown and great attention paid to the drafting of this Bill by them and that it was treated in a masterly manner. However, I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not ask the Dáil to reject this measure after what I have said on the subject.
If the object of the Bill had been to extract from the Government some idea of what is running in their minds we have certainly not succeeded very far. The President has skimmed very lightly over the problem. He has re-stated the problem to some extent and told us what no one will dissent from, that the problem is a complex one and that some plan of centralisation is required. That, of course, may mean centralisation within a very small radius or a very large radius. But we are told the Government has not yet completed its consideration of the problem. Therefore we must wait—or rather, shall I say, the traders, the farmers, and the railway stockholders must wait.
I want to disabuse the minds of certain Deputies who cannot think that it is possible for a political party to have views on any public question which are not intended to feather the nests of the people combined in that political party. This Bill has been thought over and introduced with an eye to the public interest solely. It will not advantage the railway servants if it is passed. So far as railway servants are concerned, I honestly believe they are quite able to fight their own corner with the railway companies. If the Dáil prefers that they should remain as they are, or prefers to follow Deputy Hewat's view of the way this problem should be treated, well, the men employed on the railways can go along without very much concern at the loss of this Bill.
But we have been taunted occasionally with having a facility for expressing general ideas. We have also been challenged to bring forward definite proposals to see how far it is possible to suggest concrete plans to embody the general ideas expressed from these benches.
We have endeavoured to do so in presenting this Bill. But, as I said earlier, we have endeavoured to do so with an eye to the welfare of this country, not merely in the immediate future, but for years to come. We are not blind to the developments that are taking place throughout the world. We know that a revolution is proceeding to-day in the methods of transit and transport. We are perhaps very nearly in a fairly parallel period with the early years of the 19th century, the 'Thirties, the 'Forties and 'Fifties, when railway transport was in its infancy. A revolutionary idea was introduced with the steam locomotive. A revolutionary idea has been introduced with the rise and development of the internal combustion engine. We are looking forward so that we shall in this country be in a position to take advantage of all the new ideas in industry, in commerce, and in transit. While it has seemed that all the discussion has centred round the question of the nationalisation of railways, that is not the only, and possibly not the main idea embodied in this Bill; necessarily it occupies the greater portion of it. We have suggested that there should be set up a Ministry of Transport and Communications and that by a gradual process that Ministry should become responsible for the coordination of the services of transport and communications of the country— services to the community, services to the nation, services essential to national development. It has been found necessary in other countries in times of stress to have some body co-ordinating this work of transport, to ensure that these services shall be devoted to the national well-being.
We contend that that cannot be-done efficiently. It cannot be done effectively if you have the various methods of transport and communication under various, differing and perhaps antagonistic authorities. We see if there were a co-ordinated system that there would be much economy, that there would be opportunities for fitting in the one service with the other service, taking the fullest advantage of the one system according to the class of traffic or communication that had to be made, to utilise railways and telegraphs, railways and posts, railways and roads, railways and canals, and perhaps eventually railways and the air service, when it would be developed. That is a very important portion of this Bill, and I hope, notwithstanding what may be the fate of it at this stage, that the Government in its consideration of the railway problem will give due consideration to the wider and perhaps more important problem of who is to control the means of communication within this country, who is to control and co-ordinate the services of transport in this country for the common well-being. It is acknowledged by everyone who has any right to speak on such a subject that with modern development, mechanical and otherwise, inter-communication between places within the State or between the State and other States, in the most effective manner by the cheapest means, will play a great part in the development of the State. It is for those who oppose this idea of co-ordination under a single authority to prove that competitive services, rival services, antagonistic services, each conducted with a different purpose for a different end, are going to bring about the best results for the nation. I know Deputy Hewat will contend—he did contend in his speech —that it is by a conflict of interests that the residuum of best and most efficient service is obtained. "Every man for himself or every interest for itself, and the devil take the hindmost. Free competition and the survival of the fittest." Though it may be that Deputy Hewat speaks for the interest of commerce in Ireland, and that the interests of commerce are bound up with the application of that philosophy, I would submit that it is thousands of years out of date, and that although it has been revived in commerce and in industry within the last century or two, we have arrived at the conclusion that while it may produce the end desired, the cost of production of that end is altogether too great.
The waste of life and energy is too great, and we ought, as a society, as a nation, to do what the individual does, take advantage of the foresight that has been granted and used, that foresight to avoid the waste, and the contentions and the rivalries which this system of competition—the survival of the fittest—inevitably brings in its trail. While I hope that the Government, in considering their solution of this problem, will take seriously into account the desirability of setting up this co-ordinating authority, whether railways are nationalised or not, I will be obliged to devote the greater part of what I have to say to the criticism of the proposal (which is contained in the Bill) to nationalise railways.
The critics have ranged themselves in two camps, those who would, like Deputy Hewat, prefer not to interfere but to allow matters to take their own course, to allow the various interests to fight those matters out amongst themselves. Deputy Hewat, for instance, would only have the minimum amount of interference with railway companies. If there are complaints about the rates charged on traffic, say from Dublin to Cork, he would prefer that the traders should charter steamers, and send their goods round by sea, or utilise the roads for motor traffic. That might fit in with the general trend of Deputy Hewat's conception of social life, but I cannot see yet, notwithstanding the development in mechanical science, the steamboat that is going to deliver goods or land passengers in Cork from Dublin within anything like the time that the railways will do it. If it is suggested that the only alternative to paying excessive rates or fares to the railway companies is to send goods or passengers round by sea, then I think the trading community or the travelling community will not thank Deputy Hewat for his solution. But there is the alternative of road transport. Deputy Hewat is violently against any thought of nationalisation. He speaks for the mercantile community, and he suggests, as an alternative to using the railways, that traders should use the nationalised roads. "You must not touch the railways in the way of nationalisation, but to fight the railways you are to use the collectivised roads." I wonder whether there would be really any advantage to the trading community in long distance traffic by motor if the owners of motor wagons had to pay what is really due to the community for the use of those roads. The community—as I think in some of his moments even Deputy Hewat would agree—has provided those roads, and provides for the upkeep of them out of common funds. The trading community, for whom Deputy Hewat speaks, wants to take advantage of those roads, provided out of common funds, to fight the railway companies.
Then we have the criticism of Deputy Hewat, which is repeated by one or two other speakers, respecting the alleged impossibility of successfully managing a unified, nationalised railway system by a Board. Some of the critics—especially Deputy Hewat—prefer to maintain twenty-eight or forty-six separate, distinct Boards. I submit, as against that proposition, that no alternative proposal has yet been made which does not suggest the institution of a Board either to manage, or to assist in managing, the railways. Nobody has suggested—or, shall I say, nobody has had the audacity to suggest—that someone yet unnamed would nominate a person, irresponsible and without assistance, to undertake the management and control of the roads, absolutely. I venture to say that the proposal in the Bill is the nearest proposal that has yet been made to the management of the railway system by a dictator. The proposal is that an expert in railway management should be made a director, and that he should be assisted by—not controlled by—a Board, nominated in the way outlined by the various persons, or groups of persons, whose interests are chiefly affected. I would point out to Deputy McKenna that there is an almost perfect adaptation in the Bill of the proposals of the O'Connor Commission.
The only difference in the Bill from the recommendation of the Commission, in that respect, is that the persons to be appointed to assist the Director are appointed after consultation with the bodies concerned, and not by nomination. The reason for that was that we were drafting a Bill, not making a general recommendation. We recognised, in drafting the Bill, that the interests concerned are not represented by permanent bodies, but by temporary bodies, and, perhaps, by bodies who would not be admitted to be generally representative of the parties concerned. That by the way.
Deputy Hewat, in speaking for the mercantile community and criticising this proposal regarding a Board, might have looked up other proposals of a similar kind. He might, for instance, have referred to the Board recommended by the Scotter Commission, which, I think, suggested that it should be constituted of over twenty persons, the great majority of whom were to be appointed by elected authorities— County Councils or Committees of County Councils. The majority of the Scotter Commission, as somebody has pointed out, were not feather-headed Labour men, but comprised Sir John Scotter, Lord Pirrie, Sir Hutcheson Poe and another member, whose name I cannot recall at the moment. Their proposal was for a very much larger committee of twenty Directors, twelve to represent ratepayers and to be elected by the County Councils. Perhaps it would be interesting to Deputy Hewat, and to those who think with him, if I quoted him the proposal of that body which Deputy O'Mahony got his brief from—the Stockholders' Protection Association. They proposed a Board which might number twenty, of whom ten might be appointed members. The Executive of this Irish Stockholders' Protection Association contained quite a number of very eminent business men. Then we are charged with suggesting methods which are in fact confiscatory. Deputy O'Mahony and others on the Government benches, Deputy Hewat and one or two others, I think, hinted at confiscation, and Deputy Egan reminded us of the Railways Act of 1854, which gave the Government of the day rights and authority to take over railways at 25 years' purchase on the previous three years' average earnings, I think. Now, confiscation evidently does not enter into it when a Government has already the right to take over railways. The only question is the price, and the moral slur which is suggested when one uses the word "confiscation" fails, and it is only a question of whether the price shall be 25 years or 15 years or 10 years or 50 years. If they are to be taken over compulsorily there is just as much confiscation in the one case as in the other. But Deputy Egan rather pressed the suggestion of 25 years. I wonder whether he really would propose seriously to the Dáil that 25 years' purchase of the five best years in railway history should be the basis of any transfer of the railways from private owners to the State. This is the proposal of the railway stockholders—25 years of the best of the 3 years ended the 31st December, 1913, plus an allowance for capital expended which is not fructifying, and interest on the sum required for the cost of winding up, including the payment of necessary compensation. It is very generous of the Stockholders' Protection Association, and for Deputy Egan, who is backing up their claims——
Mr. EGAN
On a point of personal explanation, I did not say that I advocated 25 years' purchase. I simply commented on the difference between Sir Robert Peel's proposal and Deputy Johnson's.
Well, Sir Robert Peel lived a long time ago, and many things have happened since his time. Irish land has been bought, and if Deputy Egan dissociates himself from the suggestion that as high as 25 years' purchase should be given when taking over the railways, I take it that somewhere between 15 years' and 25 years' is in his mind as reasonable. I wonder how far from 15 or how much less than 25 is in his mind? Has he thought about it at all? Has he made any calculations on the matter? Has he considered what is going to be the effect of the purchase at either of these prices upon the trading public, upon the State, or upon the railway stockholders? I submit that critics of our proposals should at least have given some consideration to the problem in its effects upon each of these various interests. If the 25 years' proposal of the railway stockholders, which is not now Deputy Egan's proposal, were accepted, we would be not only giving the railway stockholders what Deputy O'Mahony would like them to get, but we would be guaranteeing them an income on the best year in railway history, guaranteed by the State. Does anybody openly avow that that is his wish, in view of the circumstances of the time? It is even acknowledged by railway managers that in the pre-war period railwaymen were underpaid, and it was argued at that time by traders, farmers and manufacturers, that railway rates were then too high. If railway rates were too high they have to be reduced, and if railway wages were too low they have to be raised if justice were to be done to either party. Consequently if a fair average, a fair basis of calculation, is to be taken, it would be much less than the highest year of railway income, but the generous Stockholders' Protection Association, not backed up by Deputy Egan, would ask the State to guarantee the very best year of income, when the two elements which contributed most to making that high income, were justly complaining of the conditions which led to the earning of that income.
Then we have taken that five years' period as a basis of our calculation and have suggested a maximum of 15 years of that best period. It is true that it is not for us to say: "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther" if the Dáil desires. We submit that it is very generous to the railway stockholders, at least as generous as the Minister for Agriculture and the Dáil were to the landholders. Bear in mind—and I hope the President will take a note of this—that there is a difference between the chance—shall I say the limited security—of a railway company, even to trustee stockholders, and the security of the State, and if I may suggest a fairly definite opinion, having examined this problem from all sides as well as I can, the railway shareholders will probably be getting out of their holdings very well if they take our proposal.
The Government plan, or Deputy Hewat's, may be the best for the State as an organised institution. I do not think it will be best for the State as a social organism or a trading community. I think it may be best for the State and worse for the stockholder as compared with this Bill. I think we are giving away something to the stockholders in the interests of harmony and because we believe it might be the cheapest way to buy good-will and national development.
There are one or two points of misunderstanding that rather impede any due consideration of this problem that I would like to clear away, and they are these. Irish railwaymen are not paid as high as English railwaymen. I will simply make the assertion without trying to prove it, and I say it confidently and without any hesitation.
We have records here, not our own compilation, which would prove it, but I do not want to delay the Dáil. Irish railwaymen are not paid as high a rate as those in England or Scotland. Railway wages have come down to the extent on the aggregate, of about £1,500,000 in the last two years, working out at about £1 per week per man on the average. The argument has been made by several Deputies in the hope, I have no doubt, of influencing the Government, and I think no side has gone very deeply into the question, but in general one could see that the trend of thought in the matter is in favour of unification. Farmers are not quite agreed as to whether there should be a mere grouping, retaining a certain amount of competition, or whether there should be unification, but I will assume that the general agreement of critics on our proposal is that there should be something in the way of unification, but without nationalisation. This fear of nationalisation, because it has been introduced by the Labour Party, is very amusing. If it had been introduced by Deputy O'Higgins, for instance, or the President, no doubt it would have been considered quite safe, and not at all likely to raise the bogey of Socialism or Bolshevism, and Deputy Gorey might in such circumstances sleep the sleep of calmness and innocence.
I assure Deputy Johnson it would be less acceptable from the Government Benches.
Deputy Hewat would prefer that it came from the Labour rather than the Government Benches, presumably because he thinks that, coming from the Labour Benches, it has not quite the same chance of being embodied into law, but let us wait and see. I imagine that the reason for this delay and hesitation on the part of the President to divulge his plans is that they do not like to introduce a plan of nationalisation. They would flee from it if they could, but facts are forcing them, and they are trying to delay making the plunge as long as possible. Every Deputy who advocated unification said at the same time that there must be State control. That sounds too much like nationalisation, but that there must be control, some kind of intervention, something to prevent the unified companies doing what they like with their own, and that there must be something to prevent them charging too much to the traders, manufacturing interests, and the travelling public. I read an extract from a statement by Mr. Ackworth, who was one of the Scotter Commission, a well-known railway authority, and he frankly said that the railway authorities could put their fingers in the eyes of any Railway Rates Commission at any time, and they had done it. You may set up your control, and hope to take a little off here, but, as the Minister for Agriculture said, "If you take a little off here you have to put a little on there," if you are to guarantee your stockholders a reasonable rate of interest, and pay your railway servants a reasonable rate of pay your Rates Commission may alter a little here and a little there, but you will not get much out of that kind of control.
What else are you doing? You speak of railway control under Government authority, and then when you complain of mismanagement and bad services the railway companies will simply say: "What can we do? Take these people out of the way and we will show you what we can do; remove this incubus of Government control; remove this Rates Commission, and we will have our own way, and then we can show you how we will run things." We have been referring to the Land Act which was passed as a logical conclusion to the introduction of dual ownership of the land. If you introduce dual control into the railway services, with directorships on one hand and general managers and a Government authority, called Rates Commission, on the other, you are introducing dual control, by a roundabout method, the ultimate end of which will be either complete private ownership without any control, or complete private ownership without any shareholders. So that your alternative proposal of unification will, I submit, inevitably lead to public ownership, or something very much worse, which no one in the debate has publicly faced: unified ownership of the railways, unified control with private ownership of the stocks on the public sharemarket, rival railway companies in England, each scheming for an extra share of the Irish traffic; a desire to serve the interests of their companies possibly, I will not say deliberately, but possibly and probably at the expense of Irish public benefit. It is much more profitable to encourage the store cattle trade between Ireland and England than an internal trade in Irish manufacture. But your privately-owned unified railways, or your privately-owned grouped railways, will be gobbled up by these interests, which are British railway combine interests, and not Irish interests at all. Are you prepared to see these combinations in England get real financial control of the Irish railway system, and having financial control of the Irish railway systems, and a very big say in the course of Irish commercial, industrial and manufacturing development? That is one of the risks you are running. I will look forward with interest to the proposals of the Government when either a public Bill or a Railway Companies Bill is brought to the Dáil to allow a unification of Irish railways, to find out what kind of preservative clauses are going to be inserted to ensure that these railways will be devoted to the interests of Ireland, not to the interests of English or Scottish railway companies.
Deputy O'Mahony picked out a phrase from my statement when introducing this Bill. He stated that I frankly admitted that this nationalisation scheme was not going to be a success, because I suggested, that in my opinion an efficient railway service in Ireland would probably require something in the nature of a State subsidy. I stated at the same time that this Bill did not contemplate a State subsidy. But I say this, that an efficient railway service in Ireland, serving Ireland, whether privately owned or publicly owned, will, in my opinion, call for a State subsidy, if it is to be efficient. I think the facts of life around us, the facts relating to railways, to industries, to agriculture, to the population of Ireland, and to all the circumstances, show me at any rate that a railway service in Ireland, if it is a railway service running independently of any other transport organisation, to be comparable in efficiency with the service in other countries, supplying a big market across the water, will require something in the nature of a subsidy. I put it to the Dáil, as worthy of consideration at least, and as the suggestion of many acute minds and thinkers in economic matters—I do not subscribe to it wholly myself—that the best and safest alternative to protective tariffs will be a subsidy to railways for the purpose of encouraging Irish trade. Deputy O'Mahony, notwithstanding his denunciation of the principles of the Bill, his suggestion that it was confiscatory and his general and unsatisfactory attempt to state the case of the Irish Railway Stockholders' Association, summed up by saying that the present Bill was premature. It was bad, evil in its conception, false in its premises and in its conclusion, but it was premature. I am rather inclined to suggest to Deputies—Deputy Egan frankly stated it—that they all felt that it is merely a question of time, it is merely a question of a few years until the State shall take over the railway services. Well, if that is so, do you think it good business to allow all the present stockholders, and to allow the present railway interests to dig themselves in, to strengthen their vested interests, and to make it more and more difficult to buy them out at the end of a few years' time?
I suggest if you are looking forward to a period merely of a few years, you are unwise in postponing the action, and you should do it at once and not attempt to play with this business when you are quite convinced that any intervening period will merely serve to prepare the way for State acquisition of the Irish railways. I want Deputies to bear in mind that if you want to get back, as the railway companies do, to something approximating a pre-war state of affairs, you are asking us to consent to a proposition that out of every £1 paid in railway freights, and in passenger fares, 13/- to 13/6 is used to provide the service, and the remainder is used to pay shareholders and stockholders. It may be inevitable, and I frankly confess, that for a period of 67 or 72 years even under this Bill that same consideration will have to be given; but it is very well worthy of note that when any Deputy goes to the booking office of a railway company and pays £1 for a ticket, by that act he is handing over 6/6 or 7/- to railway shareholders.
Deputy Heffernan contributed to this debate, and he, too, is against nationalisation. I think he is in favour of the retention of the railways in private hands, with some hope that by doing so, either by that means or by a grouping system which he preferred, you would be able to reduce freights and pay a reasonable dividend to stockholders. In his condemnation of nationalisation he produced an example of Canadian railways. He rather hesitated to continue his quotations when I asked him to go on with the figures of other companies. If there is any example required to be quoted against his case, it is the very example that he gave the Dáil. The Grand Trunk Railway, for instance, had to be taken over by the State in response to the demand of the populace. It was bankrupt. A private railway concern had gone to the dogs completely, and, in deference to popular demand, had to be taken over by the State. Notwithstanding an appeal to the Privy Council, the ordinary shareholders got nothing. They had no right.
May I remark that the ordinary shareholders had not got anything before.
True; they got nothing under private management.
But Deputy Hewat suggests they ought to have got something under State management, it being so much better. Really it is a pity for the case against nationalisation that Deputy Heffernan should have adduced the reference to the Canadian railways. I do not want to alarm Irish stockholders, but perhaps the introduction of this Bill, in this form by the Labour Party, might be the best security they have. It may be that their concerns also will prove bankrupt; Deputy Woulfe described them as insolvent concerns. It may be that they may be pleading to the State to nationalise them, backed up, as I expect they very soon will be, by the merchant community and the agricultural community. Perhaps the fact that we have introduced this Bill suggesting these terms will be quoted in support of their claims for reasonable compensation. I give notice here and now that it is without prejudice that this Bill has been introduced and that the financial clauses have been inserted in the manner in which they have been.
I was interested and pleased with the contribution of the Minister for Agriculture, and I do not want to go far in dealing with his arguments. He said all the advantages claimed for nationalisation could be got by unification. All the advantages of administration, I agree, but possibly, and probably, the disadvantages that national benefit may not be—I put it as low as that—the primary purpose of unified non-nationalised railways. If we take the alternative, advantages of unification can be got by nationalisation, plus the advantage of a clear intention to serve the common interest of the State; then I say the case for nationalisation as against unification is very much strengthened. As to the Minister for Agriculture, though speaking as Deputy Hogan, I must say there was a certain timidity which is not usually to be found in his contributions to discussions in the Dáil. We must give private enterprise a trial, if private enterprise is properly controlled by the Government. That is Deputy Hogan's proposition: that private enterprise must have a trial. Let us try them a little longer, if you please, and let us give them proper control by the Government. Then, he suggests that our proposal to take the railways at this stage—and I think that notion was running through the President's mind in his statement—our proposal to take the railways over is in the nature of punishment; but really it is not so at all. We are, as Deputy Hewat said, and we are proud of it, endeavouring to take the chestnuts out of the fire, to take the chestnuts for the public interest out of the fire of the privately owned railways. We have no shame in that at all, and if the Government cannot see its way to do this work for fear of burning its fingers we are prepared to make that little sacrifice in the common interest.
I have talked very much too long. I want to say that the Bill is being presented to the Dáil as a carefully considered proposal, worked out with some detail to meet the needs, not of railway employees, but to meet the needs of the State, to meet the needs of the trading community, having due regard to the legitimate interests of the stockholders.
No alternative proposal has been made, and I ask the Dáil to vote for the Bill with the double intention that the railways shall be nationalised and that there shall be set up a central authority co-ordinating the various transport services, those dealing with communications for the purpose of linking them up and serving the common good. It is a Second Reading, and not a final Reading, that we ask for. We ask the Dáil to agree to a Second Reading, and to indicate to the Government, having given the Second Reading to this Bill, that it is then their duty to take it over and to introduce amendments and to make the best of it according to their views as to how it can be improved. We ask the Dáil to agree that the time has passed for a longer delay in this matter, that the companies, the public, and all concerned, have had long notice, and that at least the principle embodied in this Bill should be granted a Second Reading.
Question put: "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 56.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- David Hall.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Henry Coyle.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Connor Hogan.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Aodh O Cinnéide.
- Séamus N.O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Patrick W. Shaw.
- Liam Thrift.
- Richard H. Beamish.
- Nicholas Wall.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- John Conlan.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Alasdair Mac Cába.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Thomas O'Mahony.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Caoimhghin O hUigín.
Motion declared lost.