Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Oct 1949

Vol. 118 No. 2

Transport Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Derrig

As I said last night, an efficient and economical transport system is essential to the conduct of modern economy. In fact, it has been very properly said that an efficient and economical transport system is the very life-blood of the country's economy. It is obviously of the greatest importance, therefore, that every effort should be made to secure that the services that are provided under the national transport undertaking should be as cheap and as efficient as possible. I think this is all the more necessary in present circumstances, when the increased cost of living is pressing so severely upon so many sections of the community.

We used to hear some time ago that the policy of the former Minister for Industry and Commerce was responsible for landing the Córas Iompair Éireann undertaking into a chaotic and bankrupt condition. It was conveniently forgotten that for very many years that undertaking was unable to meet its obligations to its shareholders and debenture holders, and that it had reached the position where it was unable to provide even the wherewithal to carry on its day to day business, to provide the raw materials and, in fact, the finances necessary to meet its wages and other outgoings. It was in those circumstances that the former Minister considered that it was advisable in the general national interest to unite the Dublin United Transport System with the then existing railway system. In that way it was possible, as I said last night, to reduce the overhead costs by bringing into the pool the very lucrative revenue from the Dublin passenger traffic thereby reducing to some extent, at any rate, overhead costs generally and certainly achieving the aim, which I think it did succeed in achieving, of giving the country areas generally better, more economical and cheaper services. As I stated before in this House, I believe that these services can correspond in price and efficiency with similar services in any other part of the world.

The then Minister made it quite clear that he took full responsibility for that policy. He made it quite clear that the object was to have a national transport undertaking, the chairman of which would be responsible to the Government and would be governed generally by Government decisions as to what was best in the general public interest. The Minister had the right of veto if the board determined to pursue policies which could not be considered as in the general national interest. In the matter of charges there was an appeal to the Minister. As has been pointed out, there is no such appeal in the present measure. Once this measure passes through the Oireachtas, if it does so in its present form, the board will have complete and final responsibility in the determination of charges in relation to rail and passeger fares and freight.

It will, of course, be claimed—I can see a certain reasonableness in the argument—that it would be impossible to discuss all the intricacies of this undertaking in the Dáil. But it was very noticeable in the period of operation which has elapsed since the passage of the 1944 Act that not alone were campaigns carried on in the country against certain decisions which were taken in the interests of the concern but objection was made to them in this House, whether it was a question of how the hotels should be equipped or run, or how the branch lines should be dealt with. There was hardly any aspect of the administration of the undertaking which did not come in for criticism.

In all these circumstances I think the outgoing chairman can justifiably claim that he left the undertaking in a much better state than that in which he found it and that he did not get a reasonable opportunity in normal conditions to show what the plans he had in contemplation could produce. You cannot run an undertaking of this magnitude on a day-to-day basis. You have to plan for a long period in advance. The course of events during the past few years made it very difficult to estimate exactly what conditions would be even in the ensuing 12 months. Only a few months ago the present Minister for Finance told us in his Budget statement that he felt we had reached the peak, as far as I remember, of tourist expenditure in this country and that we would have to look, in the settlement of our accounts, to a downward trend. Now we are being told that all our efforts should be concentrated upon collecting dollars and any other cash that we can net by the development of our tourist trade. The figures show that, far from decreasing, the tourist trade is increasing. Unless something very unexpected happens in world affairs in the coming 12 months our tourist traffic will probably be bigger than it ever was in the past. It is impossible to prophesy in regard to the future. It is very easy for wiseacres to tell us after the event how they would have dealt with the situation. But they are not in the position of having the responsibility upon their shoulders.

The Minister loudly acclaimed the merits of the experts who put the Milne Report together, but these experts have not been called upon and will not be called upon to implement their recommendations. As far as one can judge, the Minister has by-passed most of their recommendations. He has not told the House whether the Government has rejected them or whether the Government has still an open mind in relation to them. If his attitude was that he wanted Dáil Éireann to give him some advice as to the general lines of policy he ought to pursue, I suggest that his opening statement was not in consonance with such an attitude. We must conclude that the Minister and the Government have not made up their minds about these matters or that they want the country and the Dáil to take "a pig in a poke" because, as has been very propertly and truly stated, the Minister is trying to persuade the Dáil that all these matters should be left to the new board. The only difference that I can see between this scheme and the scheme of nationalisation which is in operation in England is that in England, as was the position in this country, at any rate up to the present, the Government take responsibility for issuing general directives on policy, making the board acquainted with what they think is right or wrong in the general national interest. Can the Minister deny, whatever the Bill may say, that he will not have that responsibility?

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Morrissey)

So the Government in the past did give directives as to policy. Is that the Deputy's statement?

Mr. Derrig

I say that the chairman of the company was enabled——

Mr. Morrissey

Oh no, that is not what you said.

Mr. Derrig

He consulted the Minister with regard to general policy.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy did not interrupt when other Deputies were speaking.

Mr. Davin

But he wanted to sack men.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Davin had an opportunity of speaking. I think I have shown the House before this that I am able to speak, no matter what interruptions I get—but I do not want to waste time replying to the silly nonsense of Deputy Davin.

Mr. Davin

There were only 3,500 involved.

Mr. Derrig

The Dublin United Transport Company was brought into this general undertaking. I have outlined briefly the reasons for it. I think the decision was justified and the railway system would probably have disappeared altogether if that step had not been taken. Now we are to bring in the Grand Canal Company—and what advantage is that enterprise going to bring to the national pool? The fact is that the Great Southern Railway Company failed to take advantage of the opportunities that they got under the 1933 Act to go out and build up a road transport system.

When the former chairman was appointed he was acclaimed as being a very successful executive on the road transport side. It was claimed against him, and the propaganda went around, that he was not a railway man. Well, if the new board consists entirely of railway men we shall see whether the results of their operations will compare with his. But I see that there is no qualification of any kind as to the type of individual who is to go upon this board. He need not have any railway, technical, commercial, road transport or rail transport experience. It is not at all easy to get people with the qualifications that we would all like for these positions, and when we put the heavy responsibility upon them of doing what they presumably think best in the general national interest and the interest of the concern for which they are responsible for the time being, they deserve the co-operation of the community generally and of public men within this House and without. Otherwise, no matter how well-intentioned their efforts may be or how good their policy, it can be sabotaged.

It is stated in the Milne Report that the railways afford the most economical form of transport for the conveyance of long-distance passenger traffic. Is that a correct statement, or would it be agreed to by the average Irish citizen? Is it not the position that the convenience to the traveller's residence and place of business, and the density of population are very important factors, and is there any comparison between the conditions even in the city of Dublin and those, for instance, in the city of London as regards numbers or density of traffic?

It is stated in another part of the report that the railway system is indispensable for passengers travelling short distances in large numbers. There again, if the statistics of suburban traffic about this city are studied, it will be interesting to know what is the comparison. Is it not a fact that conditions have entirely changed since the railway system was established—that this city has grown to two or three times the size it was then? It has spread out in all directions.

An English economist, Professor Walker, writing recently in the Economic Journal—and I presume there is a reasonable amount of objectivity about his observations— stated that the principles laid down in the Milne Report presupposed complete coincidence between the interests of public carriers and the general welfare of the community. Recommendations for co-ordination of road and rail are more important, therefore, as an expression of the railways' case against road competition and the public carriers' against private users. He went further and said that the recommendations could not possibly be defended as a basis for future policy on a transport system, part of which is now to be owned outright by the State, and, with reference to the change in circumstances that have arisen in regard to transport generally and to the part it plays in the lives of the people, as compared with even 30 years ago—the entirely different circumstances—the Professor said: “If indeed, new methods of performing public services were to be confined to supplementing but not supplanting the old, just because the financial interests of the latter were prejudiced, technical progress in industries clothed with a public interest would be stopped except on terms acceptable to the officials who manage them.”

The chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann tried to get things done. He had ideas. He may have been wrong in his ideas. He may have tried to do more than he should have done. But, at any rate, he had a certain conception of a national transport undertaking and of national transport policy and, in discussing this measure, it is very easy to criticise what has been done and to pick holes in it and to take up, on the other hand, the recommendations of the Milne Report and to point out that so and so and so were proofs that the undertaking was not being efficiently administered. But let us look at some of the recommendations of the Milne Report. The Minister was not long in office when he told us that unacceptable proposals were being made by the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann—that he wanted to close down the branch lines and throw a large number of people out of employment. What is the position now? Under this Bill, the branch lines can all be closed down finally and irrevocably, without even the public inquiry that the Milne Report has suggested can be held when the matter of the termination of these branch lines is in question.

Mr. Morrissey

That can be done without this Bill, at any time.

Mr. Davin

It has been done.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course it has.

Mr. de Valera

Then why not put it in the Bill?

Mr. Derrig

Another charge against the chairman was that he advocated that fares and freight charges should be increased, and we heard pathetic wails in this House from the Government Benches about the bad old Fianna Fáil Party which wanted to increase the passenger fares on the poor workers of Dublin. The passenger fares have been increased and they can be increased again and other charges besides them and there is no provision in this measure for appeal. It was also apparently a ground for charge against the Córas Iompair Éireann administration that it suggested that road transport should be restricted. It was very extraordinary coming from such a road-minded expert as the former chairman, but what has this commission of railway men recommended? They have recommended a 5 per cent. cut in staff, a duty on long distance hauliers and the withdrawal of scheduled long-distance omnibus services.

The Minister has given us no information as to these recommendations, as to whether they are accepted or not or as to whether the Government feels that they form the principles on the general lines of which the new board should proceed. Over a long-term prospect they have recommended that a highways authority should be set up with a view to removing the heavy burden upon Córas Iompair Éireann of the maintenance of its tracks. We have heard nothing about that and it is suggested that in matters of that kind the new board can take action by itself or possibly that it can carry out any of these recommendations without a directive from the Minister.

The great brunt of the attack upon Córas Iompair Éireann has been with regard to the programme of capital expenditure which they envisaged. According to the Milne Report and as everybody knows, the railway system is in urgent need of re-equipment. Of a figure of £10,500,000 which is stated to be necessary for the re-equipment of Córas Iompair Éireann as a whole no less than £7,250,000 is estimated to be necessary for railway work. The Minister read out a long list of capital expenditure running into £17,000,000, but, as Deputy Lemass pointed out, he forgot to remind us that there was a limitation on the amount of capital that could be issued and that in any case the actual amount expended was very far short. According to this report, it ran into about £2,000,000 and an actual full commitment of some £5,300,000. Every Deputy in this House knows the condition the stock had got into as a result of the war years and the neglect to make replacements for such a long time before. I do not think that the vision and the policy of Córas Iompair Éireann can be quarrelled with except in degree and it cannot be denied that heavy capital expenditure was necessary.

The present Minister for Finance, speaking in this House on the 1944 Transport Bill—and he had a good deal of experience as Minister and as advocate of its operations—stated that for eight years before that no debenture interest had been paid and that the money which should have gone for many years before to replacements in order to try to keep the system in something like normal condition had gone to pay dividends. The situation, therefore, was not one that arose as a result of something that either Deputy Lemass or Mr. Reynolds had done but it was the result to a very great extent of a long process.

One of the arguments against the 1944 Act was that it was setting up a dictatorship but, at any rate, as I have said, the Minister was responsible and could be called to account in this House. When the present measure goes through, however, if it does go through in this form, he can give the same type of answer as he gave me yesterday with regard to the Labour Court or as he might give with regard to the Electricity Supply Board, that it is not his concern. We are in the position that we are guaranteeing interest and other charges on a capital of about £16,000,000 from the Central Fund and it is only in the event of a subsidy being necessary to make up for the failure of the company to repay the advances from the Central Fund that we are likely to have any opportunity of dealing with the question in this House. Although the Minister described it as a "bankrupt concern" a few months ago when he and his Party and all the other Parties combined here to try to blame Fianna Fáil administration for the bankruptcy— according to them—of the Córas Iompair Éireann system and the chaotic condition—according to them—in which it now is, he told us that it is now to be a gilt-edged investment.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Derrig

Once the Government takes responsibility for the stock it is a gilt-edged investment. He has not told us the value of the assets which the State is getting in return for the liabilities that are being placed upon the taxpayer. He has not told us what further burdens are likely to be placed either on the taxpayers, the owners of cars, the owners of lorries or hauliers in order to try to meet the deficit that exists at present in the undertaking. If it is not made up by increased revenue, a reduction of costs or both combined, it must in the long run be footed by the taxpayer. According to a Parliamentary answer yesterday, the State has already had to meet the deficit in 1947-'48 by £360,000 and for the first half of the present year has had to pay £201,000. According to the Milne Report, there is a deficit on the actual working of the system of some £850,000.

Mr. Davin

That was a wrong balance sheet.

Mr. Derrig

The additional net revenue that would be required in order to meet that deficit and to pay the debenture interest would be something in the nature of £1,300,000 or £1,400,000. It is true that the additional charges that have been placed upon rail and road passengers will bring in some £600,000, but there will still be a deficit of some £800,000 and the Minister has given no information to the House as to how he foresees that that deficit may be overcome. The question has been asked, and will probably be asked many times in the future, as to what steps the new board will take, with the sanction of the Minister, to increase traffic and to reduce its overhead costs.

According to the Milne Report, of the £850,000 deficit on working, £250,000 is attributable to wage awards paid in 1948. According to the former chairman, the figure should be £320,000. I am not clear whether the allowance for appropriation for pension fund is included. If it is not, it would be an addition of another £150,000. No information has been given to the House as to the value of the assets which have been taken over and for which the State is now saddled with responsibility for the £16,500,000 worth of stock. No information has been given with regard to the provision for replacements, which the Milne Report states will mean an expenditure during the next five years of at least £7,750,000. Neither has the Minister told us what effect the repayment of the debentures next January will have on the finances of the company.

He has given us no information regarding the increased competition which the system has had to bear during the past year. We have no information as to the number of lorries owned by private owners or by licensed hauliers and the increase in the number of private cars. The importance of that is, as the Minister for Finance pointed out in the Road Transport Act debates, that whereas in other countries the passenger traffic is of such importance that it could help to subsidise and reduce the charges on the goods traffic, in this country the cream has been skimmed off the traffic generally. All the best portion of the passenger traffic has gone with the development of the private car. In the same way, the cream of the goods traffic has been taken away by the private operator and by the licensed haulier. We are left in the position that the system has, on the one hand reduced traffic, both passenger and goods, and that traffic of a very much less remunerative character and of a very low grade as compared with what it was when the railway system was a monopoly here and had no competition, while on the other hand the costs have increased and the effectiveness and the universality of the opposing competitors has become greatly accentuated. Therefore, the task of the new board in restoring to the system the traffic that it has lost, either by way of passenger traffic or goods traffic, must be a very great one.

No information, of course, will be adduced as to the steps which may be in contemplation for the reduction of costs. That would be, as was pointed out, a very unpopular thing for the Minister to undertake and he prefers that the board, far from the criticisms of this House, will take the necessary decisions——

Mr. Morrissey

I will not sack 3,500 men, anyhow.

Mr. Derrig

——helped out by the Minister for Finance, who, I am sure, has something nice in his Budget bag of secrets for the private operators and licensed hauliers in next year's Budget.

With regard to the question of capital expenditure, if the Government believe that the railway system can be resuscitated and put on a proper footing, it is not quite obvious that very heavy expenditure will be necessary, running into many millions of pounds? When you think of the enormous capital that was necessary even 100 years ago to provide the Irish railway system, when you consider the extraordinary reduction in the value of money since then and the extraordinary increase in the cost of materials and equipment of every kind and particularly in the cost of labour, is it not quite obvious that it will take many millions of pounds to put the railways on a proper footing? Of course, if the Fianna Fáil Government spoke of spending millions on the railways that would be megalomania, a spendthrift policy, squandermania, and so on; but even the Taoiseach is beginning to find out that capital investment in our own country may be very desirable and that our foreign assets are not always as secure as we would wish them to be.

Quite apart from that fact, there is a general recognition, I dare say, on all sides of this House, that it is desirable that the national transport service should give the best value possible to the community and give the best employment possible and should be used wherever possible to build up ancillary industries to give the skilled trades an opportunity of developing—as Deputy Lemass said last night, to build up an Irish engineering industry is one instance. We have a Post Office factory and I dare say that by ordinary commercial standards it would have been closed long ago.

We had a bakery down in the Curragh and we were for years at the Committee of Public Accounts trying to get the necessary information to assure the Department of Finance that the costs of production were comparable to those in outside undertakings of the same character. Of course, the Department of Finance can be very severe and very critical in these matters and I dare say you can easily make a case that there should never be any Irish enterprise or any Irish undertaking or industry giving employment of any magnitude whatever, if you are to go strictly on the question of whether we can give the same results as they can give in Britain and other big industrial States. We cannot, any more than we can give the same results in other directions. We have to be guided by our own conditions. We were always genuinely interested in the development of industries which would improve our technical skill and I think, therefore, the Government would have been justified in going to considerable expenditure to enable young Irishmen to get the necessary training in industries ancillary to transport undertakings. We all know how these are advancing in other countries. Does anyone suggest that, even if all the recommendations of the Milne Report were carried out, that would safeguard the Irish railways or that even then we could be completely satisfied that they would pay their way?

I dare say everybody is prepared to go a certain distance. The question is how far we should go to enable them to be maintained but at the same time we all recognise that we should do our utmost, when we have a large undertaking of this kind that requires millions of pounds of capital, to regard it not so unfavourably, not with such contempt or dislike, having regard to the huge expenditure on the development of the Electricity Supply Board, for example, the huge schemes we hear of in connection with afforestation, land reclamation and so on.

Undoubtedly, a price has to be paid to build up an Irish engineering industry. Whether you do it at Haulbowline, Inchicore or Broadstone or anywhere else, I maintain that it will be worth while because, apart from the consideration that we shall be able to keep abreast of modern technical development, in the event of another crisis coming upon us we will not find ourselves in the unprepared condition in which we were before. We will be in a better position to fend for ourselves and to see that our transport and other needs are catered for better than they were when supplies were cut off from us in the last emergency.

With regard to the Diesel locomotives, it seems to me that there is merely a difference of opinion between the Milne Report and Córas Iompair Éireann as to the number of these locomotives which ought to be provided.

Mr. Morrissey

Nonsense.

Mr. Derrig

It is not denied that they have been in operation for very many years in the United States and on the Continent and that they are more economical in operation.

Mr. Morrissey

With a 3,000-mile line across the Continent of America.

Mr. Derrig

Well, why not make the Americans feel at home as far as possible when they come to this country? The Minister for External Affairs and others who are interested would like that they should be provided, as far as possible, with the amenities to which they are accustomed at home. As to the new chassis and building shops at the Broadstone, which the Minister apparently regards as an unnecessary expenditure——

Mr. Morrissey

£927,000.

Mr. Derrig

——in the statement dealing with it in the Milne Report, paragraph (143), they say:—

"It is recognised that under the above proposals the work of bodybuilding would, for the time being at any rate, be spread over two shops instead of being concentrated in one, but it is considered that the economies likely to result from concentration would not be sufficient to justify the proposed expenditure on a new shop."

There are two shops in existence. The proposal was to have one central shop. It may be said that the sites and property which the company has should be utilised as far as possible, and I agree with that but, if, having regard to modern developments, it is not possible always to do that and to convenience the public as they ought to be convenienced, then the company is not at a dead loss with regard to its property. It occupies valuable land and valuable sites in the City of Dublin and past experience has shown that in the open market such properties fetch very high prices for development for other purposes.

With regard to the Broadstone proposal, the figure of £100,000 is mentioned as an alternative but is merely a suggestion that, if this work has to be done, £100,000 is the most we can afford to spend on it. It is like the scheme in Country Kerry that we were discussing last night that was left half executed, and the position was that no real remedy had been obtained from the expenditure of a certain amount of money because it was not completed; there was not sufficient money provided to enable it to be done properly.

The Inchicore chassis production shop, according to the Milne Report, is not essential to a transport undertaking. The Inchicore works have a well-established reputation in this country as an engineering centre and, as I have indicated, there are very good and national reasons for developing as far as possible an engineering industry, particularly in view of the fact that a substantial and sufficient part of the products that would make it reasonably economic to undertake the work can be produced there. The argument was made that the chassis produced at Inchicore would have to be sold to the company's competitors in this country. I cannot see any merit in that argument. If there are to be on the roads competitors of the national transport system, surely they will have to be provided with transport.

The extraordinary thing is that, in spite of the Minister's appraisal of the great merits of the Milne Report and the enormous achievement and value that has been secured to the country through the report of these English railway experts, he is unable to give us more definite information as to his views on the recommendations which I have indicated earlier they have made.

There is one final point I would like to make. According to the foreword by the Minister for External Affairs to the White Paper on the European Recovery Programme, Ireland's national programme, of which particulars are given in this White Paper, indicates in broad outline the economic policies which this country proposes to pursue over the next four years. The essential elements of our programme are: (1) The improvement and intensification of agricultural production; (2) the development of industrial production; (3) a carefully planned programme of national capital development to include large-scale schemes for reafforestation, land drainage and reclamation, mineral development and electrification.

In the contents, we find in the chapter dealing with general economic development, the following heads: agriculture, fuel and power, industry, mineral development, fishing, reafforestation, manpower, housing and health services, tourism, shipping, trade policy, finance—but not a word about our internal transport system. We are told that the Government are spending, or propose to spend, up to £40,000,000 on land reclamation under the arrangements with the Marshall Plan administration. We are told by the responsible authority for that administration in this country that the chief way he sees by which the gap, the dollar deficit, in our balance payments can be bridged is by catering for the American tourist traffic, and that is accepted by the Government in paragraph 53:—

"The extension and improvement of the facilities for tourists in Ireland will continue to be one of the major concerns of Government policy, but it would be unrealistic to expect that the revenue from tourism could be maintained uninterruptedly at such a high level."

Having regard to the recent changes, it is quite likely that the peak period has not been reached, and I suggest that the Government might very well have considered utilising the Counterpart Fund, if there is difficulty in providing the necessary finances from the Central Exchequer, for this purpose. They would have good ground for doing so, not alone by reason of development to meet increased tourist traffic, but because of the important part that transport naturally plays in the development of our agriculture, and the expansion of our agricultural production. Can anything be a greater incentive to the producer than the knowledge that the product which he has so toilfully obtained from his land will be brought by the quickest and cheapest method to the market where he intends to sell it? I think the Government should even now reconsider whether moneys should not be provided in that way. The general object, I take it, of the spending of these moneys is to develop the country's productive capacity. If we regard it from the point of view of encouraging what seems to be our main source of dollar earning, or from the point of view of encouraging our producers, whether agricultural or industrial, at home, we could claim that these moneys could not be more usefully spent.

Mr. C. Lehane

I do not approach this Bill with any great degree of enthusiasm. My approach to it is, in the main, critical, but I feel that inasmuch as the main purpose of the Bill is to bring under public ownership and control the two transport undertakings with which it deals, it must command the support of the members of the Clann na Poblachta Party. Deputy Lemass in his speech, with many portions of which, I am forced to admit, I was in agreement, appealed for a reasoned and critical approach to the situation with which this Bill proposes to deal.

Mr. Morrissey

And he set the example.

Mr. C. Lehane

It became apparent, however, as he developed his argument, that his main theme was that everything that had been done by the chairman of the board of Córas Iompair Éireann must be put on a plane above criticism. That is perhaps a natural reaction, because I have at times felt critical of attitudes of mind expressed from this side of the House which took the line that nothing Córas Iompair Éireann could do could possibly be correct. I believe that somewhere between these two extremes the truth lies. I am not enthusiastic about this Bill, not beacuse of what the Bill purports to do but because of the factors in our transport situation with which the Bill fails to deal. Inasmuch as it brings two transport undertakings under public ownership and control, I think it is a step in the right direction.

Let me be honest and confess that it would have been preferable if the Minister had adopted some other device than the setting up of this board. One of the main criticisms of the Bill that I would make—and I should like to hear the Minister on this matter in his reply—is that it does not make the proposed board amenable to the Oireachtas in the manner in which many of us feel that all these public corporations should be made amenable. I hope that on the Committee Stage it will be possible to get the Minister's agreement to amendments directed to that end. One of the points of agreement between all the Parties forming the Inter-Party Government was that public corporations of this nature, such as the Electricity Supply Board and the body envisaged in this Bill, should be amenable to this House. I was glad to hear Deputy Lemass subscribing to that view by implication yesterday, although it is not so very long since, when the affairs of the Electricity Supply Board were under consideration in connection with a Bill dealing with matters affecting the Electricity Supply Board, Deputy Lemass gave voice to a completely different opinion. I would urge the Minister to give careful consideration to any amendments put down seeking to give this House and the members of this House the right to information concerning the activities of this proposed new public company.

I must confess also to certain feelings of misgiving about Sections 18 and 19 of the Bill. I do not think that this House should be asked to accept these sections in their present form. I refer to the section dealing with the cesser of train services, and Section 19, dealing with their abandonment. I think that the House is entitled to ask the Minister that the arbitrary powers given to the board by these two sections should be severly curtailed and that before any attempt is made to close branch lines, or to cease services on branch lines, the fullest possible inquiry should be open to the parties concerned. Certainly I think that the period of notice prescribed in Section 18, sub-section (1) (b) is far too short. Paragraph (b) states:

"The board shall not make an order under this sub-section in relation to a railway line unless at least one month before making the order the board has published in Iris-Oifigiúil and in such newspapers circulating in the district in which the railway line is situate as the board thinks proper, notice of its intention to make the order.”

This is perhaps not the proper time to labour the point but I should like to prepare the Minister's mind for the fact that there are in this House those of us who believe that, in the first place, the notice prescribed is far and away too short and, in the second place, that the method of procedure should safeguard the interests of the public far more than is possible under the section as drafted. Similar observations would apply to the terms of Section 19 of the Bill.

This was described by Deputy Lemass as a Bill to close down branch lines. Admittedly, the Bill does give power to close down branch lines. My attitude to the Bill will be governed by what the Minister has to say, by what indication of policy he can give us in his reply on this stage or by his attitude to the amendments proposed on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not believe everything Deputy Lemass says.

Mr. C. Lehane

I have a very open mind on the subject. I am quite convinced that the Minister in his 18 or 19 months in office has shown that he has not the bias in favour of road transport as against rail transport of which his predecessor gave evidence. I feel also a certain amount of confidence in the fact that at the moment the gentleman who is Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann does appear to have an unbiassed approach to this problem. It is no criticism of the former chairman to say of him that he had a bus bias. It would have been unnatural if he had not. Every action of his while in that position gave evidence of that bus bias. I did hear the expression used of him on one occasion that if he ever had a nightmare there would be a train in it. I do not believe that the present Minister has that bus bias or that road transport bias. I believe he appreciates, coming from a rural area as he does, the necessity for maintaining these branch lines.

One answer that did spring to my mind as I listened to Deputy Lemass last night was that during Deputy Lemass' tenure of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, a number of branch lines were closed down. I know that Deputy Lemass can supply me with 20 arguments as to why that had to be done but, at least, let it be said in defence of the present Minister, when Deputy Lemass criticises him on that score, that during his tenure of office, so far no branch line has been closed down and at least one has been opened up.

Mr. Lemass

They were just kept closed.

Mr. C. Lehane

Rome was not built in a day as Deputy Lemass knows.

Mr. Lemass

Ask the Minister are they ever going to be reopened.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall tell you all about that in due time.

Mr. C. Lehane

That is what I am doing at the moment. I would suggest to the Minister, as a general matter of policy, that where it does appear that branch lines are uneconomic, before permission or authority is given to any board to close them, an attempt should be made to weigh the advantages of the rail car system as it is operated now by the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee and by the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway. At least when that is done, the lines are kept there. They are kept in use and it is possible under emergency conditions, if the necessity arises, to go back to the use of whatever native fuel we have for steam traction.

I do not know was the Minister wise —I am open to conviction on this point —to tie, as it has been expressed here, the Grand Canal Company around the neck of Córas Iompair Éireann. Care should be taken that nothing will be done to increase the cost of delivery of goods at present carried by the Grand Canal Company.

I sympathise with the point of view expressed here about the decision not to proceed with the chassis shop at Inchicore. I want to stress that it was only possible to set up a plant for the manufacture of chassis, the lowest production of which would be ten chassis while there was a market only for five. Surely to goodness, common sense dictates that no matter how anxious we are for development, we cannot go ahead with an unwise development of that nature. I sympathise with the point of view that wants to give our young tradesmen and young technicians an opportunity of becoming more skilled. I sympathise with the point of view that would like to develop in this country an engineering industry but surely that could be done in some less uneconomic way than setting up a factory which would produce twice as much as we could possibly use, without any hope of exporting the surplus.

Mr. Morrissey

And under an agreement which prescribed that they were to export none.

Mr. Lemass

Five of them were for Córas Iompair Éireann alone.

Mr. C. Lehane

Where?

Mr. Lemass

Competitors are getting them from England now.

Mr. C. Lehane

Does the Deputy suggest that saturation point would not be reached in that market if we are producing five chassis per week in addition to those required by Córas Iompair Éireann? Would it not be much preferable, saner and sounder to argue that the development of the engineering industry should take place, as Deputy Derrig mentioned, around Haulbowline dockyard or the Liffey dockyard? I have to accept the facts as being correct. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass is challenging the facts or not.

Mr. Lemass

They would have to sell half their output to Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. C. Lehane

I hope the Minister will take steps to ensure that whatever board is appointed by the Government will not be the type of board that will pursue a policy of watering down the traffic, as was pursued in the past, in order to present to the public a picture unfavourable to rail transport, because, no matter what may be stated from the benches opposite, that policy was pursued. It was pursued to the extent that road transport lorries based on railway stations were, in Córas Iompair Éireann accounting, so far as their cost was concerned, debited against the rail service. I challenge contradiction of that. I do not think that any useful purpose can be achieved by attacks on Córas Iompair Éireann or its personnel. Perhaps from time to time we have all been guilty of that, but I do not think that any useful purpose can be served in approaching this Bill on that line. We are, however, entitled to rely on past experience and the experience that the people had of Córas Iompair Éireann as operated during the term of office of the present Minister's predecessor was unsatisfactory.

Mr. Lemass

There was a war on.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am making due allowance for all the exigencies of the war, but I suggest to this House that, when it can be said by one of the directors of a company that never during his term as a director did he see an agenda for a director's meeting, that type of administration could not be satisfactory.

Mr. Morrissey

It is quite true.

Mr. Lemass

He must have said it in secret.

Mr. C. Lehane

We have a problem. Deputy Lemass stated the problem very clearly and well. I do not know whether it is possible—I am no expert —for us to maintain a rail system which will be completely self-supporting. But, if I am told that it is not, I would still say that it is essential in the national interest that such a system should be maintained even if it had to be subsidised. Our difficulty is our low density of population. But we had our experience during the emergency when we were forced to realise that, if it were not for our railway system, transport would have completely broken down, our experience of being able to "make do", albeit inconveniently and left-handedly if you wish, on native fuel. No one can say when the next emergency may arise. No one can say that it will present the same problems. Perhaps the problems with which we will be presented will be totally different. All we can do, however, is to rely on the past, and the experience of the emergency years forced in on me at any rate the absolute necessity from the national point of view of maintaining as efficient and up-to-date a railway system as possible, consistent with the fact that we have a low density of population and that our resources are not unlimited.

There is one final matter and I should like to hear from the Minister an indication of his point of view on it, and that is his attitude to competition with Córas Iompair Éireann from individual hauliers. All of us know of cases of great individual hardship from the granting of a monopoly to a State concern such as Córas Iompair Éireann was in the past. But I would ask the Minister to steel his heart and to realise that the public interest will have to take precedence over the interest of any individual or group of individuals. I do not think that the Minister or this House should be frightened by talk of virtual monopoly. If it is necessary to give a monopoly to maintain an efficient transport system for the public and to do that economically, then I urge on the Minister that he should not be frightened by phrases and glib talk about private enterprise and that the rights of private enterprise should not deter him from doing what is his obvious duty.

The three matters on which I should like enlightenment from the Minister are: (1) his attitude to making the proposed board amenable to the Oireachtas; (2) his attitude in respect of the closing or operation of branch lines; (3) I should like to have from him the assurance which I have just mentioned—that the public interest will take precedence over the rights of any private individual or groups of individuals in so far as the providing for the people of the country of an efficient and economic transport system is concerned.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There are only a few matters which I should like to mention with reference to this proposal. Any Deputy and any person in the country will appreciate that any industry which pays a yearly wage bill of nearly £7,000,000 and employs almost 22,000 employees is an industry which, if in difficulties, must meet with the immediate and urgent attention of the Government and Parliament. I do not think there is anyone in the House who has any doubts about the problem which the transport industry is facing and the urgent need for action by the Government in relation to it.

Deputy Lehane has stressed the importance of this industry to the country, not merely as a means of employment for a large proportion of our people, but also as a measure of national safety in times of military danger or emergency. All that is, of course, quite true. But I think that until this measure of nationalisation was brought in the Government for the time being have been expecting far too much from those people who put money into Irish transport. We have been expecting them as a transport company to operate on public utility lines and to submerge any questions of profit or matters of that kind. It was perfectly obvious that that particular device could not continue with any prospect of success.

Reference has been made to the closing down of branch lines. I am certain that any branch lines which have been closed, as Deputy Lemass mentioned, have been closed because of economic reasons. Obviously, any company financed by capital put up by investors in this country must tend to operate along those lines. That is the ordinary result which applies to any company financed by the savings or investments of shareholders, but that tendency does not always accord with the interests of the people or with public utility reasons. To my mind, anyway, this question of transport in this country has been bedevilled by that particular combination of two interests in all our transport legislation since 1924. For that reason, I think that this measure of nationalisation had to come. I think it was made inevitable 20 years ago. I think that all the various steps taken in the last 23 or 24 years have been merely preparing the way for this particular measure.

Deputy Lemass in his speech last night criticised the Minister for offering this measure as a step towards a solution of the Irish transport problem, but not as a solution. I think it was a very welcome thing to hear the Minister, if that is a correct interpretation of his speech, offer this measure merely as a step towards a solution— the solution lying more in the hands of those who will have to work the new concern—because I think one of the matters which has accentuated the difficulties of Irish transport must always be the very high hopes held out by Deputy Lemass as a Minister when he introduced the last transport measure in 1944. The country was told at that time—it certainly was left under the impression—that Córas Iompair Éireann, the newly formed company, was going to give to this country what has been mentioned here from time to time during this debate "cheap and efficient transport." We all appreciate that the new company formed in 1944 was formed during a period of national emergency, at a time not auspicious for that particular undertaking; but I do not think, assuming all that and conceiving all that, that there is anyone who can look at the history of Córas Iompair Éireann in the last five years with anything but amazement as to the failure, the proved failure, which that measure has given.

Mr. Lemass

Personally, I think it did a marvellous job in spite of all the difficulties. I think the whole country has a right to be thankful to it for keeping the country fed during the war.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

We hear now from Deputy Lemass that, in his view, Córas Iompair Éireann in the last five years have done a marvellous job.

Mr. Lemass

In face of all the difficulties.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

It is that particular mentality that has Deputy Lemass sitting over there—to suggest to this House that a company that six months ago was unable to pay the weekly wage bill of its employees is a company which deserves any credit in this country.

Mr. Lemass

I did not decide that. My successor decided that.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is trying the patience of the country a little too much I do not see that the formation of Córas Iompair Éireann did anything of a beneficial kind to Irish transport. Deputy Lemass says that Córas Iompair Éireann kept the people fed during the emergency. I would ask him this. Suppose there was no Córas Iompair Éireann does he suggest that the Great Southern Railways would have done the same thing?

Mr. Lemass

I do.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

With exactly the same means and with exactly the same rolling stock?

Mr. Lemass

They did not, and that is why we had to put in a Government chairman to do the job.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Now, the Government chairman has been mentioned from time to time during this debate. I do not want to enter into any discussion as to what he did or what he did not do, but I do commend to the House to consider the views set out in this Milne Report as to the manner in which the transport company has been controlled and its affairs administered during the last five years. We, or rather the Government of the day, installed a transport chief and gave him the widest possible power, for good or for evil, to conduct the transport affairs of this country. He was, apparently, in the unique position that he could impress his will entirely on the company as to the manner in which the company was to carry out its affairs, and after five years of that particular type of control we find a commission reporting that it is perfectly clear that, in the last five years, there was no settled policy, good, bad or indifferent, in Córas Iompair Éireann as to the manner in which it carried out its affairs. I do not know whether Deputy Lemass, or any other Deputy here, would regard that particular result as something to be proud of. Surely, any transport company, underwritten by the State, should at least be in a position to demonstrate what it was aiming at in the way of transport.

Mr. Lemass

How did Sir James Milne find that out? He never met the board or the chairman.

Mr. Morrissey

That is not so.

Mr. Lemass

He never met the board as such.

Mr. Morrissey

Do not be quibbling.

Mr. Lemass

The members of the board said they never saw him.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

As to whether they did or not, I do not think it would take anyone who knew anything about transport to know that there was no settled policy. In any event, that is the view which he came to regarding the policy and the manner in which the company was being conducted. He had hard things to say about expenditure. I do not want to repeat what has been said here at length, except this, that what amazes me—it amazed me particularly last night—is the complacency shown by Deputy Lemass with regard to this matter. According to his speech in the House, everything was grand and he could not understand at all this talk about Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Morrissey

That is not complacency—that is not the word to apply to it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is my interpretation of what he said. Deputy Lemass has always been renowned for attacking a thing where it is weakest, but I suggest there is no ground he is weaker on than this particular matter of transport. In any event, according to his speech last night, there is nothing to worry about. The employees who worried about their wages six months ago—those were all false fears. The fact does remain that the Transport Company as it exists is barely able to pay its way, yet that company had embarked on schemes of capital expenditure of an absolutely fantastic kind.

Mr. Lemass

It will never pay its way until that capital expenditure is undertaken.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

There was one thing on which capital expenditure should have been undertaken within the past four or five years and that is on the re-equipping of the rolling stock—they should have spent some of the £7,000,000 on that. In what direction were they prepared to spend money? They proposed to spend £1,000,000 in Store Street, £1,000,000 on the Broadstone and £1,000,000 on the new hotel in Glengarriff.

Mr. Lemass

There is no £1,000,000 being spent in Glengarriff.

Mr. Morrissey

It has cost £35,000 already.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Surely Deputy Lemass is sufficiently conversant with the affairs of this company to know that it has paid £35,000 by way of architects' fees within the past 12 or 18 months, although it was under no liability to do so? In these circumstances, I suggest that it was wise to get rid of the last chairman. I say that £1,000,000 was to be spent on the new hotel in Glengarriff. The impression given to ordinary people is that any company or any individual who was prepared to allow a Transport Company in financial difficulties to embark on expenditure of that kind should have realised that a very serious crash could not be averted.

I am glad that at least £3,000,000 in respect of these schemes will now be saved and that out of the saving there will be much needed capital for the undertakings set out in this report and now about to be undertaken.

Mr. Lemass

Such as?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Such as re-equipping rolling stock and supplying other important requirements for the transport company.

Mr. Lemass

It is all there in the programme; that is what these shops were for.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

I do not think it is necessary to follow that particular line any more. I cannot understand how any Deputy or Party faced with the agreed fact that an Irish transport company urgently required investment of a capital nature in relation to its rolling stock could justify expenditure on even a single hotel. If the suggestion is that the building of an hotel would be in the interests of tourism and encouraging tourists, then obviously the first thing to do is to provide something to bring them here; obviously you must build your railway first and provide the carriages.

I welcome the abandonment of these schemes on the understanding that the money so saved can be diverted from these channels along the lines set out in the report—can be diverted, for instance, towards re-equipping the rolling stock.

When Deputy Lemass was speaking last night I was struck by the amazing number of inaccuracies which he uttered. I heard him say that the real problem was how to make revenue meet the cost of Irish transport.

Mr. Lemass

Irish railways.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

That is the type of problem which faces any person who has a shop, who is engaged in any business or profession. That person has to decide how to make revenue meet cost. I do not think it needed an hour of the very determined manner of speaking of Deputy Lemass to convince anyone that it is a particular problem, because it always has been. I was disappointed with the Deputy's speech because I expected to find in it somewhere a glimmer of what the Fianna Fáil attitude might be towards this problem. It is clear now, if one is to judge from the last portion of the Deputy's speech, that the Fianna Fáil Party have not yet made up their minds on this matter. If we are to have a discussion on this very serious problem here, and if there is a point of view on that side of the House different from what has been expressed by the Minister and what is contained in this measure—if they have any difference in outlook or any objection to the nationalisation of Irish transport, such as is proposed in this measure——

Mr. Lemass

Is this nationalisation?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

——let them state their particular policy. I am being driven to the opinion that on this matter and on many other matters Fianna Fáil have no policy. I had hopes that Deputy Lemass, who has been very close to this matter for years back, would have given some lead to other Deputies of his Party as to the line they should pursue or the proposals which they might make. The country is entitled to something like that from them. Deputy Lemass, Deputy Derrig and others have criticised the proposals placed before the House. What is their alternative? Are they suggesting that this measure should be withdrawn, and, if so, what will be put in its place, or will anything be put in its place? Is the company to be permitted to continue to act on the same lines on which it has been acting for the past four or five years—to continue with its present method of procedure? If that is the alternative they suggest they are, of course, perfectly entitled to suggest it and the matter will then be quite understandable and the issue quite clear. But, as I strongly suspect, they have no alternative and I think that the sooner this measure gets the agreement of the House the better it will be for all of us. I think that the country is entitled to expect some statement in relation to policy from any Opposition Party.

I do not think the problem of Irish transport is one which has arisen in the last two or three years. It is a problem which has been in existence for a great number of years. So far as we can see, the problem has been accentuated in the last four or five years. I do not think it is helpful in this debate for the Minister and his predecessor to swap words as to who is responsible for this particular measure. No matter how great the temptation may be, I trust that the Minister will treat Deputy Lemass gently in exchange for some constructive proposal from the Opposition as to an alternative to this measure or, failing that, an expression of agreement from the Opposition on the measure itself.

Mr. Bartley

The last speaker has twitted the Fianna Fáil Party with having no policy in relation to transport. Surely he must recognise that the present Minister does not even require a policy since he is handing over this problem lock, stock and barrel to a number of nominees, nominees who will not be responsible in any degree to this House. If that is nationalisation, then it is delegated nationalisation. We did have a form of nationalisation here under which transport problems could be ventilated in the Dáil, irrespective of whether or not there was a solution for them. This Bill is a measure to remove the embarrassment which these problems might cause the Government and to keep them outside the scope of debate in this House. For that reason alone I do not think this Bill could be acceptable to anybody who honestly wishes to see the transport problem tackled in a way that offers some hope of success.

It was stated here this evening that the Minister, the Party for which he speaks and, indeed, the whole Coalition are affected with what I call a railway bias, and that their desire is to develop the railways. I do not think that that statement can be substantiated. A great deal of play has been made on the branch lines and the question of policy in that regard. I would point out to the last speaker that so far as Fianna Fáil's attitude was concerned there was no room for doubt in that particular respect. They said that they would agree to the closing of branch lines if a public inquiry was first held. Why does the present Minister not say as much as that? One would imagine that Deputy Lehane might have some information not available to this side of the House, but even Deputy Lehane has confessed that he is in the dark and that he has an open mind until that particular point is elucidated by the Minister.

I would like to leave branch lines for the moment and travel on to the main line in order to demonstrate that the present Minister and his supporters have not that railway bias with which they have been credited. It is a fact that the Minister's Party closed 120 miles of main line between Clonsilla and Galway and closed half of the Galway terminus.

Mr. McQuillan

What about the one to Clifden?

Mr. Morrissey

That is not fair.

Mr. Bartley

The one to Clifden is a continuation of that 120 miles. It was 50 miles long and it was closed in due course.

Mr. McQuillan

By Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Bartley

One hundred and twenty miles of main line between Clonsilla and Galway were closed.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You took up the sections.

Mr. Bartley

The track was taken up. In my opinion the solution should have been the laying of quadruple sections here and there on the main line.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

If that offered a better solution why did you not make that suggestion to Fianna Fáil?

Mr. Bartley

It was Cumann na nGaedheal did it.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

The line to Clifden was removed by Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Bartley

If a plebiscite were taken in Connemara as to whether the people there want a railway line or road services, I am prepared to give the Deputy any odds as to what the result would be. I do want to tell Deputy O'Higgins that the first competition sufferred by the Connemara railway came from the Connemara Omnibus Company. That was the beginning of the end of passenger traffic on the Connemara railway line. Among the directors of that company were two Cumann na nGaedheal T.D.s.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Would you develop that?

Mr. Bartley

They developed omnibus traffic and they ruined the railway in Connemara.

Mr. Hickey

It was private enterprise.

Mr. Bartley

It was private enterprise which was not good enough to last. We had several of these enterprises in Connemara. They cut one another's throats. They all went bankrupt and the monopoly had to come in in order to give the people a proper service. The monopoly did that very well.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

By removing the track.

Mr. Bartley

With regard to the monopoly versus the private lorry, I might tell the House that before the emergency arrangement was made under the direction of the former Minister we were dependent for the delivery of our goods along the route served by the former railway line on private lorries. What was the result? The people got very sporadic deliveries because these private lorries waited for a full load before they decided to go into a particular town or village. Their charges were three or four times greater than the charges payable after the public service was inaugurated. I knew private lorry owners who demanded as much as £5 for carrying a load of turf on a lorry that would otherwise go in empty. The service supplied by Córas Iompair Éireann put an end to that.

There are many points to which I really did not intend to refer except in reply to statements that I do not think are quite true. I should like to express my disapprobation of this taking over of the Grand Canal Compay and paying £21,000 a year in respect of an undertaking which, I understand, has not been earning more than £5,000 or £6,000—and the earnings, I believe, are made not from transport operations but from the leasing of premises, and so forth. I want to put it to the Minister and to this House that I think that if we can afford £21,000 a year for a worthless purpose like that, the money would be better spent by the Minister in devising an efficient transport system for the considerable population which is located on the islands round our coast. We give little, very little indeed to the servicing of these people, and they are entitled to much better consideration for various reasons—one of which is that a great many of the areas are Gaeltacht areas—than they have been getting. I should like to put it to the Minister that instead of spending this money in this useless way, he ought to divert it, or some of it, to see that our islands are given a better transport service than they have been experiencing. I do not think it would take half that sum to do the job which I ask the Minister to do. It has been said here that the Córas Iompair Éireann Company is one that has failed because it was unable to pay its way six or eight months ago. In reply to that, I would say that if Córas Iompair Éireann had been given the free hand which is now going to be given to this new company, then that position would not have arisen. If the Minister had allowed, for instance, the same freedom to Córas Iompair Éireann as was given to the Electricity Supply Board in the matter of fares I do not think that position of insolvency would have been as serious as he, by his positive action, brought about.

The Córas Iompair Éireann chairman, I think, was very unfairly attacked for the dictatorial powers which he was given and which he exercised.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

You mean the ex-chairman.

Mr. Bartley

A comparison was made, I think, between the Great Southern Railway Company and Córas Iompair Éireann. It is no harm to remind the House of the condition in which the Great Southern Railway Company left the transport system in the matter of coal supplies when the war broke out. They had been warned to get it when it was available. We all know that they failed to get it, and that they had to draw on Army supplies and those of other undertakings in the country to keep the skeleton service going. That was the company that was replaced by the Córas Iompair Éireann Board. Can anybody blame the Minister for Industry and Commerce for giving such powers to some one individual and putting that responsibility on him to see that such a blunder would not recur? That was the position which the Minister had to remedy and I think he remedied it by the only method open to him in the circumstances.

I do not think this is nationalisation at all—seeing that the House is not now going to have any right to criticise or to discuss the administration of transport in the country in future. It is a delegated form of nationalisation which is not nearly so good and it will not be as satisfactory as the form we had. The buying out of the private stockholders is not in itself nationalisation. We are changing over from the hybrid type of ownership to full State ownership but we are watering down the nationalisation element which the constitution of the previous board contained. I think it is generally accepted by the bulk of the people that transport, like the Post Office and other services, should be nationalised and under public control. Because of that, I do not find this Bill satisfactory and if the Minister cannot see his way to amend it on the Committee Stage in respect of one or two important matters, personally, I cannot support it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

There seems to be some indignation roused in the hearts of Fianna Fáil Deputies here at the suggestion made by Deputy C. Lehane that the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce and the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann suffered from what Deputy Lehane described as a "bus bias". Deputy Lemass said that in reference to himself that was the unkindest cut of the lot. Deputy Bartley seemed to think that such a suggestion certainly had no foundation in fact I want to remind the House that the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was a man appointed by the Fianna Fáil Government, operating their policy and appointed to operate their policy. That was made quite clear by Deputy Lemass during the discussion on the 1944 Transport Bill. I want to remind the House that, shortly after the change of Government, the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann submitted a report in the form of a letter to Deputy Morrissey, when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce. In that letter, he dealt with his attitude to branch lines and what he thought should happen to branch lines. I think it is perfectly fair to say that he was reflecting the mind of the previous Government and that he was expressing what he believed to be the policy of that Government in relation to branch lines. In that letter, the ex-chairman said:—

"These lines are unnecessary in the railway system and the areas which they serve can adequately be catered for by omnibus and lorry. The closing of them should not in any way place the districts in question at a disadvantage. Objections will, undoubtedly, be raised by interested parties, but they can have no foundation except a mistaken notion of loss of prestige or an unjustifiable fear that loss of the branch railways will be a commercial disadvantage. These branches are an unnecessary burden and should be systematically eliminated as road vehicles become available."

That was the view of the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann. Is there any reason, now, why Deputies on the other side of the House should become in any way indignant about suggestions coming from this side of the House that the man who wrote that letter was biassed against branch railway lines and was biassed in favour of road transport? I am not entering into this argument myself because, as a Dublin Deputy, it does not seriously concern the people whom I represent in this House. I am merely calling the attention of the House to the fact that that letter sums up the attitude of the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding the question of the closing of branch lines. Deputy Bartley said, of course, that there was never any doubt with regard to Fianna Fáil Deputies' attitude to the closing of these lines, that they were quite satisfied to do it once there was a public inquiry. I may be wrong in this and perhaps Deputy Bartley will correct me if I am, but I think that within the last few years prior to 1948, prior to the change of Government, quite a number of branch lines were closed by Córas Iompair Éireann with the sanction of Deputy Lemass, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, without any public inquiry.

Mr. Bartley

Not permanently though.

Mr. Allen

They were emergency measures.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They were closed up to then.

Mr. Bartley

As long as the emergency lasted.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

How long does an emergency last? The fact of the matter is that Deputy Bartley and Deputy Allen are merely quibbling about words and phrases. As far as the people who were dependent on those branch lines and who wanted to see them kept open or reopened were concerned the emergency would have lasted for as long as the Fianna Fáil Party was in office.

Mr. Allen

They were reopened but they were closed again in 1947, and well you know that.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I said that I was speaking here as a Dublin Deputy who was not particularly interested as far as his constituents were concerned with the question of the branch lines, but before I came into this House I was at protest meetings in the towns of Birr and Banagher when the Birr-Roscrea branch line and the Banagher line were closed down. A representative was sent down to those meetings by Córas Iompair Éireann to put the Córas Iompair Éireann case. He did not make the case that he was lacking in coal or in fuel; his case was that these lines did not pay and that unless he could get a guarantee from the traders concerned that they would support the railway line as against carrying goods themselves or employing private hauliers the lines would remain closed.

Captain Cowan

Did they not steal a railway there at one time?

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Possibly they did. That was Fianna Fáil policy with regard to these branch lines, and Deputies opposite would be much more honest if they would face up to that even at this stage. If they believe that was good policy why be shy about saying it? What is there to be ashamed of in adopting a policy which you believe is good and pursuing that policy?

Mr. Bartley

That is what we did, but you are doing the opposite.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Deputy Bartley has been giving every evidence of listening to what I said, but apparently it went in one ear and out the other. I do not know how long Deputy Bartley has been a member of this House, but I know that he has been here a considerable number of years and very considerably longer than I have. I do not know whether he was here in the year 1944 or not, but if he was here in 1944 he paid just as little attention to the speeches of Deputy Lemass as he is paying to the one I am making now because he came along with the pronouncement a few minutes ago that the policy of nationalisation of transport was generally accepted by all Deputies and that there was no doubt that transport should be nationalised in the same way as the Post Office services—I think that was the example he gave. I wonder does Deputy Bartley recollect that on the discussion of the first 1944 Transport Bill Deputy Lemass's whole Second Reading speech was devoted to demonstrating to the House why he and Fianna Fáil did not approve of the policy of nationalisation of public transport. Has there been any change in that policy since or was it just that Deputy Bartley was not paying attention? I do not think I need weary the Deputy with quotations unless he wants them, but the fact of the matter is that Deputy Lemass spent a very considerable portion of the whole Second Reading of that Bill in opposing any suggestions of the nationalisation of transport.

Deputy Bartley says that he is opposed to this Bill. Again, I do not think he could have been paying any attention to the speech made by Deputy Lemass last night, because Deputy Lemass had not made up his mind, and let there be no mistake about it, Deputy Bartley will oppose or support this Bill according to which way Deputy Lemass makes up his mind. Deputy Lemass had not made up his mind last night and did not know whether he was going to support or oppose it. Deputy Bartley, however, said to the Minister: "Do not think that this Bill is acceptable to anyone who wants to see the transport problem tackled with any hope of success." It was a grand phrase but Deputy Bartley did not pause to think that it was also a very full condemnation of the Fianna Fáil public transport policy. Remember that in 1944 Deputy Lemass from these benches twice introduced a Transport Bill and on each occasion he did so he made it quite clear to the Deputies in this House and the people outside that that was his whole plan, the entire Fianna Fáil policy in relation to public transport. He went to very great pains to give reasons why he was introducing the measures while the emergency situation still existed. He thought, and the ex-Taoiseach thought with him, that it was wise planning and policy to do that. They stood in these benches and said in effect that they could see the situation that would arise when the emergency finished in this country and that would face public transport when the war was over. They thought it opportune to take time by the forelock, as Deputy de Valera said in 1944, and bring in their plans so as to be ready to meet the situation that was going to arise. Deputies who were in Opposition then and who now support this Government urged upon and pleaded with the Fianna Fáil Government not to rush through a public Transport Bill in the middle of the emergency but to wait until Fianna Fáil or whatever Government would be in power would have a reasonable opportunity of seeing what the future held in store and what sort of situation would exist when the emergency finished, but they were not listened to. Deputy Bartley now admits that Fianna Fáil were wrong in rushing through the Transport Bill in 1944, because in that phrase I have quoted he admits that the problem has not so far been tackled in a manner which holds out hope of success. It was tackled two or three times by his own Party when they were in Government —in 1932 and 1933 and twice in 1944. I doubt if the Deputy wants me to give quotations to support my contention that Fianna Fáil presented that transport plan to the House as the entirety of Fianna Fáil planning in relation to public transport.

It might not be fair to blame the Fianna Fáil Government entirely. I believe that they were rash and imprudent in introducing that measure in 1944, at a time when they did not know what the conditions would be like when the emergency terminated. Deputy Lemass did say then that his opinion was that the conditions then would be exactly as they were in 1938. He has been proved wrong. However, it might not be fair to blame them entirely for that, because they pinned their hope in the appointment of one man in charge of the operation of their transport policy. Deputy Lemass speaking on the first Transport Bill of 1944, in column 1810 of Vol. 93 said:

"As I have indicated, the chairmain will be appointed by the Government. It is contemplated that that arrangement will ensure that the policy of the company will be related to national economic aims, that the company's finances will be well planned during its development period, and that the issue of new capital will be limited as it is desirable it should be limited, in view of the obligation the State is taking in relation to it, to sound projects."

Deputy Lemass did visualise in that statement that the chairman which he and his Government were appointing was a man who was going to see to it that the financial plannings of the new-born Córas Iompair Éireann would be wisely and soundly done. I believe that a great deal of the difficulties which that company got into were due to the fact that there was not anything in the nature of planning done. I think it would be a travesty to use the word "wise," at any rate, in relation to the type of planning that was done.

Deputy Derrig here this evening quoted the Milne Report at great length. I do not know why, because Deputy Lemass's whole criticism of the Minister was that, having been presented with the Milne Report, he was not implementing it. However, I propose quoting it in order to acquit Deputy Lemass of some of the blame for the transport blunders in this country. I think Deputy Lemass pinned a very great deal of faith on the type of policy and the type of planning which was going to be pursued by the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann. According to the Milne Report, page 25, paragraph 86, dealing with the meetings of the board and the general policy and planning of the board, Sir James Milne states:—

"Meetings of the board are held at fortnightly intervals and a finance committee consisting of the deputy chairman and at least one other director meets weekly to deal with payments of accounts and other urgent matters. The general manager and secretary attend all meetings of the board and returns are submitted showing the weekly gross receipts from each section of the company's business, with aggregate figures for the year to date; a quarterly statement of receipts and expenditure is also submitted. The general manager reports verbally on all matters affecting the various departments but no formal reports are made even when major schemes involving large expenditure are brought forward for approval. In such cases the chief officer concerned may be asked to attend the board when the projects are under discussion but as no written reports are submitted and only decisions of the board are recorded no information is readily available to indicate the grounds on which the recommendations were based and the expenditure justified."

He goes on then, in paragraph 89:—

"There appears to be an absence of any clearly defined policy in regard to the development and coordination of the different forms of transport, and it is clear that the control exercised by the board over the affairs of the company leaves much to be desired."

I think it is at least fair to say this of Deputy Lemass, that the rosy picture he painted in that paragraph which I have quoted out of his speech on the Transport Bill of 1944 did not come about, that there was no sound planning, that there was no planning to ensure that the policy of the company would be related to national economic aims. To that extent, I think that the previous management of Córas Iompair Éireann were responsible for many of the ills which befell that concern and I do not at all share the views of Deputy Derrig when he considers that it is practically impertinence on the part of any Deputy on these benches to say a critical word regarding the management of Córas Iompair Éireann under the directorship of the ex-chairman.

It might be as well to remind the House, too, that it was not only in that respect that Deputy Lemass and the ex-Taoiseach showed how faulty was their judgment when they were introducing the Transport Bill of 1944. Both Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera, when they were challenged by Deputies in the Opposition Benches regarding the amount of debenture interest being guaranteed by the State, put themselves on record as giving their considered opinion that those guarantees would never be called on, that this transport policy of Fianna Fáil as enshrined in the 1944 Transport Bill was going to put Córas Iompair Éireann on its feet. That was the arrogant assumption of those two gentlemen at the time. It was pointed out to them, of course, that they were quite rash in rushing the 1944 Bill through this Assembly, not knowing— as they could not have known, even by searching their own hearts—what the position was going to be like in two or three years' time.

Of course, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce had to disclose to this House only last March the tragic financial position of the company. I forget the figures now, but a very considerable amount of money had to be paid out of public funds in order to pay up on foot of the guarantees, and in addition I think something close on £2,000,000 debentures had to be guaranteed by the Government.

I do not want to delay the House any further on this question, but, on going through the report of the 1944 debate in this House I notice that Deputy Lemass, dealing with the history of public transport in this country, suggested that a whole new fabric had to be erected, that the past was so bad that he wanted to create public confidence in the future and in the new company which he was launching; and he said that he felt it was even necessary to change the name, to let the new company get off to a good start under a new name. I want to finish up by suggesting to the Minister that he, in turn, might consider following in Deputy Lemass's footsteps, that the history of Córas Iompair Éireann in the last five years has been so tragic and has so shaken the public confidence that he might be well advised to give the new concern a new chance and not carry on the name Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, as usual, misrepresented facts regarding the position of Córas Iompair Éireann over the last five years. I wonder was he serious. The ony thing he did during the course of his speech was to criticise Deputy Lemass. He has not told us whether or not this Bill will bring an end to all our troubles. Deputy O'Higgins referred, very uncharitably, I must say, to the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann. The ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann had to try to get coal to run a train a day during the emergency. If the Deputy had been honest he would have admitted that during the emergency, as a result of shortage of coal, some long distance trains ran only once a week and that at times during that period it was very difficult to run a train even once a week. Notwithstanding all these difficulties, Córas Iompair Éireann tried to maintain hundreds of people in employment. They were not as anxious, of course, as the inter-Party Government to sack people out of employment. They tried to keep them on. If the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann had the same powers when he was in office as this Bill will give the new body he would have made a fine job of it.

Mr. Morrissey

Thanks.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We have listened to Deputy O'Higgins telling us that we were anxious to kill the railways and to close branch lines and that we had the bus mentality.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Bus bias.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Bus bias or bus mentality. Both Deputies O'Higgins contributed to that line of debate. Both Deputies have been members of the inter-Party Government for nearly two years. In that time only one branch line has been opened.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

How many have been closed?

Mr. P.J. Burke

It just shows, as Deputy Bartley has already said, that any branch line that was closed was closed as an emergency measure in 1947. All Deputies know the position in 1947 and the conditions created by the bad weather.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

That was before the change of Government.

Mr. P.J. Burke

And Deputy O'Higgins says they have got the fine weather since the change of Government.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

They have had new times.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Fine weather cannot remain all the time. In criticism of any measure one likes honesty and sincerity. It is most unfair to castigate a man who is not present in this Assembly and not in a position to defend himself. I think it is most uncharitable to hold him up to ridicule or to expect that he should have a magic wand that would enable him to get coal for the railways and everything else that was required at a time when it was impossible to procure them. Engines had to be converted and other measures had to be carried out at huge expense during the emergency. There was a strike which lasted for three months. All these things happened in the year before the change of Government. I believe that the nation and Córas Iompair Éireann employees owe a big debt of gratitude to the very efficient ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann for the fact that he was able to keep people in employment. Possibly, if he had not been so concerned with the welfare of the employees and the public as a whole he would have dispensed with a number of employees.

Deputy O'Higgins referred to the expensive hotel in Glengarriff. Now that the Government have started to boost the tourist trade, has he not come around yet to the idea that it is better not to talk about expensive hotels and luxury buildings? They have admitted that the tourist trade is worth so much to the country. If people are to be encouraged to travel on the railways there must be hotels.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

You must have a railway there first.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There must be some capital expenditure. During the last two years the Government Parties have swallowed many things. First it was luxury hotels, luxury buildings.

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

Now it is Deputy Burke.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Burke is in possession.

Mr. P.J. Burke

The hotel in Glengarriff was to cost £1,000,000. That was represented as nonsense. I see now that the hotels are to be extended and other things are to be done to encourage people to come to this country. I maintain that anything that was done or that was contemplated to be done in that direction before the change of Government was in the national interest.

The short-sighted policy of the present Government in regard to capital expenditure and other matters is bringing the country to a standstill and is running people out of the country.

We were told that we supported a monopoly when Córas Iompair Éireann was brought into being. We were told that by members of the present Government both outside and inside this House. I welcome the conversion of the inter-Party Government to our point of view. We were anxious to save the railway system. The Cumann na nGaedheal Government had let it die gradually. Deputy Bartley has already told the House that during the period of that Government a single-track line was taken up from Galway to Dublin and that decay had started there. Deputy Lemass was criticised for bringing in a Transport Bill during the emergency. The railways, under very adverse conditions, served this country well during the emergency. Any excuse is good enough when you want to get rid of a man and to dispense with his services. Any excuse is good enough to blackmail him and no whisper is bad enough to circulate about him. That has been demonstrated in the case of the ex-chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann.

I am also concerned about the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann who have long service. Some of them have served for many years. Others have served in a temporary capacity. I hope that under this Bill the interests of these men will be protected.

Mr. Morrissey

You need not lose any sleep over that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I am delighted to hear it, because I had misgivings and had reason to have misgivings over the past two years when I saw so many of our people being exported.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy must have been deprived of his eyesight for the previous ten years.

Mr. P.J. Burke

My eyesight is perfect—I do not need glasses. It is not so very long since quite a few men were sacked from Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Morrissey

Not as many as you were going to sack—3,500.

Mr. P.J. Burke

But we did not sack them.

Mr. Morrissey

You did not get the chance.

Mr. P.J. Burke

We did not sack them even during the emergency when the trains were running only once a week and when we had every excuse for sacking them. I am sure that the Minister would not have been as generous towards them in similar circumstances as Deputy Lemass was. The Minister referred to the fact that last March we had to appeal to the House for money for this concern. If the Minister found conditions so bad when he came in, why did he not do something about it? He allowed things to drift for two years and then hounds the man who made the mistake.

With regard to branch lines, anything that can be done to save the railways should be done. We may have to face another emergency and it is very essential that the railways should be saved, but the people who appeal for the saving of the railroads are often people who get their goods carried by road services, and that is a problem which the Minister and the Department will have to face. Some of those who make up the inter-Party Government spoke about State-sponsored companies and said they were not responsible to this House. They stressed, particularly on the hustings, that these bodies would be made responsible to the House, but this body to be set up under this Bill is to be allowed to make any decision it likes without regard for the Minister or the House. We will have nothing to say about any decision it may make.

Captain Cowan

This debate on a serious matter, a matter which ought to be regarded as serious by the House, as it is considered serious by the country, has unfortunately been on rather a low level. Following the Minister yesterday, Deputy Lemass made what I considered to be a reasoned and closely-argued criticism of the measure and I gathered from him that, so far as Fianna Fáil are concerned, they do not propose to oppose the Bill or may not oppose it. But while Deputy Lemass made a strong and well-reasoned criticism, his approach to the Bill was completely different from that of his colleague, Deputy Derrig, who, last night at any rate, was more critical of Deputy Lemass's point of view than he was of the Minister's.

I suppose it is inevitable that, when dealing with transport, there must be this criticism of the 1944 Act, the circumstances surrounding that Act and its effects. The 1944 Act was necessary because the transport position in that year was serious. The 1944 Act has not been successful and the whole transport position is now in such a mess that another Bill is necessary to deal with it. The Minister, after long consideration, having had the benefit of the examination made by Sir James Milne and the experts who accompanied him, considered the matter and introduced the measure before us now. There is very little revolutionary in the measure and it seems to me that where there is a problem such as we have had in the matter of transport for so many years, the normal approach is unlikely to be successful. I feel that that is one of the defects of this measure—that it does not face up to the serious situation that is there. It is simply a palliative. It strikes me as being the production of civil servants and Parliamentary draftsmen rather than the production of a Government that had considered the problem in all its implications and had decided to bring in a measure that would solve these problems for at least ten or 15 years. I feel that this measure will not have an active life of five years and that those Deputies who were here in 1944, who are here to-day and will be here in five years' time will be discussing the same problem—I hope they will discuss it better than the present Bill is being discussed— with an additional basis of criticism in what the present Minister will have done.

What does the Bill propose to do? The Bill proposes to set up a transport board, consisting of a chairman and not more than five other members, to be appointed by the Government. Their period of appointment will not exceed five years but the members will be eligible for reappointment. It seems clear to me that these appointments will be "plums" from the point of view of salary and conditions. They will be "plums" in the gift of the Government of the day and if this Bill goes through and the present Government appoints this chairman and five members, following on other examples which I need not mention, it seems to me very likely that a new Minister will avail of the opportunity for more "plum" appointments in five years' time. Where, then, is your continuity in regard to transport? How are you going to solve a problem that is dealt with in that way? There may be provisions for pensions for them after five years. I do not know. Looking at that from the initial point of view, is that the method by which the transport problem of this country will be solved? There are rumours going around, which can be read out of the Bill, that the chairman to be appointed is to be the present chairman. That is in the Bill as near as one can read it out of it. There is the extraordinary thing in a Bill of this character that the present chairman is named in the Bill. I have read a good many Acts of Parliament and I do not remember coming across an instance where a particular individual was named as he is named in this Bill. There are rumours going around that a certain prominent trade union official is to be a member of the board. That may or may not be correct, but we start off with a board to deal with transport with the possibility that not one individual on that board may have any knowledge whatsoever of the complexities of the transport problem. I feel that it is unlikely that the present Government or a future Government will look for the members of the board amongst the personnel of the transport organisation of the country.

There has been serious criticism of Mr. Reynolds for a period of years in this House. One of the serious criticisms of him was that he knew nothing about rail transport, while he may have some knowledge of road transport. Can the Minister say that on the board the Government will set up under this Bill, a transport expert will be appointed or are these just going to be "plum" appointments in the hands of the Government? My first criticism of the measure is that it will not preserve any continuity. There is no reason in the Bill why there should be continuity. If things are not going right in regard to transport when we have a change of Government, the first thing the new Minister will do will be to dispose of the existing board and appoint another board that will keep things quiet for a few years. That to my mind is one of the fundamental defects in the Bill as it stands.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

How would you cure it?

Captain Cowan

I hope before I finish to give my views as to how it should be cured. That is the fundamental objection I have to it. The transport problem is a serious one. It has been there for years and it is due entirely to changing conditions. The railways were financially successful when they had no competition, but we must remember the conditions. I heard attacks in this House and outside it against the development of road transport and references to a bus bias. When railways were being started there were even more serious objections to them. People went out in many parts of America and prevented, by force of arms, in so far as they could, the establishment of railways. I am quite sure that if this Dáil had been sitting when the railway system was being introduced into this country, we would have quite a number of Deputies praising the old horse and car. We must face the problem that is there, the problem of new methods of transport by road and by air. These are the new methods. Railways have certain advantages but it would be wrong to say that a system of transport that is out of date, certainly as far as a number of areas in this country are concerned, should be buttressed up by public funds and kept going whether it is any use to the community or not. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Wednesday, 2nd November, at 3 p.m.