Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 4

Transport Bill, 1949—Second Stage (Resumed).

Mr. Cogan

When I was speaking last night on this question I expressed the view that it does not matter very much whether this particular company that is being established represents nationalisation of transport or not; it is as near to nationalisation as does not matter. But there is one important consideration. As we know, the number of State companies established to carry out industrial and commercial activities in this country has steadily increased over a number of years and the time has come to consider some machinery to control to a certain extent, or to supervise, the activities of such organisations. There was a suggestion made by Deputy Cowan, namely, that if a transport company should become park and parcel of the ordinary Civil Service of the State, it should be controlled by a Parliamentary Secretary who will be answerable to this House, and the members of the House will be in a position to ask questions and raise every detail of administration of that company here. There are many people who claim that such far-reaching investigation and interference with the working of a commercial company would make things so difficult that it could hardly be justified.

I think that the provision in this Bill for supervision by this House is too limited. Provision is made to have a report submitted to the House each year and the House has the right to debate that particular report. As between that provision and the very drastic suggestion made by Deputy Captain Cowan. I think there may be a middle course. It should be possible to set up a committee of this House, or a committee of both Houses, to investigate the operations of all State companies. Just as we have a Committee of Public Accounts to deal with the operations of the various Government Departments we should have a similar committee to deal with the activity and operations of all State companies. In that way there would be a more effective control over their administration. This House would certainly be better informed of the day-to-day operations of such companies. In addition, the safeguard of having an annual report submitted to this House, as is provided in this Bill, should also be preserved.

Last night when I was dealing with the rights of the stockholders, who are being acquired. I was not quite sure of the exact date upon which common stock will be redeemed under this Bill. From the Third Schedule it appears that debenture stock is redeemable in 1955-60, while common stock is not redeemable until 1975-85. That seemed to me to be an injustice to the holders of common stock. In a matter of this kind, when we are dealing with the rights of the ordinary citizens, it is our duty to deal absolutely fairly with any sections of the community with which we are brought into contact. I do not think anyone can condone the grave injustice inflicted under this Bill upon this particular section of the community. Many of the common stockholders in Córas Iompair Éireann are people of very limited means. Many of them are trustees for the benefit of dependents who are in poor circumstances. I think for that very reason nothing less than absolute justice should be done. There is the further factor that this stock will be reduced to 80 as compared with the debenture stock, which will be taken over at par. I think that here again there is a case for investigation and a very urgent need to meet these particular sections of the community in a fair and reasonable way.

The important issue facing this House is—can we now, after all the amalgamations, transformations and changes that have taken place, assure ourselves that there is a reasonable prospect that this new transport company will make a success of its operations? I think that is the most important question this House has to consider. What evidence have we that this new company will be more successful than was Córas Iompair Éireann, in the last five years? Have we any evidence that it will be more successful than the amalgamated railways were up to the time of the establishment of Córas Iompair Éireann? Unless there is a very far-reaching change in policy and a more vigorous application of progressive ideas in regard to transport in general I do not think we can have any definite assurance on that point. There is no doubt that if transport were left to itself road transport would eliminate rail transport by the ordinary laws of competition. I think that is an accepted fact. There may be some people who hold that the ordinary economic laws should take their course, but most sane people realise that railways are a national asset. They are an asset which should be preserved, if at all possible, because they are the backbone of our transport system.

The problem is as to how one will preserve them. I believe that the railway system cannot be preserved and that this transport company cannot be successful unless a real effort is made to dovetail rail and road transport and to make road transport a tributary, as it were, to rail transport, because I think rail transport should be the backbone of our transport system. I think any reasonable person must acknowledge that that is a sane approach to the problem. That is a suggestion which has been expressed on many occasions in the past. There is nothing original in it. Unfortunately, it is not a suggestion which has so far been adopted. Long-distance bus services are running parallel with the railway system. There does not seem to be any intention of discontinuing that unnecessary and unnatural competition. It is unnatural to have two distinct services, which are operated by the same company, competing against each other when there is not sufficient traffic to maintain two services.

I think it is deplorable to see buses coming perhaps 100 or 200 miles, full or partly loaded, over a route where almost empty trains are running parallel. It is difficult to imagine why this should be. The bus services seemingly have gained a certain amount of popular support and that makes an appeal to those in control to retain the buses as against the trains. There is no doubt that buses travelling along the main roads can collect passengers nearer to their homes than can the trains. The bus can stop wherever there is a passenger and take him up. That brings the service a little nearer to the citizen's own door and that gives the bus one advantage over the railway system. There does not seem to be any reason, however, why there should not be bus services operating to convey passengers to the nearest railway station from which they could travel the remainder of their journeys by rail.

In matters of this kind it is difficult for the ordinary layman to express his views because there are technical difficulties which the layman cannot always envisage. As one who has no technical knowledge of transport, I can give the House my own experience as a passenger. When the branch line was running from Sallins to Tullow, coming from my district one had two alternative methods of travelling. If I wished to travel by bus, I could pick up a bus within a quarter of a mile of my home and that bus would leave me in the centre of the city. If I were to travel by rail, I would have to travel five miles to the nearest station. Then I would arrive in Dublin at Kingsbridge and not in the centre of the city. I would have to travel, perhaps with luggage, from Kingsbridge to Parkgate Street to get the ordinary city bus there, a bus which is not suitable for carrying luggage, and continue the journey to the centre of the city. That is a very inconvenient service. I do not think that, as long as you have a bus service that takes a citizen almost from his own door right into the heart of the city, a railway service, in which the journey is broken two or three times, is a suitable alternative. I do not see any reason why the rail service should be so inconvenient. I do not see any reason why there should not be short-distance buses to collect people from the scattered rural areas and take them to the nearest railway station, and I do not see why there should not be a special bus in the city to meet each particular train and take the travellers direct to the centre of the city.

In the same way, take, for example, a person who goes up to Dublin to do some shopping. If he travels by train, he will, in the evening, have to look for one of the ordinary city buses which may, at that particular time, be heavily overcrowded—as they usually are about 5 or 6 o'clock—and travel on that bus to the railway station at Kingsbridge or elsewhere. There is even a possibility that such a person will not be able to put his luggage on that particular type of bus and, in any case, there is also the possibility that the bus may be overcrowded with the ordinary city traffic and the person concerned may not be able to catch the particular train. Why should there not be a special bus to pick up passengers in the centre of the city and meet the railway train at Kingsbridge—a bus capable of taking their luggage and everything concerned—and give the passengers a through-ticket right to the end of their journey? That seems a reasonable way of dealing with the problem, but it is a method which has not yet been adopted in this country, though it has in other countries.

I happened to be—in regard to an entirely different matter—in an English city a short time ago. During the rush hours of the day I was rather surprised at the fact that there were very few cyclists on the streets. I found that the reason was that the bus service was so efficient and so cheap that people did not bother cycling. I mention that, just to show that a public transport company, if it is properly equipped and adequate and efficient, can compete with the private ways and means of travelling. There is no doubt whatever that, if a public service to the city were available, there are many people in the country or in the country towns who have their own cars who would travel by the train and bus service rather than incur the wear and tear upon their own cars by bringing them to the city. That is true, and I think it is an aspect of public transport that has got to be considered.

The same position also arises in regard to goods traffic. One is often inclined to wonder why so much heavy goods are conveyed by road rather than by rail. One would think that the railway system is ideally suited for heavy freight traffic. The reason is that the loading and unloading of goods at railway stations is so troublesome and so expensive that in order to avoid it people will avail either of the Córas Iompair Éireann buses or lorries to convey their goods the full distance, or, alternatively, they will use their own lorries. But, here again, if we had a system by which lorries would collect goods for the railways and again deliver them from the rail-head right to their destination, it would be possible to divert a very substantial amount of traffic to the railways. In that connection, I would mention that I happened to be on a deputation to Córas Iompair Éireann some years ago, with regard to the closing-down of the Tullow-Sallins branch railway line. I made a suggestion which I thought was an absolutely original one, namely, that freight containers should be provided which would enable goods to be transferred from road lorries to the railway wagons without the trouble of unloading the goods. I was surprised and pleased to be told that such containers were already being provided. I have noticed quite a number of them on the roads recently. It seems to me that in the provision of such containers lies the hope of diverting a considerable amount of long-distance traffic to the railways. If it is possible, speedily and efficiently, to transfer a load from a road lorry to a railway wagon without any great delay or trouble or expense, then I think the tendency would be more and more to avail of that system. If Córas Iompair Éireann adopts that system widely and are in a position to collect goods by lorry, transfer them to the railway and retransfer them to the lorry, perhaps to finish the journey, then they may be able to win back a considerable amount of the freight traffic that they have lost. Everything, of course, will depend upon the system of transfer being not too difficult or expensive. That is a matter, perhaps, of mechanisation, in regard to which I could not pretend to be an expert.

It strikes me also that that same method of loading goods in containers, which would be transferrable, would also obviate a good deal of shunting at the smaller stations. I remember, when the Shillelagh branch line was in operation, on one occasion cycling to Tinahely station to catch the passenger train. I inquired about the time the train would leave and I was informed that the train had left half an hour before I arrived. The stationmaster asked me if I was cycling and, when I told him that I was, he told me that I would have no difficulty in overtaking the train which, in due course, I did. That type of delay was due to the system of shunting in order to pick up different types of wagons. If we could transfer the load from one line to another, from one wagon to another, it would obviate a great deal of what I consider is unnecessary shunting, which is a source of delay.

Another aspect of that matter is that it would enable goods and passenger trains to be combined. The reason why we cannot convey goods and passengers on the same train is that the delays at the stations are too great. If you had a quick efficient method of transferring the load on to the wagons of the train then you would be able to avoid those delays and thus make a saving by combining goods and passenger services on the one train. That would particularly apply to lines such as those I have mentioned, branch lines such as the Tullow-Sallins branch line, where the total passenger and goods traffic is rather light. I am only making those suggestions because I think that every Deputy feels it is his duty to do everything possible to help the operation of this national concern. If this final attempt to solve the problem of transport fails it will be in the nature of a disaster for the nation; it will be a great loss and expense and will completely dislocate our whole national life, so it is a matter of urgent importance that this transport company should succeed. It might be said that one way to make it a success would be to eliminate all competition. I do not agree on that point, and I would like to hear the Minister disagreeing with it also, because a certain amount of competition is necessary to produce efficiency.

I think it absolutely essential that private lorry owners should have the right to deliver their own goods wherever they are supplying them or to collect what they require. That element of competition is a far better safeguard to the public than any legal safeguards that might be introduced into this Bill. In the same way it is essential to preserve the right of persons to travel by other means than the Córas Iompair Éireann services. If, for example, the bus services in this city are not sufficiently adequate or cheap, then the right of a citizen to take out his own bicycle and use it on the street is one that should be preserved because it helps to force this national company to keep up to date and provide efficient services.

Mr. Traynor

There are just two or three points upon which I should like a little enlightenment. They have probably been raised by other Deputies during the course of this debate, but nevertheless I would like to put them on record. I am sure that the Minister will answer all the questions that have been raised when he is concluding. I should like to ask him for what reason did he, to all intents and purposes, remove himself and his colleagues of the Government from any share in the responsibility for running this great national concern. If, as I have heard it described, this is the nationalisation of the railways, surely that is one vital reason why the Government should not only keep closely in contact with it but also take a very close interest in the running of its affairs.

When this Bill becomes enacted it appears to me that the railway company will be in a position to run its affairs according to its own ideas. That in certain circumstances would be very desirable but if the Government and the nation through the Government has to find the money to subsidise any possible loss I would like to think that the Deputies of this House who are responsible to their constituents for the expenditure of sums of money would be entitled to discuss the affairs of this national concern whenever they felt it was desirable to raise these matters in this House. I personally cannot at the moment see any good reason for the shedding of that responsibility. As I said in opening, I have no doubt that the Minister will give us the reasons for taking that particular step which this House looks for.

I have heard in the course of the last couple of years some very severe criticism of the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and usually the blame for the failure of the concern to produce profits was placed on his shoulders. The criticism usually was to the effect that the particular gentleman concerned lacked the knowledge required by a person occupying such a highly responsible position. When this Bill becomes enacted a board is to be appointed in the near future and the members of this board, I have no doubt, will receive generous salaries and I would like to know from the Minister if the appointment of the gentlemen concerned will be based on their extensive knowledge of transport affairs, of matters that would be vital to the successful running of the transport organisation of the magnitude of Córas Iompair Éireann. I cannot say anything about the abilities of the present chairman or whether his abilities exceed those of the former chairman. All I do know is that the former chairman actively participated in a transport business of which I understand he made a very great success. From that point of view it can be assumed that he at least had an expert knowledge of road transport and he perhaps acquired a useful amount of knowledge of rail transport as he went along. He was also a highly trained practical businessman who took an active interest in the affairs of numerous concerns in the city and from that I would presume his knowledge of the running of a business to be rather extensive. I do not know if the same can be said of the present chairman, if he has had practical business experience such as that of the former chairman which I have referred to. If the members of the board to be appointed possess all the qualifications which they should possess then that will be all to the good, but if they are to be merely appointees, as Deputy Cowan pointed out, who will receive plum appointments—I think these were the words he used—then it is very questionable whether all the trouble that has been taken will bring about anything in the nature of the success which we would all desire to see attaching to this great national transport concern.

I would also like information on the abandonment of the site for the central bus station in Store Street. I would like the Minister, when he is replying, to say if the report which is general amongst members of the Dublin Corporation is true, that the present manager of Córas Iompair Éireann is strongly in favour of using the basement of the Store Street building for the purpose of a bus station, for which it was specially designed. The offices overhead were, I understand, merely for the use of the administrative staff, so that from the point of view of the Government desiring to utilise the office space for the officials of a Department of State, which may be desirable, it should not in any sense interfere with the use of the basement as a bus station. I would like very much if we could be enlightened on that particular point.

With regard to the removal of the bus station from the Store Street area and its establishment in the Smithfield area, I would like to know if it is true that that is likely to cost a sum in the region of £350,000 to meet certain eventualities, such as the removal of a large number of families from the Smithfield area, widening certain thoroughfares in the vicinity, and reestablishing the families in some other site, yet to be selected. If that £350,000 has to be found by the ratepayers of this city, then I can only describe it as an outrage. I want to impress upon the House that the central bus station is not designed to provide any facilities for the people of the city. It will be providing facilities for those who arrive in the capital from various counties of Ireland and who go from the capital to various counties. The people of Dublin will receive very little of the amenity which that great building would provide. Therefore, I can use no other words than to say it would be an outrage on the ratepayers in the City of Dublin if they have to find the sum of £350,000 for the preparation of a new bus station in the Smithfield area.

Apart from the fact that the Smithfield area is completely and entirely unsuitable, it is removed to a great extent—I suppose anything up to 20 minutes' walking time—from the centre of the city, and people arriving in a place like Smithfield would have to hire private transport to take them into the centre of the city. On the other hand, from the proposed site at Store Street, which is nearing completion, it takes only something like three minutes' walking time to leave you convenient to any of the hotels in the city. At the same time, you are beside a railway station which could very easily be converted into a central railway station. That would almost bring about the position where it would scarcely be necessary to continue with the other railway stations. It would be a desirable state of affairs if the people of this country could arrive at a central depôt, either by bus or train, and be in a position to entrain immediately, if they arrived by bus, for any other part of the country. I desire enlightenment on these points and would be glad if the Minister would answer them and especially let the House know if it is correct that the present manager of Córas Iompair Éireann is strongly in favour of the use of the Store Street site as a central bus station.

Mr. Dockrell

There has been a good deal of discussion as to whether this Bill is nationalisation or just a measure of State control. I do not think it matters very much what name you put on it. To me it does not seem to be nationalisation, but maybe that is because, in the main, I am not in favour of the principle of nationalisation. What this Bill does is the important thing. It is the stepping in of the State to rescue a bankrupt concern. The railway company of this part of Ireland is bankrupt, and that is the difficulty we are up against at this moment. The Bill outlines certain steps which can be taken in order to alleviate that bankrupt situation. In itself, however, this present Bill is, I take it, only the first of a series of Bills dealing with the transport situation in Ireland.

Unlike Deputy Cogan, I have not any suggestions to make as regards loading and unloading. I am not a transport man and it is a highly complicated subject. I would say, however, that at the present moment, unfortunately, the face of the public seems to be turned away from railways, both for carrying goods and passengers. What concerns me is how our railways are to be made pay without putting a stranglehold on the farming, commercial and industrial community generally. If we as a State wish to pay for it, we can have the most wonderful railway system in the world—at a price. That is the position that faces us. How can we as a country maintain our railway system and do the best for that system and its employees without at the same time putting a stranglehold on private enterprise and, perhaps, on the commercial and farming communities? The Bill, of course, cannot deal with that. That is a matter that will have to be dealt with later.

There are some people who are very concerned that Córas Iompair Éireann in future may take steps to eliminate road competition which, of course, hits it very heavily. We know that at the present moment Córas Iompair Éireann has something like 5 per cent. of the lorries in this country. It cannot establish a monopoly with only 5 per cent, of the lorries but if, in future, it will be given powers or will take powers it could very quickly increase the number of its lorries.

Although I sympathise very much with the position of the railways, I do not want to see the Irish farmers and commercial community—in fact, the citizens generally—handed over to the interests of any transport company. A measure of free competition, in the long run, would be better for the railways and certainly it would be better for the country generally. I do not necessarily say that free and unrestricted competition should be permitted, but there certainly should be a large degree of competition. Otherwise it would be very difficult for this House or for any other body interested in railway rates and prices generally to know at what price goods can be carried economically. I do not wish to labour or to stress the point— every Deputy can see it as well as I can—that it is something which vitally affects the whole industrial arm, if we are not in a position to transport goods as cheaply as possible. It will mean that industry and agriculture must carry a heavier burden than they should be asked to bear.

Deputy Traynor spoke about the proposed Córas Iompair Éireann bus station on the north side that is in process of being built. Everybody has his own view and opinion as to the ideal site for a bus station but it seems to me, and it has always seemed to me, that in the City of Dublin where there is such a very difficult traffic position at the moment, with the bulk of traffic moving north and south across the Liffey, it would inevitably lead to traffic chaos to bring every bus coming to Dublin and every bus going out of Dublin across that natural flow of traffic.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy surely knows that according to the replanning that would not be necessary.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not. I do not see how you can bring the buses to that point without at some point impeding the existing traffic.

Mr. Traynor

The Deputy will pardon me for the moment. I understood that the buses were to be taken via Amiens Street, through Portland Row and the North Circular Road. I understood that was the channel through which they would go to the south, west and north.

Mr. Dockrell

What Deputy Traynor says would be some slight help to the situation but, nevertheless, they would have to get across that north and south line at some point. The siting of that Córas Iompair Éireann bus station in Store Street was undoubtedly against the advice of the town planning experts of the City of Dublin.

Mr. Lemass

It was approved of by the Dublin Corporation.

Mr. Morrissey

After pressure.

Mr. Lemass

Whose pressure?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy knows that better than I do.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know anything at all about it.

Mr. Dockrell

I could say a great deal about that. I do not wish to be unduly personal. I do not mean personal to the Deputy but personal to a Party. I can tell him how I believe that proposal went through Dublin Corporation. The members belonging to the ex-Minister's Party were afraid to speak out their minds on that because it became a Party issue.

Mr. McCann

That is not true.

Mr. Lemass

Nonsense.

Mr. Dockrell

It really went through on those lines. It went through in the teeth of opposition with all the prestige of the then Government behind it.

Mr. Lemass

The then Government never approached the corporation or had any consultations with the corporation.

Mr. Morrissey

Not directly.

Mr. Lemass

Directly or indirectly.

Mr. Dockrell

I will say that very probably the Minister at that time thought he was doing the best.

Mr. Lemass

He was not even consulted as to the site.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not know but, at any rate, I will say that in the opinion of the expert town planner that Dublin Corporation called in that was not the ideal site.

Mr. McCann

That is not correct. If the Deputy will excuse me. I presided, when I was Lord Mayor, at the meeting at which Sir Patrick Abercrombie, the town-planning consultant, attended and it was his decision that that was a good site and there was no pressure from any source. Some prominent members of the Deputy's Party in the corporation are in favour of Store Street now just as they were then.

Mr. Dockrell

There were always some people in favour of it but there was a majority of people not in favour of it. My recollection is that the original town-planning schemes did not site the Córas Iompair Éireann bus station there. I know it is very difficult, in fact it is impossible, to choose a site that suits everybody or every interest but I would say that I personally did not consider that Store Street was an ideal site.

Donnchadh Ó Briain

Even when it was half built.

Mr. Dockrell

I do not want to go into the question of the very great expense under which Córas Iompair Éireann was operating when the Minister had to interest himself in the situation. My views on that point are covered by what I said at the beginning, that the Government had to step in to save a bankrupt concern. That is the position which the country and we, as Deputies, are concerned with at the moment. I do not know that there is any easy way for our railways. We are an agricultural country, and the transport of agricultural goods does not pay because they cannot be transported very far. We are not, unfortunately, mainly an industrial country, and it is the carrying of heavy industrial goods which makes the railways pay. We have not got these goods, as yet, to carry and neither have we a heavy population. Even in England they are finding it difficult to get their railways to pay.

As a result of these economic and geographical factors, we have a problem facing us in connection with our railways, but I want to stress that the railways, important as they are, exist for the purpose of serving the community. The community does not exist for the purpose of serving any transport concern, and we must see that in doing what we can for the railways we do not handicap private enterprise—if far more than private enterprise—if there is anybody who is not very fond of private enterprise—the whole agricultural and commercial life of the State. That is what many people, including myself, are afraid of in the future. Although at the moment there is no question of the railways being given dictatorial powers in that respect, inevitably in the future they will want these powers in order to make their undertakings pay, and as the State interests itself by pouring money into a transport concern, so it will have a vested interest in the earning of profits by that concern. I am anxious to see that we have a transport system which will pay its way, but I do not want to see it paying its way at the expense of private individuals, and, in fact, of the whole commercial life of the country.

Mr. Allen

Deputy Dockrell has conditioned his support for the Bill on its containing no proposals interfering with private enterprise. If the Minister had been frank with the Deputy and with the House and had told them everything he should have told them in the matter of future policy, I am sure that he would not have Deputy Dockrell's support for the Bill. The Minister knows quite well that he kept back from the House, in introducing this Bill, many matters having relation to the future of public transport that he should have given to the House. It is unfortunate that the future of public transport has been made a keen political issue and that public transport here is to be a keen issue as between different political groups. The Minister started off his statement by reciting all the sins, as he called them, and all the blunders of Córas Iompair Éireann——

Mr. Morrissey

Not all.

Mr. Allen

——over a number of years and gave these as the excuse for introducing the Bill. That was the only reason for the introduction of this Bill—the bad management and the squandermania, as he termed it, of Córas Iompair Éireann in its four years of office. He went out of his way, and those behind him on his left, led by Deputy Larkin, went out of their way to try to belittle the efforts made during the years of the emergency to maintain and keep that undertaking in existence and to belittle the efforts of the Minister's predecessor in every possible respect. It is unfortunate for the future of public transport here, if that is to be the basis of discussion. If the discussion of public transport policy is to be on a political basis, and on a political basis only, and if public transport policy is to be fashioned in that way, the future of this country will be most uncertain.

Public transport is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the State and its people. I think that is agreed, and an adequate public transport at a reasonable cost is all-important. If this Bill becomes law as it is, unaltered, it will not put the new Córas Iompair Éireann in any better position than it is in at the moment to provide an adequate public transport service at a reasonable cost to the public. The Minister will find that, before very long, the new Córas Iompair Éireann will come to him and tell him, as I am sure the existing body has told him, that it cannot carry on unless further legislation is passed. Sir James Milne pointed out in his report that, with the present competition from private transport, Córas Iompair Éireann could not meet its expenses, and he showed that, unless there was a change of policy in many directions, a public transport undertaking could not hope to pay its way.

This new undertaking will have more liabilities than its predecessor. It will have to pay a dividend on the common stock and also on the stock of the Grand Canal Company. It will have to face demands for increased wages and increased expenses of one kind and another. The Minister is making provision in the Bill to give the new board a free hand as to charges for fares and carriage of goods and other matters incidental thereto. It is quite on the cards that this new board will give as little satisfaction to the public as the board that it is proposed to abolish. They must do the things which are set out in the Bill for them to do. They must pay their way. They must provide the interest on the full capital that is weighted on them. They are bound in law to provide, in addition to the interest on debentures, interest on the ordinary stock and on the stock of the Grand Canal Company.

It is significant in regard to the acquisition of the Grand Canal Company that the Minister dismissed that matter very shortly. He gave little or no reason to the Dáil as to why it was proposed to acquire the Grand Canal Company. He is aware, I am sure, that in the past every canal acquired by a railway company was closed down soon afterwards. Has it been decided that the canal operating at the present time is not essential for the future inland transport of the country? The Minister has made no provision in this Bill to safeguard the interests of the private users of that canal. He is aware that many private persons earn their livelihood in using the canal. They have boats on it and they keep a number of men employed. I hope the Minister on the Committee Stage will amend the Bill so as to provide for these private users of the Grand Canal. It is assumed that the railway company, or the new board under this Bill, will have the right to close the canal if they are so minded.

I think Deputies have been rather surprised that the Government have decided to give this new board full authority to close any branch lines they wish to close permanently, not alone that, but to abandon them and be no longer responsible for them in any way. That is a rather extraordinary provision in view of the fact that a campaign was carried on over a number of years against the closing of branch lines. That campaign was carried on by many members of groups who now support the present Government. A very active and deliberate campaign was carried on in the teeth of the emergency, when sufficient fuel was not available to run scarcely any railway, against the closing of branch lines. Whether it is sound national policy to close branch lines or to keep them open, it is very difficult to say. We do know that when a branch line is closed, additional transport is thrown on to the roads. These roads are maintained, as the House is aware, to a great extent by funds raised from local ratepayers and the burden of maintaining them is increasing year by year. The House is also aware that these highways are not able to carry the transport that they are being forced to carry at the present time. They are narrow, crooked and winding and unless millions of money is expended on them in future to strengthen, improve and widen them, they will be found incapable of carrying all the traffic of this country. To my mind, therefore, every mile of railway that can possibly be maintained and kept open must be maintained and kept open. It will be sound national policy in the long run. It is not a day-to-day business. It is a matter that is bound up with the life of the nation for 100 years to come and if a false step is made at the present time, in closing down branch lines, the people will live to regret it.

I personally believe that the maintenance of the railways is absolutely essential to the future welfare of the State. When the cost of making and maintaining roadways is considered, it must be frightening to local authorities or even to the central authority. The Government must be fully aware that the roadways in this country capable of carrying heavy traffic and motor traffic at the present time are very limited in number indeed. To make new roadways and to widen and straighten the ones we have, will cost millions of pounds and most of that will have to be provided by the local ratepayers. There is an outcry at present in the country generally because of the burden local authorities have to carry for housing and a thousand and one other things. The Minister should keep that in mind. For that reason, the Government should accept full responsibility to the nation for every mile of railway that is closed down, whether it be a branch line or a main line. It should not be left to a board which has no responsibility to anyone for its actions. Once these lines are abandoned finally, they will not be reopened. The cost of reopening them will be found to be beyond the resources of the State. For that reason alone, the Dáil would be justified in rejecting the Bill, unless we hear from the Minister when he is concluding, that he is prepared to amend the Bill, so as to provide that the responsible Minister or the Government will take the responsibility before any branch lines are closed in future.

In regard to transport charges, I think it is probably right that the board should have the determination of what they will charge for the transport of passengers, but I would suggest that the Minister for Agriculture should be consulted by this board in regard to the matter of the transport charges for raw materials needed by farmers and for farm produce going to the market. Every effort has been made for a number of years past to increase agricultural output. As things stand at present, the cost of transporting many primary products of agriculture to the markets is almost as great as the value of the articles themselves. Similarly, the cost of transporting raw materials needed by the farmers, such as manure and lime, is almost prohibitive if public transport is utilised. It is no wonder that Córas Iompair Éireann has been losing a lot of revenue in that way and that there has been an increase in the number of lorries carrying goods for traders and private individuals. The Milne Report recommended that private lorries should be zoned and should be allowed to operate only within a short distance of the owner's residence. The Minister did not even advert to that in his opening remarks. He did not advert to many of the important problems that are touched upon in the Milne Report and that must affect the interests of the country and many sections and elements in the country in the future.

Because this is an agricultural country, most of the goods carried by rail or otherwise are produced by agriculture or needed by agriculture. Therefore, I believe that we must not have a restricted type of traffic. We must have as flexible a transport system for the agricultural community as possible and any other system will be bad for them. Manufactured goods are in a different category altogether. But the transport of agricultural produce and the raw material needed by farmers should be as flexible as possible and any restriction on the type of transport that farmers may need will be seriously damaging to the structure of agriculture and the output of agriculture in future. Whatever may be the policy to be pursued by this new board, certainly anything that can be done to loosen up even the present restrictions and to allow farmers, if need be, to work for hire for their neighbours in carrying agricultural produce to and from the farm needs to be done in the immediate future and is very necessary for the development of agriculture.

Railways have been a bone of contention in this country for many years. That does not date from the 1924 Act or the 1944 Act. In 1876 there was a Royal Commission set up called the Devonshire Commission and they seriously considered at that time—it was even put up to them by the then directors—that the British Government should acquire all the railways and the stock of the railways. They gave that serious consideration and it would appear from the report that, but for the fact that they were not satisfied it was necessary to do that in England, they would have advised that the State should have acquired the railways here and run them as a State concern. That is a long time ago now and it would appear from the report that the railways were not then in a good position. They were scarcely able to pay dividends and what they had to charge for transport was considered too high in those days. Things have changed very much since then and the different small groups of railways were brought into one group by the 1924 Act.

Anyone who looks at the railway termini in Dublin will see that they were all planned separately. The railway services from the different parts of the country should be brought together in one terminus. I wonder what will be the policy of the new board in that direction. Will it be possible to bring all the railway services into Dublin into one centre? That would appear to be a good, sound policy if there is to be any future for the railways.

There has been much controversy in this House and outside as to whether the bus station in Store Street should be abandoned and a station erected somewhere else. If there is to be a new board set up, the commonsense thing would be to let that new board consider the matter. I do not think it is right for a Government or the Minister or a political Party to decide these things on political lines, to decide that because something was done by their predecessors it must be wrong and should be abandoned irrespective of what damage that might do to the national structure of the State. There has been too much of that in the last 18 months. This House is not capable of deciding whether the bus station should be in Store Street or in Smithfield. The combined wisdom and brains of this House are incapable of deciding that matter. I suggest that the Minister and the Government are incapable of deciding it properly and that they can only decide it with prejudiced minds. If the new board is to be a success it should not be faced with a fait accompli, with the fact that the Government had decided that they cannot have the building erected in Store Street as a bus terminus. That should be left to somebody else.

There has been a great controversy as to whether it was the Minister, the management of Córas Iompair Éireann, the Dublin Corporation or its town-planning committee decided that Store Street was the proper place at the time it was selected. I have no doubt, and I am sure the Minister has not, that if Store Street was found not to be suitable by the Dublin Corporation, by the management of the railways or by the other interests concerned no effort would have been made to put the station at Store Street. I am sure the Minister knows very well that it was not put there through cussedness on the part of anybody. It was put there because the people who had the responsibility for determining on the site for a central bus station chose Store Street because they believed it was the best of the sites available. But the Minister and the Government, in their wisdom and judgment—with prejudice I am sorry to say because that is apparent to everyone—decided that the Store Street building must be abandoned and that no bus must be allowed to shelter in it.

As to the concentration of the staffs in Córas Iompair Éireann in Store Street, the Minister says it is cheaper to have them in offices all over the city. Where you have a large number on the staff, it is commonsense that they should be concentrated in one building so that they will be in touch with the executives and the heads of the departments. It would mean a more economic and efficient running of any institution to have all the staff, if possible, in one building. At one time the staffs of the Minister's Department were spread all over the city. If a Deputy wanted to visit some of the sections of this Department he had very often to spend a whole day travelling around the city to get in touch with them. It must have been very inconvenient for the officers running the different sections of the Department when they were spread all over the city. The same thing, I am sure, applies to the railway company with offices in different parts of the city. Rents and rates have to be paid for all these buildings. To concentrate them altogether would seem to be the most sensible thing to do.

I know nothing about the details or the politics in regard to this site in Store Street. But I know that the people who come from the south-east will not be pleased if they have to go to Smithfield to get a bus to return home.

From the little that I know about Dublin, I believe Store Street would be a far more convenient centre as a bus station for a bigger proportion of our population than Smithfield will be. No adequate reasons have been given for the change that has been made. There must be some mysterious reasons for it, but these, I think, will not satisfy the ordinary people. The building in Store Street was almost completed, and then quite suddenly, on the change of Government, it was decided to abandon the project. What would be thought of some future Government if it decided to abandon the Custom House as offices for a Government Department and spread the staffs out all over the city? It was foolish to abandon Store Street.

In many other ways the people of the country will be affected by this new transport legislation. I shall reserve going into details until the Bill is in Committee. One thing, at any rate, is apparent, and that is that this Bill will do nothing to solve our national transport problem. There appears to be a difference of opinion as to whether or not the Bill means nationalisation. I do not think that matters two hoots. The railways have been semi-nationalised since 1944. If this Bill produces results, and goes a step further in the direction of nationalisation, I do not think anybody will worry whether we call this nationalisation or State control. In my opinion, the fact that the new board will not be responsible to the Minister, or the Government, will have a damaging effect. The Minister proposes to give the new board additional powers, but he has not given any indication of what they will be. That is something which will need careful consideration before it is passed by the House.

I again suggest to the Minister that on the Committee Stage he should consider the matter of charges for the carriage of agricultural produce to and from the farm. The new board should not have the last word on that. It should be obliged to have consultation with the Minister or the Department of Agriculture. It is all important that we should have the most flexible type of transport to serve the needs of agriculture, to carry the raw materials to the farm and the produce to the market. The charges should not be such as to reduce production. I hope that when replying the Minister will give the House some of the information that he would appear to have deliberately withheld when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Will he tell us what the Government's considered view is on the future of our transport, as well as the possibility of the new board making a success of our public transport, and of being able to pay dividends and meet the charges in respect of stock holdings? We know that the payment of interest in the future on all this stock will be Government guaranteed. If the new company finds itself unable to pay the interest on the stock the State Exchequer will have to pay it.

The State Exchequer has not been called upon to pay a lot yet. The Minister must know that the first payment came to be made as a result of the disastrous conditions that prevailed in 1947. We all remember the terrible weather we had in that year and the fuel scarcity there was. By reason of all the increased charges that had to be met—increases in wages, increases in the price of fuel and increased expenses generally—the company in 1947 was not able to earn, as it had earned up to that time, sufficient money to pay the interest on the preference stock. The Minister must know that quite well. Therefore, I think he should be more frank and honest with the House and the country so far as this transport problem is concerned instead of trying to score some small political advantage. It would be far better for all concerned that the House should settle down, without reference to past or future Governments, and discuss in a proper manner what is necessary to be done in order to provide this country with an efficient transport system at a reasonable cost. That is what we require both for goods and passengers in the future—a transport system at not too great expense to the community. This is a purely agricultural country. The big end of our industries are situated around the coast. As has already been pointed out, under the transport system that we have the average load is carried a distance of about 30 miles which, generally speaking, is a very short distance. In view of all that it will take the combined wisdom of Deputies in all parts of the House to plan and devise for the future the transport system which the country needs if it is to make progress.

Mr. Commons

At this stage of the debate I do not intend to give the Minister any advice except to say that I agree that it is absolutely essential, at whatever cost, to keep the railways in action. They are the main arteries of our transport system and so they must be preserved. If an emergency were to arise we would find ourselves in a very difficult position indeed if we had not the railways for the transport of our goods and other commodities. We also have to remember that Córas Iompair Éireann is a very important industry. It has a great number of men on its pay-roll, and no matter what grade they may be in they are receiving the recognised trade union wage. Therefore I say, no matter what the cost may be, and whether we call this nationalisation or not, we must agree that the railways will have to be preserved. Their preservation is one thing, but having extravagance in expenditure and over-lapping on them is another. I do not know how far the Minister intends to go so far as the Milne report is concerned. I think he can find quite a lot of useful information in that report, particularly on the running of parallel services. You have road transport carrying goods and passengers running parallel with the railways which carry agricultural and commercial goods as well as passengers. I think it would be possible to eliminate a lot of the overlapping there is at present. It is unfortunate that railways all over the world appear to be having a bad time of it. People seem to be losing their fondness for travel by rail or indeed for sending goods by rail. That is true even in the United States where the railways appear to be in a very precarious position. Everyone, of course, is aware of the speed with which people can be transported by motor vehicles from one end of the country to the other. No matter what type of transport we provide for passengers by rail, it can never equal the speed with which they can be carried by motor vehicles.

Let me take a town that is furthest west in the constituency I represent. A man in business there intends to visit the city. If he has to board a train at an early hour in the morning and arrive in the midday or evening in Dublin, he will find he will not be able to carry out any business. He will lose that day and the next day before he gets back home after finishing his business in the city. It is only commonsense for that person to use his own motor car, if he has one, or get some other kind of motor transport, because he will reach the city more quickly and be able to do his business in a shorter time. It is only natural that he will use the faster type of vehicle so as to be able to carry out his business more rapidly.

Take Deputies who have to travel long distances to come here. It is essential that they spend most of their time at home and if the railway transport provided for them is not sufficiently fast they must use motor vehicles. Passenger traffic on the railways sets up a type of problem which the Minister and the new board will find it difficult to solve. I believe that if city air services were established, covering five or six different centres from the city, the amount of passenger transport on the railways would be cut down very appreciably. Unless there is some improvement in the transport of passengers, the railways are bound to decline in popularity. If Córas Iompair Éireann expect to be able to pay their way in relation to passenger transport and continue to adopt the present method of procedure then they are on the wrong line of thought.

The Minister should ensure that all heavy traffic will be transferred to the railway. Take local fairs as an example. The transport company at the moment are permitting a most foolish procedure. They may have 50, 60 or 100 wagons at a railway station in accordance with the order of the local stationmaster. At the same time, you will see six or seven or ten giant Matador lorries, capable of pulling heavy trailers. These vehicles will carry live stock. Some people prefer to have their animals carried by road transport. The argument is put up that the animals reach their destination quicker. There are dealers who want to send their live stock to the shippers or to other markets and they find it preferable to transport them by road. The overhead charges may be heavy, but there is less handling of animals and not so much of a delay and it is calculated in some cases that it is a better paying proposition. If the Minister could so arrange that perishable or semi-perishable articles will reach their destination faster, he will soon put heavy goods back on the railways, but nothing else will. We are moving rapidly into a speed era.

Take a country merchant who wants goods delivered speedily. He gets in touch with a central distributing agency here or whatever industrial concerns import goods from across the Channel. His idea is to get them to the place where he can sell them as quickly as possible. Speed and efficient transport have not been given to those people, and in order that these individuals will concentrate again on the railways, the new board of Córas Iompair Éireann will have to evolve some organisation along that line. We should not look at this matter as though we are going to have a slack period. Anyone who examines our trade returns will observe that our progress is becoming quite significant. The articles that come from agricultural production, the many things that come from the small farms through the country, must all find their way to a central marketing depot. They must be transported by rail in some way or another. Then let us turn to the quantity of goods that come in for the farmers, particularly artificial manures. We find as a result of our examination that in the years to come the railways will have more goods to carry than in the years gone by. If we take such things into consideration and if we have perfect co-operation and no financial over-lapping, the outlook need not be as desolate as some of us seem to think.

So far as heavy transport on the roads is concerned, that must cease; otherwise let the Government take over the maintenance of the roads, because the people could not afford much longer to pay for their upkeep. Our roads were never designed for such heavy traffic as they experience to-day. Many of our roads are built on soft and swampy foundations. The roadmakers of long ago laid down some roads in a peculiar way. Many of them were twisted and some of them were formed out of old beaten tracks from times long gone by. They never had proper foundations, and they were never constructed to bear the heavy traffic of the present day. If a 20-ton Córas Iompair Éireann lorry driver took his vehicle on any road which has not a sound foundation there is no doubt he will injure that road considerably and cracks will be easily visible.

We shall have to keep the heavy vehicles off the roads. Send those heavy goods to the railways or else let the Government take the responsibility of road maintenance off the backs of the ratepayers. A certain amount is provided out of central funds, but that is only because the local ratepayers put up so much. If the expenditure is in excess of a certain figure the Government will come to their assistance. So far as long-distance haulage by road is concerned, the sooner it is abolished the better. If we are to have haulage of a local nature the recommendation in the Milne Report is that we should keep competition out as long as we can if we mean to save the railways. In doing that the private hauliers should not be ignored, because they have their uses. The haulier in most cases is the man who owns the lorry and he can operate it at a slightly cheaper rate than Córas Iompair Éireann, who have to pay trade union rates to their drivers. If the lorry of the private haulier breaks down he can take it to the nearest garage. Córas Iompair Éireann must take their lorries for repair to a central depot. A Córas Iompair Éireann lorry may have to travel 15, 20 or 30 miles, as the case may be, to the central depot for repair. Naturally that costs money. The local haulier has the advantage that he does not have to take his lorry such a distance. He can give the benefit of that to the people for whom he works, because he can afford to carry their goods cheaper than Córas Iompair Éireann. I agree with the suggestion that local hauliers, particularly where they carry agricultural goods, should be allowed to carry such goods within certain defined limits to the nearest rail head. In that way, one would do away with private haulage running parallel with the railways. In that way, too, there would not be competition between Córas Iompair Éireann and private hauliers.

We have been told that Córas Iompair Éireann at the present time have only 5 per cent. of the lorries on the road. It must be remembered, however, that they have a monopoly and are protected by law. There are cases where goods are left untouched because there is no Córas Iompair Éireann lorry available to carry them. Anyone who thinks that, because Córas Iompair Éireann have only 5 per cent. of the lorries on the road, they only do 5 per cent. of the haulage is making a very grave mistake. If a company has a monopoly, even if it has only 2 per cent. of the lorries, it is protected by law.

There is a possibility that Córas Iompair Éireann may be faced with further competition if the ports along the western seaboard are allowed to operate. It has been proved beyond doubt that goods can be imported much more cheaply if they are delivered at the nearest local port and transported from there either by rail or by road. If the time comes when it is decided to give the local ports, such as Westport and Ballina, a chance they will operate in competition with Córas Iompair Éireann, because goods imported in that way will be carried a much shorter distance and the railway will thereby suffer some loss of revenue. There is a popular demand for the utilisation of the local ports along the western seaboard and the proposed new company will have to face up to that problem at some date in the future.

If Córas Iompair Éireann is determined to carry goods in whatever way it thinks best, then steps must be taken to ensure that freight charges will not bear too heavily on the consignees. When the 1944 Act was introduced the uproar created in this House because of the proposed monopoly led to a general election. But the Dublin United Tramways were taken over and it is now proved beyond doubt that this undertaking, which up to that time had been a profit-earning concern, failed to make Córas Iompair Éireann pay its way. Now it is proposed that the Grand Canal Company be taken over and that its funds will go to fill the coffers of Córas Iompair Éireann. I have no objection to the taking over of the Grand Canal Company, but I have serious objection to any proposed increase in the cost of transport particularly where agricultural commodities are concerned. If the freight on a wagon of cattle taken from a western station is increased it is not the dealer who will pay that increase. He will take it out of the profits of those from whom he bought the cattle. The merchant buying artificial manures, or any other commodity essential to increased productivity on the land, will not bear any increased freight charges. He will not be the loser. It is the people who ultimately buy the goods retail who will have to pay in the long run.

With regard to the proposed new company, I think they should be compelled to consult with the appropriate Minister before any increase is made in freight charges. An increase in our export trade, such as has taken place within the past year, means that more goods are carried by the railways. Steps should be taken to ensure that the primary producers who have brought about that increase are protected and are treated as fairly as it is possible for a railway company to treat its patrons. The inclination has been to fleece them over the past few years.

We who live in the West of Ireland have to travel across the centre of Ireland to reach the capital. The first complaint we have to make is that public transport provided for us is not fast enough to encourage us to travel by rail. Secondly, I think it is the essence of stupidity to have a train leaving a certain town at 10 o'clock and a bus leaving the same town at 11 o'clock for Dublin, while there is a bus returning from Dublin reaching the town at 5 o'clock in the evening and a train reaching the same town at half-past three in the afternoon. I think the new board should make sure that there will not be trains and buses travelling over parallel routes in competition with one another. They will have more earning power by doing that and they will be of more benefit to the community as a whole.

My chief worry is that the burden of maintaining roads for heavy transport is now becoming unbearable and the sooner the haulage of heavy goods by road is done away with the better. But this can only be done and business brought back to the railways by giving a more efficient and speedy rail type of haulage of heavy goods. If that is done the people will again become rail-minded. If it is not done they will continue to be road-minded because of the speed at which goods can be delivered from one centre to another. This road-mindedness will mean a burden on the ratepayers for the maintenance and upkeep of crooked, narrow roads and the whole burden will be back on the shoulders of the taxpayers and particularly of the ratepayers.

Finally, my only advice would be to get away from road transport as soon as possible, and, in doing so, get away from imposing extra burdens on the ratepayers and local authorities who have to maintain such roads and keep them in good condition.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I am glad that the last speaker admitted candidly that other countries had difficulties with their transport systems, much the same as this country has. The Minister, when he introduced this measure, and several speakers on the Government side, conveyed the impression, to me anyway, that it is only here that a transport problem has developed. They went a little further and tried to put it over on us that this problem arose entirely through the faults and shortcomings of Fianna Fáil and of the manager whom they appointed. Of course, that is not true. It is not necessary to say that, because the community here in general know quite well the difficulties that have arisen in transport since long before 1921. But they came to a head in the period during which Cumann na nGaedheal was the Government—from 1924 or 1925 on up to 1933. Most of the older members of the Dáil and quite a number of the younger members will remember the chaotic condition of our roads in those days. On many of the main roads we had as many as five or six different omnibuses, all functioning, one against the other, and life on those roads became extremely dangerous and the transport system got into a very precarious position. As well as I remember the Great Southern Railway Company had buses running then. By the time Fianna Fáil introduced their measure, in 1933, I think that both the railway company who owned the buses and all the private bus companies were almost completely bankrupt.

As well as that, we had a number of private lorries competing. It was in those years that some of the biggest difficulties arose but I am not going to say for one moment that modern methods of transport are not attacking the older method and I believe that in almost every other country that is the case. If we go back to Bianconi's time, I am sure he looked with horror on the train when he saw it. He must have come to the conclusion, too, that his method of transport would one day or another fade out. But we are in somewhat a different position now. I believe that the railway system is vital to the economy of this country. I also believe that the Minister, unknowingly possibly, is taking a very serious risk. He is appointing a board with a completely independent manager and that board is going to be completely independent of this Government. That board will be composed of human beings, every one of them versed in cent. per cent. interest on the money, and the usual modern system of business. One bright day he will discover that the railway is only taking second place, and the next day he will discover that it has almost disappeared— because they will follow the line of transport that is most profitable to them. It is our business to guard against that. Nobody will deny that it is possible that that can happen. In fact, it would be nearly imperative on any manager, or on any independent board appointed to carry on, as far as the £ s.d. portion of it is concerned, to do the most profitable thing for the moment. They would not be inclined to look on it from the national point of view.

I believe the railway system will have to carry on and I believe the taxpayer will have to help. One of the reasons why I think that is bound to be the case is that a number of branch lines were closed down. I am satisfied that the new board will close down a further number of them. The branch lines were devised, I suppose in the wisdom of the railway managers, as feeders for the railways. I take it they were not devised for any other object. I think, when that is done, you will all agree with me that some of those lines would be unprofitable but that quite a few of them would be profitable—that there are, possibly, two or three years in which they would not give any profit, followed by three or four years in which they would. To my mind, no railway system can live without its branch lines or its proper feeders. If they are cut off, I think it is only a matter of time until the main line is bound to dry up. What the railway company wants is business. What happened in the years gone by— in 1925, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930— when the people got accustomed to the more modern method of bus passenger transport? The cars came in and the lorries came in. I must say that the lorries were able to give very personal service. The railway, because of its older traditions, was bound up in a great deal of red tape, and the delays that arose in despatching and in receiving, and in the transport of cargo, became unsatisfactory to people who had become accustomed to much more rapid and much more personal service.

I believe that the railways could be revived here to a large extent if the necessary steps were taken to do so and if the Minister, before this measure goes through, can assure us that we shall have some little control over this board. If he cannot give us that assurance, if we shall not have some little control over the board, the board will do what all human beings do. They are not going to be successful straight away. They are going to have bad times, and, as soon as times are bad, the board will economise and they will close down, first, every single one of the branch lines and, after that, a great portion of the main lines. The last thing I want to say is that I listened to the talk about the bus station here and the contention about it. I am not so sure that the change of that site for a bus station is essential. I am afraid that quite a number of people through the country believe that it is to a large extent a political manoeuvre. I do not know the City of Dublin too well, but I know that if they move the site to Smithfield it is going to improve immensely the business in Prussia Street and bring Capel Street back to what it used to be. That would be very satisfactory—to me anyway. I know from the people of Meath and Westmeath—I heard the traditions— that Prussia Street and Capel Street were great centres of business in Dublin and that most of the people from North Leinster made their purchases there. That just struck me as I heard all this talk going on. Really, it would not be a bad idea to transfer this surplus population from O'Connell Street, Grafton Street, Talbot Street and the other centres. I am sure that the Government knows perfectly well that it is not the tourists who bring all the money into Dublin; a great number of the people of the country bring their money to Dublin, spend it in Dublin and help to keep Dublin going, and they do not care to walk a lot or get knocked out. The business people are fairly active too and are going to come as near their customers as they can. The result of this will be to transfer a good deal of Dublin into the Phoenix Park and I will leave Deputies to decide whether that is right or wrong.

Mr. Hickey

Why not take it out into the country?

Captain Giles

Now that this debate is drawing to a close the Minister has got many angles on the question from different parts of the House and a great deal to put him thinking. I agree that this is an important debate because the whole future of the transport system is in the balance and something must be done about it by the Minister. He has a nice mess to clear up and must have a headache over it, but he has no choice in the matter and he must do something. He has set up a new board. He took over a bankrupt concern that was not paying, a dead end. I am not going to say that Fianna Fáil was the cause of the break-up of the transport system in this country, because when I was a young boy —a good many years ago now—transport was going down and the railways were becoming obsolete. The railways were the main cause of their own destruction. They slept on the question and let the new system on the highroads take over control. If they had been more alert and kept better faith with those who put money in them the railways would have had a link up with the roads. They would not have allowed the high speeds we have on the roads and would have taken them over in proper time. However, they slept on it and are now in the mess they are in. The question is can we save the railways. One of the last speakers said that speed was essential. It is not speed that is essential but the stoppage of speed. The railways would be hale and hearty if the speed allowed on the roads were curbed. If the buses which travel at 40 or 50 miles an hour were definitely curbed to 20 miles an hour the railways would have a better chance of competing. There is no need for speed. We have men going in cars on the roads at 90 miles an hour, flying, but the man who holds the balance at 35 miles an hour get in in time and can start in time. We should curb enormously the speed that is allowed on the highroads. If we do not the roads will be a death-dealing machine, nothing more, and will not be safe for anybody. During the last few years we have had an enormous amount of traffic on the highways, cars of every type, big cars and small cars. You cannot get room to park cars in the centre of Dublin or even at the chapel gates. On Sunday there has to be a policeman at the chapel gates and something will have to be done because our roads were not built for that.

There are many causes for the failure of the railways and one of the chief causes is the lackadaisical way they were carried on. I am satisfied that a vast amount of the men on the railways were no more than railway pensioners because you were getting very little return for them. I am not saying that every man was bad, but I am keen enough to see the enormous gangs of men doing little jobs on the railways. Then take all the half days and whole days and short hours they worked so that the railways could not exist. I know that trade unionism has a big say in that, but trade unionism brought too far is a bad thing for the country. Those men would be far better off working with more vigour and longer hours for better pay. The output per man on the railways was enormously bad and they were nothing more than pensioners. A huge staff was kept on and I do not believe that half of that staff was needed. There was no reason why during the last few years tickets could not be sold on the railways in the same way as they are sold on the buses and then half the stationmasters and half the station staffs could be got rid of. If that were done you would certainly have a better system and it would be getting in line with what is done on the roads. Instead of that you had a stationmaster sitting in an old station all day waiting for the few passengers to come to sell them their tickets. There was no need for that at all. Let the tickets be sold on the railways as the trains are going along and you would have better business methods.

An enormous amount of expense was incurred by the railways last year putting up gigantic fences. Eight months or a year were spent putting them up on old swampy ground where there was a perfectly good fence already. You had numbers of men putting up these fences for a bankrupt concern and it would be better if half those men were not working for the railways at all. Let the swamps alone. Then the money ran out and the poor old taxpayer had to come to their aid.

There would be no need for half the expense if there were a better system and better output per man. Córas Iompair Éireann came along a few years ago and told us that they were going to regularise transport in an efficient manner but the first thing they did was to kill the railways completely. They had bus services running parallel with the trains and at the same hours so that the train arrived at Enfield, Boyle or Trim right beside the bus which was running alongside it packed out with passengers. One time I remember a Córas Iompair Éireann lorry came to Trim which had nothing left but one parcel that was worth about 5/- and it had to go from Trim to Kingscourt with that. Two men in livery or uniform had to go with it. When the farmer needed a Córas Iompair Éireann lorry for his beet or his cattle there were these two gentlemen sitting inside it. Their trade union did not allow them to take a hand while the poor old slob of a farmer with his labouring man had to pack the load. It would be better for their own sake if they could lend a hand because the poor devils were standing there famished, but their trade unions did not allow it. I hope that some system can be devised whereby the men instead of sitting in the lorries will be allowed to do some work and give a bit of help to the people of the country. We have too many idle men who are not giving a full return. These things are not popular but these things are facts, and it is time to face up to the fact that we are not getting the output to keep those essential services on the road.

It is only right that we should have more than one transport system, that we have reasonable competition, but we have a fair number of lorries with trade plates and I hope there is a future for them and that they will be able to make the new railway efficient and charge proper fares. If we allowed one system to monopolise the country, we would be in a bigger mess, as the cost would be colossal, in the absence of reasonable competition.

Over quite a number of years past, thousands of lorries were allowed to come in and operate without restriction and they are now lying derelict everywhere. Bowmaker has the yards full of them and the unfortunate fellows who bought them and paid hundreds of pounds for them find now that they cannot pay the instalments and they are in a pitiable mess. Many of them have taken to emigration, so as to get away from their debts. That state of affairs should not have been allowed to occur. The roads were cluttered up with lorries, passing one another, as the owners thought there was a big business in it. There was, for some years, when turf was important in the national economy, but that ended with the end of the emergency. Someone should have stepped in and realised the amount of transport that was needed and controlled the position. We should have been able to see a few years ahead. These are headaches now for the present Minister, but if they had been taken at the proper time, there could have been a great saving and transport would not be in the chaos it is in to-day.

Córas Iompair Éireann made no effort to take the heavy transport off the roads. In my county, the gypsum lorries which carry 25 to 50 tons are passing my own door two and three days a week. They are huge lorries and if you are a quarter of a mile away making hay, the land under your feet is trembling with the enormous weight. They cannot tear along at high speed, of course, as they are too heavy; but many of the bridges are cracked and in danger and some are marked with signals that they cannot be used any more. From Kingscourt to Dublin we have a fine railway system and I cannot see why these vehicles are allowed to carry these heavy loads on the highways. It is not fair to the people generally and it is not fair to those with lighter vehicles to have these huge demons of destruction on the roads. If the Minister wants to preserve the railways, he must see that this heavy traffic is taken off the roads. I do not see why Córas Iompair Éireann did not start years ago, instead of building a huge fleet of buses, feeding the railways at the stations by means of cross-country buses. That could have been done at every main station from Dublin to Galway. At places like Enfield, Mullingar and Hill of Down, there is no reason why the people could not be brought in by bus and, instead of standing on a cold morning waiting for a ticket, they should have been able to buy it on the train and so cut out the stationmasters.

I know the Minister has courage and vision enough to face up to difficulties and I am satisfied that, if left alone, he will evolve a system of transport which will be satisfactory to this country.

Mr. J. Flynn

In my opinion, the board referred to in the Bill has extraordinary powers and I would ask the Minister to introduce some safeguard, to restrict members of the board from arriving at hasty decisions in regard to closing branch lines or things like that. In my constituency we have two important branch lines and I would not like to see the board — without any reference to this House or to any responsible organisation — decide overnight to close down a branch line. There should be some test and the board should be required to publish a statement that they intended to close a branch line down and there should be a period of, say, 12 months given to carry out a proper test as to whether they were justified in closing down that particular line.

The main point put up against Córas Iompair Éireann was that they acted in a very hasty manner in closing certain branch lines, without giving a fair trial and without satisfying themselves that they were justified. Instead, they instituted a road haulage system which made it impossible for some branch lines to work out economically and the net result was that the branch line was not considered in its proper perspective. It was not given the chance to prove that in a fair deal, with fair competition, it could hold its own. I do not wish to see that happen again and allow any board of directors, without any test, to declare a line uneconomic. The whole difficulty with Córas Iompair Éireann was that they developed a road transport system in competition with the railway system and in that way proved that they had no initiative and no business capacity. In the rural districts, this road competition made it impossible for the main railway lines to be a success economically. The charges were exorbitant. In rural districts, you had a collection charge, the railway charge and a delivery charge.

That cumulative system of rates made it impossible for traders to avail of the railway system and I hope that under the new arrangement there will be a one-way charge from the distributing centre to the rural districts. We have sad experience of the doubling haulage system where Córas Iompair Éireann established traffic zones. Any chairman of a board or any responsible director who knew his business would not have acted in that manner and should not have acted in that manner. They proved that they did not know the first thing about running a railway system. I agree entirely with Deputy Davin when he says that the outgoing chairman of the railway company never consulted the superintendents in the provincial districts, never asked for their suggestions or advice. The net result was that the whole system crumbled and became uneconomic.

I maintain that there are men in the outlying areas, such as Cork, Limerick, Tralee and other districts, who are as capable of railway management as the men in Dublin. Yet they are never given the proper recognition. At least they did not get it in the past. I recommend to the Minister that when this board is being appointed there should be consultation with these people and, if necessary, personnel should be recruited from these outlying areas. I have discussed railway matters with some of these men and I have come to the conclusion that they are equal to, if not better than, any of the personnel in railway headquarters in Dublin. Yet, up to the present, they have not been consulted.

It is a matter of indifference to me who is chairman as long as he knows his work. The present chairman, as far as I know and as far as I have been informed by railway men, is doing good work and, if he is selected, I believe he will be an asset to the organisation.

A great deal of criticism has been levelled at the Córas Iompair Éireann system but I think it is true that were it not for this question of road transport versus rail transport the position would have been reversed. The railways would have recouped themselves and would have been a paying proposition if the chairman and the board had not embarked on extensive road transport.

The merchants in large provincial towns do all their haulage direct to Dublin. This is a free country and they are entitled to do what best suits themselves. However, there should be some restrictions and they should be compelled or induced to give at least portion of their traffic to the railways where the railways are available. In their own way they have become rivals of the railway system.

There is another point that I would like to make on a matter which affects us very much. I put down a question on this matter the other day to the Minister. It is the question of the private haulier, the small man in the rural district. I would make a special plea to the Minister that these men should not be wiped off the map. The new board could bring them in or employ them as feeders to the main railway line. These men have been indispensable to the farming community. During the emergency they gave great service. Through no fault of their own, the vast majority of them have not merchandise licences. They have been filling a very useful rôle in hauling agricultural produce to markets and fairs. Some recognition should be given to them under the new system. They should be employed as part of the system or recognised in some other way. I do not mean to suggest that they should be compensated. They do not want compensation. They simply want the right to ply for hire between the various centres without competing with the railway system. They are not competing with the railway system. They are serving a very useful purpose in areas not covered by the railway, such as my own district and from Cahirciveen around the coast to Kenmare and in portion of east Kerry where there are no railways. These private hauliers serve a very useful purpose. I know that it was always the intention of Córas Iompair Éireann to wipe out these people altogether. At one time they thought that if the private haulier were wiped off the map the railway would be economic but, as time went on, it has been proved that, apart altogether from the private haulier, the railways were not able to pay their way. I make that case to prove to the Minister that these men are not competing with the railway system. On the other hand, lorries employed by merchants—I admit the merchants have a perfect right to use them—are much more detrimental to the railways and are taking traffic from the railway to a much greater degree than the private haulier in rural isolated districts. I make that special plea to the Minister.

We know that there are many difficulties in a transport system that it is not easy to adjust. The Minister has done the obvious thing, that is, to nationalise, to a measure at any rate, the transport of the country. He has made the first effective move to save the railway system and, as time goes on, he will probably have to introduce further legislation to cover some of the points that Deputies are now making in regard to private hauliers and other people and particular types of transport. I for one appreciate what the Minister is doing, as I think the whole country, and particularly the people I represent, appreciate it. I hope he will bear in mind the points I have raised.

Mr. Morrissey

I think I can say that the debate on this Bill has ranged over every possible, and indeed impossible, aspect of this transport problem. Deputies have spent a lot of time telling me that this Bill is not going to provide a complete and final solution of the whole of the transport problem of this country. There is no necessity to tell me that. May I remind Deputies that I told them that myself when introducing the Bill? Deputies on all sides of the House in their speeches covering every aspect of the transport situation have themselves shown quite clearly what a very difficult and very complex problem this is and have demonstrated far more clearly in their speeches than I could how absolutely essential it is that every step to be taken should be fully examined and whatever expert or skilled advice is available to us should be sought. However, I want to thank the House, with a couple of exceptions, for the constructive and helpful way in which the discussion on the Bill was approached.

The Fianna Fáil Party, of course, given the lead by Deputy Lemass, tried to make it clear that there was nothing wrong with Córas Iompair Éireann, if I had left it alone and every speech made from the opposite side was made for the purpose of trying to show to the House and to the people outside that the mess which is undoubtedly there was created, not by Fianna Fáil, not by my predecessor, but by me and this Government. Deputy Lemass went so far as to say that, if I had allowed the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann to increase his charges when he came to me immediately after I became Minister, everything would have been right with the system, that there would have been no necessity for this Bill and that they would have weathered the storm.

I should like to remind the House of what happened in 1947. In April, 1947, an Order was made by my predecessor authorising an increase of 20 per cent. in maximum rail passenger fares. That was estimated to give an increased yield of £110,000. In the same month, a Ministerial Order was made authorising an increase of 20 per cent. in the statutory maximum rail freight rates. The company increased their rail freight charges on 21st April and the increase was estimated to yield £809,000. In the same month, there were rates increases on road freight estimated to bring in another £100,000. There were increases in 1947 sanctioned by my predecessor and estimated by the chairman and directors of Córas Iompair Éireann to yield an additional £1,000,000. Notwithstanding that, they lost almost £1,000,000 over the same period.

The chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann knew, in 1947, that he was going to lose on the 1947 working, notwithstanding the increases I have mentioned, a sum in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. If he knew that early in 1947, he also knew and was able to tell me the first time he saw me that the estimated loss on 1948 would be at least £1,250,000. Actually, the loss was £1,400,000. The chairman and board of directors of Córas Iompair Éireann knew, in 1947, that the increases granted to them in April of that year were not going to come within £1,000,000 of meeting their losses, but —and this is a rather remarkable fact —they did not seek any further authority to make further increases until—when?

Captain Cowan

March.

Mr. Morrissey

No—20th February, 1948, or two days after this Government came into office. I want to know —and I am glad that Deputy Lemass is coming into the House—was any application made to him before 18th February, 1948, by the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann to authorise further increases in rail freight charges, bus fares or train fares, and, if not, why not. Did the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann or the chairman go to Deputy Lemass before February 18th, 1948, and tell him that, in their opinion, the only solution of their problem, the only hope of saving them from bankruptcy, was to increase fares and freights, to cut back on maintenance and to close further branch lines? Did the then chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann go to Deputy Lemass, as the then Minister, and, if not, why not, because, as I say, the application was made to me on the 20th February, 1948?

So much for the people who were going to save this great concern from bankruptcy by getting authority to increase still further the fares increased in April, 1947, to an extent estimated to bring in an additional £1,000,000. Notwithstanding that they got that authority to make these increases, they lost £1,000,000 that year.

The case made from the Fianna Fáil Benches is that I was responsible for making this concern bankrupt. It was bankrupt before the change of Government, and nothing could have saved it, and the Deputy knows that. The Deputy's whole concern here now is to show that, if there had not been a change of Government, this organisation could have survived. It could not, and I will prove that even to the Deputy, as well as to the House and, I hope, to the country. The Deputy— and I am glad to note that he was entirely alone in this—saw fit to speak in the most disparaging way, in the most contemptuous and sneering way, of Sir James Milne and his colleagues. I am very glad, as I say, that in this House the Deputy was entirely alone in that. He took the line that there was no necessity for any examination into the affairs of Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Lemass

Not by a group of English experts I said.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall talk about Irish and English experts in a moment and the Deputy will hear a lot more about them than he wants to hear. I am quite sure that he will take the line in regard to what I am going to unfold that he took about Store Street about half an hour ago when he interjected that he was never consulted about it.

Mr. Lemass

I certainly was not consulted.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy said he was never consulted about Store Street?

Mr. Lemass

It was my policy, as I informed the Dáil in 1944, to proceed with the erection of a central bus station in Dublin. The selection of the site, I stated, was a matter to be decided by Córas Iompair Éireann in consultation with the Gardaí and the Dublin Corporation, both of whom agreed to Store Street.

Mr. Morrissey

And the Deputy knew nothing at all about it? We are told that this organisation could have survived. It could not. The Deputy quoted from Sir James Milne and the Deputy taunted me that I had not given fuller quotations. I am going to give him some more. Let me start at the beginning. Deputy Lemass told us that the kernel of the trouble was the railways, that everybody knew that if we could solve the railway problem, then we would have solved our transport problem, that if we could bring about a situation on the railways when the revenue would meet the costs everything in the garden would be lovely. The Deputy said, and it was repeated by many of his colleagues, that Córas Iompair Éireann never got a chance. I am in entire agreement with the Deputy on that. It never did get a chance. I am going to tell the House some of the reasons why it never got a chance and some of the reasons why it could not operate as a railway organisation successfully, why it was made impossible for it to operate successfully.

Mr. Lemass

It had no coal. That is one reason.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is not going to get away with that.

Mr. Lemass

It was the principal reason.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy asserted, and nobody challenged him, that the kernel of our trouble was the railways. Will anybody challenge the assertion that in a railway system in this or any other country, the key man is the chief mechanical engineer? Is the House aware of the fact that Córas Iompair Éireann has not had a chief mechanical engineer since November, 1944? In other words, Córas Iompair Éireann never had a chief mechanical engineer. I want to know why? Was he ever sought? Did they look for him? Did they deliberately refrain from filling that post? Remember this immense outlay, these immense sums that were contemplated for capital expenditure. Deputy Cowan rolled them around his tongue yesterday evening— £12,000,000 for railway locomotives and rolling stock alone. Did the Deputy know, does he now know, or does Deputy Lemass know by whom that scheme was prepared? Who was the skilled adviser? Where was the expert sought for? Is the House aware that not only was there no chief mechanical engineer in charge of that railway system but that the engineering staff that was available to them in their own employment, some excellent professional men, were not consulted about it? Is the House aware that in connection with these projects, running into millions of pounds, for the provision of elaborate buildings, that not only was there no chief mechanical engineer there but for 12 months, owing to illness, there was no chief civil engineer or no deputy chief civil engineer and that the engineers who were available were not consulted in respect of these projects?

Sir James Milne! Here is an extract from Sir James Milne's Report, paragraph 20:—

"The position of chief mechanical engineer has been vacant since November, 1944, and the work of the department is not being, and cannot be, carried on efficiently under existing conditions. The chief engineer has been absent through illness for over 12 months, there is no deputy chief engineer and the present acting-chief engineer has only been deputising for a short time. The department should not be left without a chief or acting-chief for such long periods."

Here is another quotation from Sir James Milne, sub-paragraph (58):—

"A number of plans showing alterations to the permanent way, goods sheds, etc., have been prepared without consultation with the chief engineer and without prior discussion with the local traffic officers or the district engineer. This is very unsatisfactory."

Mr. Hickey

Whom did Córas Iompair Éireann consult?

Mr. Morrissey

We will come to that although I know it is hurtful to some Deputies to have to listen to it.

"Schemes for new works have been prepared and are being carried out by outside engineers and architects without consultation with the chief engineer who is likely to be responsible for future maintenance of the works. The duties of the chief engineer should include general collaboration in the preparation and carrying out of all schemes."

I shall come to some other parts of the report later and we shall find out something about the experts. Remember that Deputy Lemass cannot shake the responsibility off his shoulders. They were dealing with millions of pounds which were guaranteed by the taxpayers of this State, apart from the money they have belonging to the stockholders. It was decided to buy six huge Diesel locomotives and five Diesel locomotives for shunting. Who was the technical engineer that advised the purchase of those? Who was consulted about them? Was there any expert outside or inside this country, other than the people who were selling them, consulted about it? Whose was the decision that they were to be purchased? Who decided that they were suitable for the country? In passing, may I say that at the time it was decided to go ahead with the purchase of these Diesels, the decision was made because at the same time they were considering erecting a super-marshalling yard at Clondalkin. The super-marshalling yard was abandoned but the purchase of the Diesels went on. These Diesels, of course, could only be operated, in so far as they could be operated at all, in and around Dublin, because there is no accommodation, no equipment to deal with repairs to them anywhere outside Dublin. Fortunately, we are not going to have the five super Diesels at £80,000 each, which originally were to cost £52,000. We are not going to have these, but we have the five shunters, the smaller ones, and they are so economic that so far never more than three of them have been operating at the same time, because never fewer than two of them have been in the repair shops at the same time.

Who advised on Store Street? Who advised on the Broadstone—£927,000? Who was the expert consulted there? I can tell you that no technical man, no professional man in the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann was consulted. There are no written records there to show that they were consulted. Outside architects and engineers were consulted. From the point of view of the taxpayer Córas Iompair Éireann may be a bankrupt concern, but for the three or four years prior to the change of Government it was a gold mine in the real sense of the word for certain architects and engineers in this country. I have the figures here of the fees and expenses paid to architects and engineers over a period beginning in the early part of 1945 and these were not in connection with the supply of wagons or the provision of more carriages and locomotives. I am sorry to say that this is not a complete picture because there are balances to be paid to many of these gentlemen yet. The total paid in fees and expenses to these professional men who were engaged amounts to date—unfortunately, as I say, there is a lot to be added to it before they are finally paid for that work—to £149,039 17s. 11d.

Captain Cowan

How many roughly?

Mr. Morrissey

I shall give you a little more information. I may say in connection with the famous Glengarriff proposal, where the foundation will never be dug or the Minister will not have the pleasure even of digging the first sod, that so far we have paid to architects and quantity surveyors £18,360. I am not quite sure whether the balance still to be paid to these gentlemen is £6,000 or £9,000, but it is either one or the other.

We have heard a lot about Store Street. Deputies should keep in the back of their minds that I have been accused by Deputies opposite, including Deputy Childers, of being grossly unfair, of having made a grossly unfair attack on the former chairman of the company. I did not. I am, however, going to pin the blame on the shoulders where it should be properly pinned. For Store Street, the amount for the architect alone was £21,393 11s.

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister think that was too much?

Mr. Morrissey

I will let the House and the country judge.

Mr. Lemass

How many people were employed?

Mr. Morrissey

I will let the House and the country judge that. I am giving the facts.

Mr. Lemass

Is that architect still the Córas Iompair Éireann architect?

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Deputy want me to go looking for scalps?

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is throwing a few around. Is that architect the architect for Smithfield? How much will he get for that?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy was very glib for an hour and 40 minutes the other night trying deliberately to mislead the House and the country in this matter. This matter must be exposed because, when you get a sore like this, there is only one thing to do and that is to lance it. The Deputy kept it covered up for years.

Mr. Lemass

What is the name? Is there any reason why it should be concealed?

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy wants to give it, let him give it.

Mr. Childers

He is still employed by Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Morrissey

I have hardly started yet.

Mr. Lemass

Give all the facts.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course I will. I will give a lot more facts and figures than the Deputy ever dreamt would be disclosed or thought would see the light of day, but they will see the light of day. I am entitled to give the facts when the Deputy for an hour and 40 minutes lectured me and the Government and tried to give a completely distorted account of the position. It is easy to understand the interruptions. As I said, the amount for the architect for the Store Street premises was £21,393 11s.; for the consulting civil engineer, £14,637 5s. 4d.; for the quantity surveyor, £6,714 17s. 6d.; for the heating and ventilating engineer, £4,542 14s. The poor electrical engineer seems to have come out very badly, because all he got was £546.

Mr. Lemass

How many were employed?

Mr. Morrissey

The grand total in respect of Store Street alone was £47,835 3s. 3d. I am passing over a lot of comparatively small sums. But for the chassis and body shops at Broadstone the architect received £16,250. The Deputy can give the name if he likes.

Mr. Lemass

There is no reason why it should be concealed.

Mr. Morrissey

Not the slightest, if the Deputy wants to give it.

Mr. Lemass

What is the Minister's reluctance to give it?

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister has no reluctance to give it but, unlike the Deputy, the Minister does not want to attack people where they cannot reply.

Mr. Lemass

That is what you are doing.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not. I am giving facts and figures which the Deputy or nobody else can challenge.

Mr. Lemass

Is the Minister suggesting that these fees are too high?

Mr. Morrissey

I have not been sitting opposite you for 27 years without knowing you. You are not going to put me off the track of this. In connection with the chassis and body shops the amounts paid were: architect, £16,250; civil engineer—incidentally he is the same man who got £14,000—£11,010 18s. 3d. I will not weary the House by going through them all. However, there is another one here that I shall give. Chassis shops, Inchicore: architect, £13,000. He is the architect who got £21,000.

Captain Cowan

I hope there are not any auctioneers or solicitors in it.

Mr. Morrissey

You and I are in the wrong profession.

Mr. Lemass

You require brains to be in that.

Mr. Morrissey

I quite agree that it requires brains to bring that about. The Deputy is quite right. In relation to that part of the work, there was no absence of brains or intelligent direction.

Mr. Hickey

And that was done without consultation with the technical engineers of Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Morrissey

Of course.

Mr. Lemass

They are the principal firm of architects in Ireland—Messrs. Michael Scott and Son. They are still the architects to Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is not able to take it. Like a lot of people in this country, particularly in Fianna Fáil, the Deputy is a first-class hand at handing it out, but he is never able to take it. He is going to take it now.

Mr. Lemass

What are you trying to suggest?

Mr. Morrissey

I am trying to suggest this, that that demonstrates in itself that the board of Córas Iompair Éireann was not fit to remain the board of Córas Iompair Éireann. It demonstrates also that the Deputy was not doing his job as Minister for Industry and Commerce, as the person who was supposed to be the custodian of the millions of money for which the people of this country were held as guarantors. The Deputy talks about architects and that Córas Iompair Éireann never got a chance. It certainly did not.

Mr. Lemass

Is the suggestion that the fees were too high?

Mr. Morrissey

Not at all. I have a lot more things to say and I am not going to be diverted by the Deputy. May I again ask the Deputy, who were the transport experts who advised the work at the Broadstone, the cost of which was estimated at £927,000? If one is to be guided by other reliable estimates which were given, one can assume that that figure would be at least £1,500,000 by the time that work was finished. Were there any transport experts consulted about that? Who decided on what was to be planned there? Who decided what was required there? I assert that there were no reports asked for or got from the engineers in the employment of Córas Iompair Éireann. I know this, that Sir James Milne — the Deputy if he wishes can sneer at the Englishman and is entitled to his sneer —sent an acknowledged transport expert to the Broadstone. He told him what the Broadstone was required for by Córas Iompair Éireann, and he asked him to give him an estimate of what it would cost to provide at the Broadstone the accommodation which Córas Iompair Éireann said they required. The expert sent there specially for that purpose came back and reported to Sir James Milne—it is included in the report — that the accommodation could be provided there at a cost not exceeding £100,000 —not £1,000,000.

Deputy Childers gets up and chides me for daring to suggest that there was any extravagance, any mismanagement or any misdirection. Does the Deputy know—he does, of course—that this company in their wisdom decided to spend approximately £1,000,000 in Glengarriff on the erection of an hotel?

Mr. Lemass

They did not.

Mr. Morrissey

They not only decided that——

Mr. Lemass

They decided not to do it.

Mr. Morrissey

You see the Deputy is too much of a smart Alec. They decided that, with or without the Deputy's knowledge or permission. In any case, they decided to go to this extent, that they dropped it. Why did they drop it?

Mr. Lemass

When they found out what it was going to cost.

Mr. Morrissey

In any case it is going to cost us £35,000, and before that they went down and bought Roche's Hotel and levelled it to the ground. Is there any man in this House, including Deputy Lemass, who if he were going to build an hotel in Glengarriff himself, would first of all buy a hotel that was there, pay £10,400 for it, and level it to the ground before he had made any effort whatever to ascertain what he was going to have to pay to put a new one in its place? But they went further with it. They invited tenders for it and the lowest tender they got for the bare shell was £507,000. I want to suggest to this House that a responsible person in charge of that company who could conceive that sort of plan was out of touch with realities. Either that, or he had been told by the Minister that the money did not matter. Let us conceive a £1,000,000 hotel in Glengarriff, a six-storey luxury hotel. It would need to make the whole year round a net profit of £1,000 a week to pay the interest on £1,000,000. Is it any wonder——

Mr. Lemass

That they decided against it.

Mr. Morrissey

They only decided against it in the middle of 1947 when they found that, notwithstanding the fact that the Deputy, as Minister, gave them permission to increase their charges so as to bring in an additional £1,000,000, they were going to lose another £1,000,000. The Deputy is not going to get away with it. This company was bankrupt at the time of the change of Government. No one knows that better than Deputy Lemass. No one knows better than Deputy Lemass that permission to increase their fares on the 20th February, 1948, would not have saved them. No one knows better than Deputy Lemass that that company could not afford to go on with these hare-brained, mad, extravagant schemes.

Mr. Lemass

Such as?

Mr. Morrissey

Such as the Broadstone, such as Glengarriff and such as Store Street.

Mr. Lemass

And the chassis factory?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes, the chassis factory. I am delighted the Deputy has reminded me of it. Will you tell me who was the expert who advised that?

Mr. Lemass

Are you saying that I was strongly in favour of it? I was, and I promised them every encouragement and support.

Mr. Morrissey

That is the difference between Deputy Lemass and most other people. Deputy Lemass is quite convinced that he knows everything about everything, and he wants nobody's advice. The trouble with me is that I am one of the few people in this House or probably in the country, who do not believe that they know everything about everything. I am one of the few people in the House who know quite well that I am not infallible, and I am always anxious to seek for and look for advice.

On that, let me say that if Deputy Lemass had relied more on expert opinion, on the opinion of people experienced in transport matters in 1944 before he brought in his Bill, this Bill might not be before the House at all to-day, and that the transport of this country would not be in the state of chaos that it is. Of course, there was no expert. I am not condemning the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann because he had not railway experience; I am not condemning the general manager of Córas Iompair Éireann because he had not railway experience. I would not think it would be essential for them, but what I am condemning the chairman and the company for is this, that, not having it themselves, they refused to look for it or seek it, or take much advantage of it when it was at their disposal.

Deputy Derrig, an ex-Minister, and a colleague of Deputy Lemass, let the cat out of the bag the other night when he said that Córas Iompair Éireann in their general policy acted on directions from the Government. Are we to take it that it was on the direction of Deputy Lemass that the chassis shop was started? Are we to take it that it was on the direction of Deputy Lemass, and on his authority that they agreed to the terms laid down by Leylands? Does the Deputy want me to go into that agreement and to tell him that he agreed to something in that agreement that he did not agree to in relation to other firms? The Deputy knows that it was a one-sided agreement, entirely in Leyland's favour. The agreement is there.

I want to know, because the people are going to lose thousands, on whose authority or advice were five Diesel electrics purchased at a cost of £80,000 each. Was there any technical advice? Was there any expert, any skilled engineer, any locomotive or mechanical engineer, native or foreign, consulted and, if so, who was he? I am entitled to suggest this, that they were bought entirely out of the head of the chairman, perhaps assisted by the Minister.

I want to give the facts; I want to give a clear picture here. I want to put all this thing behind me once and for all. I hope I will never have to refer to it again. I refrained from going into this matter in my introductory speech. I had no intention, although perhaps I was unfair to the House in that decision, of going into it in detail in my reply to this debate. But I am not going to allow the Deputy and his colleagues to put it across the House, or attempt to put it across the country, that they left us with a sound concern. There was never such an organisation in the history of any country. There was a board in charge of the biggest undertaking in this country, employing approximately 22,000 people, and the members of that board were never sent an agenda for any meeting; those members never had an agenda placed before them on the table at a board meeting.

Mr. Lemass

What a crisis that was!

Mr. Morrissey

I am not finished. There was a deputy chairman on that board, but there could not be a meeting in the absence of the chairman. What the function of the deputy chairman was on a board that could not hold a meeting in the absence of the chairman, I do not know. He said, incidentally, that all those capital undertakings had the full approval of the entire board and that they would be prepared to give an answer at an early date. I am waiting yet to hear them answer for it. Not only did the members of the board not get an agenda but, in relation to these capital projects, running into hundreds of thousands of pounds—some of them into millions of pounds—not one of them was put before the members in a properly detailed written submission.

Mr. Lemass

As they do it in England?

Mr. Morrissey

As we do it in Ireland.

Captain Cowan

They were a board of duds, anyway.

Mr. Morrissey

Do Deputies get the mentality here? Here are a board and a chairman dealing with approximately £18,000,000 of capital and with the livelihood of 22,000 people and they are supposed to be considering a project involving the expenditure of £1,000,000 in Store Street. Deputy Lemass makes a cheap comment when I say that that was never put before them in writing—"as they do it in England." Is there any group of men in this country in any business who would take from their chief executive officer a proposal to spend on a capital project an immense sum without having setting out in writing why it was going to be done, what it would achieve, what it would cost, what it would earn? What I want the House to grasp is this, that those immense sums, running into millions of pounds, were passed by the chairman and the board on a mere verbal say-so across the table in the board room.

I do not want unduly to delay the House. I have all the facts and figures here and they cannot be controverted. I have nothing further to say in that matter. I have plenty of material if I desired to use it. I could produce a dozen further examples if the House wanted them, but I do not want to weary Deputies. I will say this, that, having regard to those ill-considered plans, having regard to the almost total disregard for money, having regard to the fact that there was no proper check of the amounts, having regard to the fact that there was no chief mechanical engineer since before Córas Iompair Éireann was set up and that there was no effort ever made to get one, having regard to the fact that the company was without not merely a chief mechanical engineer but for over 12 months was without a chief civil engineer, having regard to the fact that they were not consulted about any of those projects and having regard to the fact that they were prepared to spend unnecessary millions, is it any wonder that they reached the stage when they were unable to provide enough to pay the interest on the debentures and that they reached the stage when they had not as much left in the till as would pay the wages of their employees?

I have given the House some picture —not the complete one—of the situation that was there and the position which this Government had to face. In the light of that, does the House, or any responsible member of it, think that we could do otherwise than seek the assistance of the best railway men and road men who were available to us? My only regret, for the sake of the transport concern and for the sake of the stockholders and the taxpayers who are guaranteeing the debentures, is that those experts were not got five years earlier.

Mr. Lemass

Why have you turned down all the recommendations?

Mr. Morrissey

I have not.

Mr. Lemass

You have. You are going to change the Bill, are you?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is so clever and so smart that he could take the entire transport system and put it into one measure. I can quite conceive, as he demonstrated so admirably in 1944, that he would bring that in here and tell the House: "This is the complete solution of all our transport difficulties." The Deputy should make up his mind. Part of his time he spends denouncing me for engaging English experts to uncover the mess and to open up the way to clearing it. May I venture to suggest to the Deputy that he would have the very same sneer if they were American, or Spanish, or French, or Belgian, or Swiss experts?

Mr. Lemass

I suppose you would be satisfied as long as they were foreign?

Mr. Morrissey

May I remind the Deputy that for the five years during which he was responsible for this undertaking he had no chief mechanical engineer, native or foreign. May I remind the Deputy neither he, nor his chairman, nor his general manager consulted with or sought the advice of the Irish engineers who were in their employment. The Deputy will not get away with that kind of cheap jibe — that he is the only person who is concerned as to whether the experts are English or Irish. I was put here to do a job. I was put here to do that job to the best of my ability and to ensure that it was done in the best way in which I could have it done. I conceived it to be my duty to do with that company what I would have done with it if it were my own personal property. I conceived it to be my duty to do with it what Deputy Lemass would do to-morrow morning if he were dealing with his own personal property. If Deputy Lemass were dealing with his own personal property and he knew that he could get in Britain a better expert than he could get here, or anywhere else, he would go to Britain for that expert.

I must confess that it sounds well to get a cheap jibe across the floor of the House—the cheap jibe that I got English experts—when one remembers that neither the Deputy nor his appointees ever got either English or Irish experts and, in so far as they had Irish experts available in the country, refused to consult them or take their advice. I do not want to pursue that matter any further. I want to get to the Bill. I want to make perfectly clear what I said at the outset: this Bill does not purport to do more than to take the first essential step that must be taken now to carry us some way along the road towards bringing our national transport system out of the chaos in which we find it to-day.

So far as the other parts of Sir James Milne's Report are concerned — and this ought to appeal to the Deputy who has such little faith in foreign experts—I want to have Sir James Milne's Report, and everybody else's, checked by the new board and by the responsible technical officers at their disposal. I want it checked in the light of many things. I want it checked in the light of the fact that, in my opinion, this country cannot do without a railway system and must have a railway system. I want it checked and examined in the light of the fact that I will not take a hasty decision in relation to road transport which might cause hardship and injustice to people earning their livelihood through such transport. I believe in having the problems examined first and then taking action. What has landed us in the mess in which we find ourselves to-night is the fact that in the past they acted first and did not even proceed to examination after the event.

I would have no faith in the board if they had not at their disposal men of outstanding ability on the mechanical and civil engineering side occupying the chief technical positions both in road and rail transport. I do not believe for a moment that I would find a perfect solution to our national transport problem, or to any other aspect of our national economy, by establishing a board constituted entirely of experts.

Captain Cowan

Will there be any experts on the board?

Mr. Morrissey

That is another question. In any case, whatever board is there, experts will be available to them. There will be experts at the head of the various branches of transport in order to ensure that no further money will be wasted or squandered. I got a lecture about engines and rolling stock. I do not want to go too deeply into that, but I do want to say that this board has improved the services throughout the country very considerably within the past 12 months. They have improved the railway services, apart altogether from the road services. The only limit to the improvements effected—and this is a definite limit—was the fact that we had not enough carriages to put more trains at the disposal of the public. When one remembers the millions that were to be spent on Glengarriff and Store Street and all the other places——

Mr. Lemass

And not on carriages?

Mr. Morrissey

Not one carriage has been built since 1945.

Mr. Lemass

They could not be built during the war.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has the war on the brain.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has very conveniently forgotten all about it.

Mr. Morrissey

They could not build either Store Street or Glengarriff during the war.

Mr. Lemass

They could not even repair a carriage?

Mr. Morrissey

They could not get carriages but they got five Diesel electric locomotives at a cost of £50,000 each.

Mr. Lemass

They did not get those either.

Mr. Morrissey

They did not and they will not. That is the position. Deputies on both sides of the House have been trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Every Deputy, including Deputy Lemass and Deputy Derrig, has stated that we want an efficient and economic transport system and that we must have it. Deputies quoted sections of the Bill to me. I notice none of them quoted Section 14. That section imposes a statutory obligation on the new board to provide an efficient and economical system.

Captain Cowan

What if they do not?

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy and some other Deputies get their way they will not because they could not.

Captain Cowan

But if they do not?

Mr. Lemass

That will be just too bad.

Mr. Morrissey

I want to show the inconsistency of Deputies. We all want an efficient and economic system. None of us wants a drain on the taxpayer, a subsidy. We all want a situation where, if Córas Iompair Éireann does not make a profit, it will at least pay its way. But, in the same breath, Deputies insist that, whether it is losing money or making money, whether it is economic or uneconomic, the branch line must be kept there. That is all right.

Mr. Lemass

That is what Sir James Milne says.

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy would only have a little bit of patience. He is not going to get a chance of one little smile, much less a sneer in this debate to-night. Deputies also say that it is unfair to allow the board to fix its own charges but, at the same time, they say: "You dare not interfere with the right of every other transport operator in the country to fix his own charge."

Mr. C. Lehane

That is not so. That line was not taken by many of us.

Mr. Morrissey

With all respect to the Deputy, this does not say he was in the minority.

Mr. C. Lehane

In the majority.

Captain Cowan

The suggestion was not made.

Mr. Morrissey

It was made by several Deputies and, let me say, from all sides. One Deputy on the other side of the House suggested that it was a social service and that the branch lines should be kept open and that there should be no question—that it should not be adverted to—as to whether they were economic or not. Deputy Lemass told the House that this Bill was a Bill to close branch lines. It is not. Unlike Deputy Lemass, I have never tried to ram either my own views or Bills or sections of Bills down the necks of the members of this House. I feel, and I would not be fair if I did not say it, that it is unfair to expect the new transport board to provide an efficient and economic transport service if, at the same time, the House insists upon the operation of services that cannot be made economic. If the House insists on refusing to let them adjust their charges and, at the same time, insists that their competitors must be free not merely to charge what they like but free to work any hours they like and free to pay any wages they like——

Captain Cowan

Suppose the board decides to close four branch lines? What will happen?

Mr. Morrissey

Let me come to that.

Captain Cowan

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

My view is that if we want an efficient, economic service—if we want to give Córas Iompair Éireann an even break with other transport undertakings and other transport users —it is unfair to tie their hands in respect both of charges and of operating branch lines, on which they are bound to and must lose money.

Captain Cowan

That is bad nationally.

Mr. C. Lehane

Does the Minister not realise how essential it is to keep branch lines open?

Mr. Morrissey

If the Deputy would only have patience. Perhaps I am not developing my reply as rapidly as I should. I am trying to put the case fairly and evenly. I am trying to do that because—sitting here, as I have been for the past four days—I have been impressed by the fact that Deputies from all sides of the House, and of every Party, from town and country, have, apparently, genuine fears that if the company are given the powers which are in this Bill in relation either to branch lines or to charges the powers will be abused.

Mr. C. Lehane

Will the Minister allay those fears?

Mr. Morrissey

I have not those fears. However, I recognise that they are there, because the same thing came from all sides of the House. I am prepared, on the Committee Stage, to go a certain distance to meet Deputies and to remove those fears. However, I want to make this clear. I am not prepared to go to the extent of bringing about a position that this national transport undertaking is going to be the plaything of politics in the future, and certainly I am not prepared to go so far, as many Deputies asked me to go, that, in all its operations, including, as one Deputy said, "its day-to-day operations", it should be amenable to this House. It would be utterly impossible for any national undertaking, no matter how brilliantly staffed or led, to be a success if it was going to be amenable in its every-day actions to this House and that every Deputy in this House, either now or in the future, would be free at any time to question any detail of its administration; to raise it on the Adjournment; to attack certain individual people. I am not going to go that distance.

Captain Cowan

We do not do that in respect of the Post Office. Parliament has sense.

Mr. Morrissey

Sometimes I wonder.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister listened for 15½ hours to the speeches which were made by Deputies. Surely the Minister is entitled to have his say now without interruption?

Mr. Morrissey

The case is made, on two legs, for the maintenance of branch lines, whether they are economic or not. Sometimes the two legs become one. The first is that it may be in the national interest. I can see that. It may be in the national interest and it may be a very sound insurance for the State——

A Deputy

From the point of view of defence.

Mr. Morrissey

——from defence, or any other point you like—even though, as a commercial proposition, it does not pay. I am prepared to meet that. However, I would suggest to the House that Deputies ought to consider whether the appropriate Department of State, on whose advice a particular line is retained at a loss—because it is considered in the national interest—so that we can see exactly where we are, should not provide in its own Estimate the subsidy necessary to make up the difference between the loss and the earnings. Further, if the railways, on the second leg, are so valuable—if the branch lines are so valuable to the people in the particular localities—the people concerned might consider whether their local authorities would be prepared to subscribe to make up the difference of the loss. I am satisfied, not merely from what I have been told in the House here but from representations which have been made to me by railway users outside, that there are definite fears that there might be an abuse if the board got an entirely free hand in relation to charges and to the closing of branch lines. So far as I know, let me say this in passing, there is no intention at the moment on the part of the board or the present chairman to close branch lines.

Captain Cowan

That is the present board.

Mr. Morrissey

Wait, do not be so impatient. Deputy Lemass told us that it was a Bill to close branch lines. Do not forget that Deputy Derrig told us —and Deputy Lemass agreed—that the Fianna Fáil Government directed the policy of Córas Iompair Éireann. I wonder what would have happened the branch lines if the change of Government had not come about?

Mr. Lemass

There would have been a public inquiry. That was set out in the Act of 1944.

Mr. Morrissey

Camouflage. It would not be the first bit of camouflage you used.

Mr. Lemass

We would have taken responsibility here.

Mr. Morrissey

Wait. The Deputy knows I am going to read. He does not want to hear and he does not want the members of this House to hear. You see here is what the Deputy's appointee, the former chairman, said in his letter to me on 13th March:—

"The company has 861 miles of branch lines—all single track. With few exceptions these lines never made a profit and, with the development of road transport, are all now losing and must continue to lose heavily unless excessive rates and fares are charged for the small volume of traffic offering.

Maintenance of these lines has been in arrears for years and, with numerous speed restrictions on every one of them, they have, by a process of patching, been kept in a state of repair consistent only with the minimum requirements of safety. To put them in order would need an expenditure of £3,250,000 spread over five years. It would be in the nature of capital expenditure as normal maintenance would continue to be necessary and under no circumstances could it be justified.

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."

Ask yourselves what would have been the fate of the branch lines if there had not been a change of Government.

Mr. Lemass

But you promised to open them all. We did not. You did.

Mr. Morrissey

Mind you, we may do it yet. The trouble with the Deputy is that he is too complimentary to me altogether. He seems to expect me to do in 16 months what he did not do in 16 years.

Mr. Lemass

Are you going to open them or not? Yes or no? Do you agree with that?

Mr. Morrissey

I suggest to the Deputy that he ought to ask his colleague for a straight answer.

I propose to bring in an amendment on the Committee Stage to provide what was there before, that is, a tribunal to which the question of charges and the question of the branch lines can be referred and before which all who are interested in the branch lines can and will be heard.

Captain Cowan

The final decision will be given by them?

Mr. Morrissey

By the tribunal.

Captain Cowan

Not by the Minister?

Mr. Morrissey

I sincerely hope not. Let me make this clear. I will try to frame an amendment to meet what I think the Deputy has in mind. I have no desire in the world, despite what Deputy Lemass talks about, to shed responsibility. I have no desire to run away from responsibility. But I think it would be undesirable if it can be avoided that this transport undertaking which has not a monopoly——

Captain Cowan

It should have.

Mr. Lemass

It has a monopoly of public transport services.

Mr. Morrissey

It has not.

Mr. Lemass

There are a few licensed hauliers——

Mr. Morrissey

Nonsense. That is the sort of quibbling you get. There are something in the neighbourhood of 20,000 commercial vehicles registered in this State.

Mr. Lemass

They are not plying for hire.

Mr. Morrissey

They are carrying goods. Do not be talking about a monopoly.

Mr. Lemass

There is a monopoly of public transport services.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy may be deceiving himself but he is certainly not deceiving anybody else. There are 20,000 commercial vehicles registered here and that is double the number that was registered in 1939. Out of 20,000 registered commercial vehicles Córas Iompair Éireann is operating 450. Monopoly my eye!

Captain Cowan

I thought they had 800.

Mr. Morrissey

Eight hundred between Córas Iompair Éireann, the Grand Canal Company and the Great Northern Railway. I do not know whether Deputies want me to cover all the various points which have been raised all over the place——

Captain Cowan

Will the Minister finish about the amendment which he proposes?

Mr. Morrissey

I am telling Deputies that what I am proposing to do is to introduce an amendment about a tribunal. I will see if I can take that further. I know from Deputies here and from representations which have been made to me that railway users have certain apprehensions and I am prepared to put a cushion between the board and the public.

Captain Cowan

In view of the fact that certain interests might be involved——

Mr. Morrissey

That aspect will have to be adverted to.

Mr. Lemass

Let the Deputy raise it in the Dáil.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy took whatever steps he could to take care that nothing was raised in the Dáil that could be avoided.

Mr. Lemass

Nonsense. You could not close the branch lines without discussions.

Mr. Morrissey

But the Deputy closed them. I would prefer if Deputies would agree with me that the detailed points which have been made should be discussed on the Committee Stage on the particular section to which they apply. Because I do not think that on a Second Reading like this which ran over four days and when all sorts of points were raised dealing with every aspect of the transport situation from all sides of the House I could adequately deal with them in a reply such as this and I do not think it would be fair to Deputies that I should reply to some points and, I will not say ignore others because I have no desire to ignore them, but forget or overlook points which have been raised by other Deputies. I am not trying to get away from them but I think it would be more useful if the points were put again on the Committee Stage and debated in their own context and on their own section. If the House is satisfied I do not propose to delay the House any longer beyond saying that I honestly believe that we are not setting out on the right road towards an attempt at least to provide a solution for our people in the way of a decent public transport system.

I go further and I say that in a national transport system profit making should not be the first consideration, that what should be the first consideration of the board and what I hope will be the first consideration will be decent services for our community here at home, the best services they can give them. Naturally, from the point of view of the taxpayer we hope that the system will be operated as economically as will be consistent with efficiency and good service. Let me say in reply to Deputies who made a special plea on behalf of the backward areas that I hope that this public service, this new national transport service, would endeavour to provide much better and more frequent services for the backward areas than they have enjoyed up to the present. Even here in the city the city buses have been extended out into new areas and miles beyond their previous termini in order to facilitate the people living out there, although we have not made any additional profit but actually provided those extended services at a loss. I have that view and in so far as I should have any function in either giving a direction or making suggestions to the new board when it is set up, my suggestion to them would be that their principal duty would be to provide efficient and effective services. They are naturally bound to do their best beyond that, if not at a profit, at least without substantial loss to the taxpayer. Now that we have cleared the road, so to speak, I believe the House will approach this Bill, on the Committee and subsequent Stages, and discuss it purely as a transport measure and entirely on its merits. As far as I am concerned, I am going to fight for what I think is essential if the board is to get a chance, and at the same time I am prepared to meet, as far as I possibly can, any legitimate case that is put forward from any side of the House.

Captain Cowan

Would the Minister care, before he sits down, to deal with the suggestions made in the debate in regard to the control of the competition by private hauliers?

Mr. Morrissey

I have said quite clearly that I am not prepared to bring proposals to control private lorry owners or licensed hauliers or any other road users until such time as the position has been examined in the light of the existing situation, in the light of Sir James Milne's Report and in the light of the task which will be set for the new board. When I get a recommendation from a board that will have at its disposal, not merely Sir James Milne's Report but the services of competent professional transport men whose advice they can seek, then—if I happen to be here—I will certainly bring the proposals before the House. I prefer that the position should be examined first and, when it is seen clearly, that the proposals should be formulated, rather than that the proposals should be formulated first and the position examined afterwards.

Mr. McGrath

Would the Minister give any guarantee that Sir James Milne's recommendation to close down the heavy workshop in Cork will not be carried out?

Mr. Morrissey

I do not know how to reconcile the views of Deputy McGrath and Deputy Lemass. Deputy Lemass is blaming me because I would not guarantee——

Mr. Lemass

I am not blaming the Minister in the least.

Mr. Morrissey

Does Deputy McGrath want an answer?

Mr. McGrath

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Lemass wants me to give effect to every one of Sir James Milne's recommendations——

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Morrissey

——and Deputy McGrath is afraid I will give effect to one of them. I can assure Deputies McGrath and Lemass that, whether recommended by Sir James Milne or anyone else, no recommendation which, in the opinion of the Transport Board, their advisers and the Government of this country, would be detrimental to the national interest or the transport interest will be taken.

Mr. Lemass

That is very informative.

Mr. Morrissey

It is more informative than——

Mr. McGrath

Would the Minister answer the question I asked?

Mr. Morrissey

I have told the Deputy that no action will be taken to close down anything. The Deputy does not want an answer. He is more concerned in trying to secure a little petty point than he is about those employed in Cork. If the Deputy's Party had remained in power, they would not be there now.

Mr. Lemass

The sky would fall.

Mr. Morrissey

Doomed!

Mr. Maguire

Would the Minister give any guarantee that he will ensure that, in the new transport organisation, native fuel will be used and that the unemployment caused by the refusal in the last few years to use our native coal will be ended?

Mr. C. Lehane

The refusal even to test it.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Maguire is quite aware that I have made every effort to secure that all our State sponsored companies would to the limit use native fuel.

Mr. Maguire

Deputy Maguire is well aware that, despite various representations to the Minister's Department in the last few years, no result has been obtained as far as the use of Arigna coal is concerned. If that is the only prospect the Minister can put before us, I must conclude that the Minister has no idea of using it.

Mr. Morrissey

To be fair to the Department and to my predecessor, the Deputy knows quite well that coal from Arigna was used.

Mr. Maguire

Since when?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy knows it was used even by Córas Iompair Éireann.

Mr. Maguire

I know it was used during the emergency.

Mr. Morrissey

And subsequent to it, and before it.

Mr. Maguire

To what extent?

Mr. Lemass

Down to a minimum quality.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 59.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Brennan, Joseph P.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Dunne, Seán.
• Esmonde, Sir John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Finucane, Patrick.
• Fitzpatrick, Michael.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Flynn, John.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Halliden, Patrick J.
• Hickey, James.
• Hogan, Patrick.
• Hughes, Joseph.
• Keane, Seán.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Pattison, James P.
• Redmond, Bridget M.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Roddy, Joseph.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sheehan, Michael.
• Sheldon, William A.W.
• Spring, Daniel.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Timoney, John J.
• Tully, John.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Brennan, Thomas.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colley, Harry.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor Mary
• Davern, Michael J.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Friel, John.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, James.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lahiffe, Robert.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, John.
• McCann, John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• McGrath, Patrick.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Patrick J.
• Moran, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Motion declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 16th November.