I move:
That in view of the chaotic condition of the transportation system this House requests the Government immediately to introduce proposals for the purpose of acquiring the public transport undertakings of the country and operating them as a public utility service.
During the last 60 or 70 years the question of the public ownership and control of Irish railways and other essential transport undertakings has been the subject of innumerable discussions both in the British Parliament and here in this House since this State was established. We have had six or seven commissions or tribunals, set up by the British Parliament and by our own two Governments here, the previous Government and the present Government. These commissions were set up as the result of public agitation carried on by influential individuals, representatives of the Irish people in the British Parliament when the Irish people were represented there, and later by the representatives of the people in this House, as well as by agricultural and industrial organisations. We have had the Devin Commission, the Allport Commission and the British Royal Commission set up in 1906, which commission made its report in 1910. The Devin and the Allport Commissions set up by the British House of Commons, although recognising the demand of the Irish people for the public ownership of Irish railways, reported against such proposals. But the British Royal Commission set up in 1906 reported in 1910, by a majority, in favour of the State purchase of Irish railways. The late Mr. Thomas Sexton, who was a financial expert, was a member of the British Royal Commission in 1906. In making its report that body said that: "Irish development will not be fully served by the railways until they cease to be commercial undertakings." It goes on to recommend that the railways after State purchase be administered by an Irish elected authority. The detailed method of administration was also indicated in that majority report which, as I say, definitely reported in favour of the State purchase of Irish railways.
We come again to the commission which was set up by the Provisional Government in 1922. That commission was presided over by the late Lord Justice O'Connor, and its other members were Mr. E. McLysaght, Mr. Thomas Johnson and the late Senator Michael O'Dea. In a majority report the O'Connor Commission said:—
"Looking at the matter in the abstract it is difficult to see an answer to the argument that a railway service should be, not only owned, but controlled by the State. The railway system of a country is a public service just as the postal, telephone and telegraph services are public services. Every person in the community derives benefit, more or less, from it. It is a monopoly owing its existence and maintenance to powers conferred by the State. Mere theory furnishes no reason why a monopoly of the kind should be run as a private concern in the interests of a very small section of the community."
The late Senator Michael O'Dea, who signed a minority report, said that he was in agreement with his colleagues in their general findings, but in view of the then existing conditions he could not endorse the recommendation in favour of State purchase. "In my opinion," he said, "this is not the time to ask the Government to undertake such a heavy financial burden, independent of the fact that the conditions in the country are against such a course. It is impossible to say what the Irish railways are worth to-day."
We come to the time when our present Minister for Industry and Commerce sat on this side of the House and was recognised as shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Fianna Fáil Party. Speaking here in this House on 9th December, 1931, as reported in columns 2645-6 of the Official Debates, Mr. Lemass, as he then was—I think he was merely supporting what other people had said and what, in fact, was said in the majority report of the O'Connor Commission— said:
"I think there are no Deputies who will deny that preservation of the railways is essential to the industrial development of the country... If we are seeking to attain that aim I think we must also make up our minds that public ownership of these services is desirable, if not essential. Unified control and public ownership are necessary for a number of other reasons as well.... I think that as strong a case, if not a much stronger case can be made out for the public ownership of transport services as can be made out for the public ownership of an electricity supply. The position here is that the case is also strengthened by the fact that there does not exist amongst the people of this country any feeling of confidence in the existing railway management... We are strongly in favour of public ownership of transport services with unified control outside the boundaries of the municipalities. Inside the boundaries of municipalities, we are in favour of municipal ownership and control of these services."
These are very strong words used by a very influential spokesman in this House on the 9th December, 1931. I move the adjournment of the Debate.
Debate accordingly adjourned.