Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1949

Vol. 118 No. 11

In Committee on Finance. - Vote 58—Transport and Marine Services.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Morrissey)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £4,091,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1950, for certain Transport Services; for Grants for Harbours; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1947, and the Foreshore Act, 1933 (No. 12 of 1933) ); for certain payments in respect of Compensation, including the cost of medical treatment (No. 19 of 1946); for expenses in connection with the issue of Medals and Certificates; and for the Coast Life Saving Service.

This Supplementary Estimate on Vote 58—Transport and Marine Services—is required solely for Córas Iompair Éireann. The total amount is £4,091,000. This is a huge amount of money and the House will, I am sure, expect me to give a full statement of the reasons why such a sum is now required. The financial position of the company has been examined very closely by the senior officers of my Department and of the Department of Finance.

The sum of £4,091,000 can for the purposes of examination be divided into three parts, namely:—

	£
Interest on debentures	770,000
Working losses	857,000
Capital expenditure	2,464,000
	£4,091,000

Taking the first item, namely, debenture interest, £770,000. This figure is made up of £561,000 which fell due during the year 1948 and the first half of 1949, and which the Exchequer has already paid under guarantee given in accordance with Section 18 of the Transport Act, 1944. The balance of £209,000 is required to meet debenture interest which will fall due on the 15th January next.

The second item—£857,000 to meet working losses, includes the following:—

£66,000 now due to the Revenue Commissioners for income-tax under Schedule D and a further £33,000 which will become due before the 31st March next, making a total of £99,000 for income-tax.

£306,000 due to the trustees of the Wages Pension Fund and the Salaried Staff Pension Fund. This figure includes not only the company's contributions to these pension funds but also the contributions which the company collected from the employees and salaried officers, and which were not handed over to the trustees. In simple words, the company, while not paying its own share of the contributions to the pension funds, spent the moneys which had been deducted from wages and salaries and is now obliged to make good the payments to the funds. The moneys due represent payments which should have been made to the funds during the years 1945, '46, '47, '48 and '49.

£160,000 which will have to be paid in advance on 1st January next as motor taxation.

These three, namely, income-tax, pension fund contributions and motor taxation, account for £565,000 out of the £857,000 required to meet working losses. The balance of £292,000 might be regarded as the ordinary excess of expenditure over revenue, and covers not only the calendar year of 1949, but also the period from the 1st January next up to the 31st March next.

The third item—which is the largest —and that is £2,464,000, is required to meet payments of a capital nature which have been made or which will have to be made before the 31st March next. This figure includes the following: provided during this year on new omnibuses, £504,000; new lorries, £200,000; renewal of permanent way, £189,000; new wagons, £35,000; making in all £928,000. Included also is a figure of £352,000 which will be required between 1st January next and 31st March, 1950, for further expenditure of the same nature. This brings the figure up to £1,280,000.

The balance of the sum required for capital expenditure, namely, £1,184,000, includes capital expenditure on work of the nature of new premises at Store Street; new chassis shop and tool room; new diesel electric locomotives; new diesel electric freighters, etc., which had been undertaken and which had reached a stage where it would not have been economical to suspend the work.

It includes also payments made to architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, etc., in connection with such projects as: Proposed hotel at Glengarriff, proposed reconstruction of Kingsbridge Terminus, proposed new central railway station at Amiens Street, and several other proposals which fortunately were never proceeded with but which, however, involved the company in expenses which constituted a large part of the £149,000 paid to architects, engineers, etc. mentioned in my reply on the Second Reading of the Transport Bill.

I might say that bad as the position is, it could have been very much worse. On the eve of the publication of the Milne Report I had to bring pressure to bear on the company to cancel an order which had been placed for 93 locomotive boilers at a cost of over £250,000. I had practically to order the company not to proceed with a contract for new shops at Broadstone for which tenders had been accepted and which would have cost nearly £1,000,000. This further expenditure of £1,250,000 was being undertaken at a time when the company, according to its own report, was losing money at the rate of £5,000 per day.

The House will observe that except for providing for the completion of such constructional work as it would be uneconomical to suspend, the present capital expenditure, and that provided for next year, is mainly for the provision of transport vehicles, such as buses, lorries, carriages and wagons, and permanent way which, it is hoped, will be revenue-producing assets.

Deputies will expect me to give some indication of what the prospects for the future of Córas Iompair Éireann are. In so far as capital expenditure is concerned, I can assure the House that no capital works will be undertaken except in so far as they are essential to the maintenance of the undertaking or are of an unquestionably remunerative nature.

The question of operating losses continues to be a source of very serious concern. Even though rates and fares have been increased by varying amounts, the latest estimate available to me is that, after allowing for depreciation and the payment of debenture interest, revenue in 1949 will fall short of expenditure by £1,078,000. I need hardly say that this is most disquieting even though it represents an improvement of about £346,000 on 1948.

I should say that the company have been fortunate in securing in a consultative capacity the services of several transport experts and with their aid and advice there is every reason to believe that services can be so improved that they will attract back to the undertaking much of the traffic which should rightly belong to it. The company has sufficient rolling stock and staff to handle much more traffic than it is getting at present. A good share of this traffic is being carried by the 20,000 odd commercial vehicles which are not owned by the company. If additional traffic could be found this would materially improve the position and assist the efforts to eliminate losses. The level of rates and fares will be kept under constant review by the new board but it is generally recognised that increases beyond a certain level have the effect of diverting traffic away from the public transport system.

The company's wages bill represents approximately 65 per cent. of its gross receipts. Compared with pre-war, there has been an increase in the number of workers employed in the undertaking from 17,000 to nearly 21,000. In so far as wages are concerned, the hands of the new board will be tied to the extent that wage disputes are settled by the railway conciliation machinery or by the Labour Court. The decision has already been taken by the Government that there will be no dismissals on grounds of redundancy. There is, undoubtedly, redundancy in certain branches of railway employment. Sir James Milne estimated this at 5 per cent. and said that a saving of £300,000 per annum could be obtained by retrenchments. This redundancy will, of course, work itself out in time through normal wastage, but the process is slow and in many cases transfers of redundant workers from one type of work to another may not be practicable. The prices of fuel, rails, sleepers, and the other materials required by a transport company have increased by varying amounts—in some cases by as much as 300 per cent. In many cases supplies are restricted and alternative sources are not available.

I think it is clear that only by attracting additional traffic to its rail and road services and by economies in operation can improvement in the company's financial situation be achieved.

I feel also that it is my duty to warn the House that spectacular changes in the financial situation of Córas Iompair Éireann cannot be expected overnight. Improvement will be gradual, and I propose to make in the annual Estimates provision which I confidently hope will be a progressively diminishing one, for such losses as are expected to occur during the first years of the new board.

That is the explanation I have to offer to the House in asking it to vote this huge sum, over £4,000,000. I can assure the House that it is with regret and reluctance that I have come to ask it for such a huge amount. The situation is as I have outlined it. The commitments are there and they have to be paid. There is no way of getting the money except from this House. I accordingly move the Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

The statement which the Minister so hastily read was not merely an inadequate explanation of the need for this Estimate but, in so far as we could follow it, it was completely dishonest. The Minister is, in fact, proposing to ask the taxpayer to provide a subsidy for the new Transport Board.

Mr. Morrissey

To pay your debts.

Mr. Lemass

And he represents that subsidy as a liquidation of losses incurred by the old company. Dishonest is the only word I can use to describe it. The Minister spoke about commitments. There is no obligation, so far as legislation is concerned, on this House to vote, in respect of any payment made by the Minister for Finance on foot of the guarantee given by him in accordance with the provisions of the 1944 Act, a sum in excess of £360,000. Is that not correct?

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy has the wrong brief.

Mr. Lemass

In that case we must deal with the matter more fully. The obligation upon the Minister for Finance is set out in Section 18 of the Transport Act of 1944. That is an obligation to make good the interest on the guaranteed debentures, if the company is unable to do so out of its revenue. The only amount advanced by the Minister for Finance, on foot of that guarantee, up to the 31st March last, was £360,000, which represents the debenture interest which fell due in 1948. Prior to 1948 there was no advance. The moneys advanced by the Minister for Finance under the provisions of that section are repayable by the company. If they are not repaid within 12 months, then the Minister is obliged to come to the House and to ask the House to vote the money. But, even if the House votes the money, the liability to repay the amount advanced remains upon the company.

The only amount advanced up to 31st March, 1949, and, therefore, the only amount that has to be repaid in this year—it may not even have to be repaid in this year under the provisions of the 1944 Act—out of voted moneys, is £360,000. Is that not correct?

Mr. Morrissey

No, and the Deputy knows that.

Mr. Lemass

I wonder if we could get this matter clarified in another way? The Minister has said, as I understand his interjection, that the Minister for Finance advanced, on foot of his guarantee to Córas Iompair Éireann, prior to 31st March last, an amount in excess of £360,000.

Mr. Morrissey

I have said the Deputy is wrong, as he usually is.

Mr. Lemass

I wonder could we have the attendance of the Minister for Finance in connection with this matter? Under the Act of 1944 the Minister for Finance is obliged to lay upon the Table a statement prior to the 31st March of each year, setting forth the amount he has advanced on foot of his guarantee to Córas Iompair Éireann. He laid such a statement on the Table of the House in March of this year and in that statement he set forth particulars of the advance of £360,000 to Córas Iompair Éireann in respect of debenture interest, the interest upon certain debentures payable last year. He declared that he advanced no other sums. In the previous year, 1948, he laid a similar statement concerning 1947, in which he said he made no advance.

So far as this House is aware, from the statements given to it officially by the Minister for Finance, what I have said is correct. The total amount advanced to 31st March, 1949, on foot of the guarantee given by the Minister for Finance, was £360,000. Any other advances made to the company have been made since and without the knowledge of the Dáil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce says that is not correct. I am sure, if he looks into this matter before he replies to the debate, he will find his interjection was misleading and wrong, just as his original statement was misleading.

If an advance was made by the Minister for Finance in 1948 in respect of debenture interest, then undoubtedly after 12 months the House must be asked by him to make good the advance out of voted moneys. The obligation on the House under legislation is, therefore, to vote £360,000. It is presented instead with a bill for £4,000,000.

The Minister has stated that the amount which the Estimate provides is to be explained, as to £561,347, by advances made in respect of interest due upon debentures.

As I have pointed out—and I want to repeat it—£360,000, and only £360,000, was advanced prior to the 31st March this year. The balance has been advanced since, and advanced evidently in advance of the need for it. The House is being asked to repay it 12 months in advance of the date fixed under statute. The implication of the Minister's remarks was that the losses incurred by Córas Iompair Éireann arose before he became Minister.

Mr. Morrissey

It would be a shame to suggest that!

Mr. Lemass

That is what, I take it, the Minister is endeavouring to get the House to believe. We will examine that point. He said he took over a bankrupt concern.

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lemass

The whole propaganda of the Minister and his colleagues in this House and of their supporters has been to suggest that on 31st December, 1947, Córas Iompair Éireann was a bankrupt concern.

Mr. Morrissey

Hear, hear!

Mr. Lemass

Up to the 31st December, 1947, in respect of the year 1947 or any earlier year, Córas Iompair Éireann had no difficulty in paying its debenture interest, or if it had difficulty, it nevertheless succeeded in doing so. In respect of that year and in respect of the previous year the taxpayer had not to be called upon to make good the interest.

Mr. Morrissey

Out of the workers' pension fund.

Mr. Lemass

Let us consider the workers' pension fund, if the Minister wants to deal with that first.

Mr. Davin

Confiscation.

Mr. Lemass

I take it the Minister accepts the Milne Report, at any rate, as to the facts set out. I take it he will not contest the accuracy of the facts and he certainly implied, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading, that he was accepting the Milne Report recommendations in financial matters.

Up to the end of 1947 Córas Iompair Éireann had, according to its own published accounts, not merely met all charges on its revenue, including the appropriations to the pensions trust fund, not merely its debenture interests, but had also paid out in dividends to the common stockholders over the period of three years in which it was in existence a sum of approximately £250,000. At the end of 1947, which was, as the House knows, a rather disastrous year for it because of the long period during which train services were stopped because there was no coal and the long period during which the bus services were stopped because of a strike, the company ended that year with a debit balance in its profit and loss account of £812,000. But Sir James Milne had one criticism, and only one, to offer as to the manner in which the finances of Córas Iompair Éireann had been administered up to that date. He said they had made excessive appropriations to depreciation; in other words, Córas Iompair Éireann, following a conservative financial policy, had charged against revenue expenditures upon the renewal and maintenance of its assets, which, in Sir James Milne's opinion, should have been charged to capital; and he recommended that, not merely should the company in future make smaller appropriations from revenue to depreciation but that the change should be applied retrospectively and that the company's balance sheets for each of the years of its existence should be reconstructed upon the basis of the lower allocation to depreciation which he recommended. Does the Minister agree with that recommendation?

Mr. Morrissey

I thought the Deputy would not agree with a British expert.

Mr. Lemass

Can I get some information from the Minister?

Mr. Morrissey

Plenty of it.

Mr. Lemass

May I assume from the reference which he made to the Milne Report in the course of the discussion on the Second Reading that he agrees with that recommendation, that the company will in future act in accordance with it and that the reconstruction of the balance sheet, which Sir James Milne recommended, will in fact be implemented? Let us however, in view of the Ministerial silence, proceed on the assumption that the Minister has accepted it and let us find out what the position of the company was, according to Sir James Milne, on 31st December, 1947. Paragraph 103 of the Milne Report reads as follows:—

"The proposals to revise the basis of depreciation should be made retrospective to 1st January, 1945, and a reconstruction of the balance sheet carried out accordingly as at 1st January, 1948. The effect will be to convert the debit balance of £811,901 on profit and loss account at 31st December, 1947, into a credit balance of approximately £75,000.

The company's auditors have been consulted and see no objection in principle to these proposals."

In so far, therefore, as the company showed a debit balance on its profit and loss account at 31st December, 1947, it was due, as Sir James Milne pointed out, to the appropriations to depreciation which he regarded as excessive; and, if his recommendations were adopted and if the balance sheet were reconstructed retrospectively in accordance with them, the position of Córas Iompair Éireann, at the date of the change of Government at the close of the financial year, 1947, was that, having paid all its debenture interest, having paid all the charges properly chargeable to its revenue, having allocated £150,000 in each of two years and £100,000 in the third year to the pensions trust fund, having provided £250,000 in interest upon common stock, it had a credit balance in its profit and loss account of £75,000.

Mr. Morrissey

Is that the reason why they went to you for permission to increase their rates and fares in order to bring in an additional £1,000,000?

Mr. Lemass

I am glad the Minister has referred to that. In the year 1947 the company entered into new agreements with the trade unions catering for its workers providing for higher wages. Those higher wages in 1947 cost the company about £600,000, but obviously in the course of a full year they would cost the company a great deal more and the company realised that in 1948, faced with these substantial increases in its wages bill and faced also with other increased costs, mainly due to the higher price prevailing for coal, even with the same revenue as in 1947, or even with the increase in revenue which might be anticipated in 1948 since the experiences of 1947—the stoppage due to the coal shortage and the omnibus stoppage due to the trade dispute— were not likely to be repeated, they would make in 1948 a loss unless they were permitted to increase their charges; and so they came to the present Minister and asked for permission to increase their charges. They were refused that permission.

Mr. Sweetman

Did they go to you?

Mr. Lemass

Unfortunately I was not then in office.

Mr. Sweetman

It is an odd coincidence that they went two days after you left.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister made the point that they waited until after the election before putting their proposition to the Government. He apparently thinks there was something significant in that.

Mr. Sweetman

I think it is a peculiar coincidence.

Mr. Lemass

I think it was well known to the directors of the company and to the public generally that during the weeks immediately preceding the election I was busily occupied upon other work.

Mr. Morrissey

From November, 1947, to February, 1948, it would not have been very difficult.

Mr. Lemass

There was no question of this matter arising in 1947.

Mr. Sweetman

There should have been.

Mr. Lemass

They came to me after it had become clear that there would be a loss of revenue in 1947, due to the stoppage of the train services, and said that unexpected development had upset their estimates for that year and asked for permission to increase fares. I sanctioned the increase in fares and I came to this House and justified the doing of that.

Mr. Morrissey

And still they lost £811,000.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is trying to sidetrack this discussion. Whether or not they should have come to me and asked me to increase the fares the day before the general election, there was a change of Government——

Mr. Sweetman

There was as much justification for doing that as there was for buying the Argentine wheat.

Mr. Lemass

Whether or not they waited until there was a Minister for Industry and Commerce chosen in the new Government, the fact is that they came to him in February, 1948, and he refused them permission to make the increase in fares that they needed.

Mr. Morrissey

Plus the dismissals.

Mr. Lemass

I shall deal with that also, if necessary. He refused them the increase in fares which they needed to offset the higher charges they inevitably had to encounter during the year and so they made a loss, as they informed the Minister they would make a loss. And so, because they made that loss, the Minister for Finance, at the end of the year 1948, had to give the company the £360,000 necessary to pay the debenture interest due that year.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is mixed up in his dates.

Mr. Lemass

I will go over it again. Because he refused them the right to increase their fares in 1948, they made a loss in 1948, and because they made a loss in 1948 they were unable to pay the debenture interest in respect of that year.

Mr. Morrissey

Would the Deputy get this clear——

Mr. de Valera

Can the Deputy not be allowed to make his speech without interruption? Deputies in this House are interested in this matter. The Minister may not.

Mr. Morrissey

They are interested in this matter and the country is interested in this matter. It is about time. You are only wakening up now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lemass.

Mr. Lemass

We want to correct the false picture which the Minister has given in regard to this matter, even in this House to-day. The Minister has asked the House to vote £4,000,000 upon a distorted picture of the purposes for which the moneys are needed.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy——

Mr. de Valera

I ask that Deputy Lemass be heard without interruption by the Minister.

Mr. Sweetman

There should be interruptions from neither side. For the past six months the front bench opposite has interrupted——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give good example and not interrupt?

Mr. Lemass

I must be doing something to establish the truth, in view of the lively perturbation I am arousing.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy de Valera does not want to hear the truth.

Mr. Lemass

Because of the refusal of the Minister to grant increased fares in 1948, the Minister for Finance had to pay the company the amount required to meet the debenture interest, and the taxpayer has had to make it good. That was the first time the company had to come to the Minister to call for a payment under his guarantee. They had to do so because of the action of the present Minister. There might have been some dispute in 1948 as to whether the company could not have balanced its accounts otherwise than by increasing its fares, but when, later in the year, Sir James Milne investigated the affairs of the company, he recommended that increased fares were necessary. Even then the Minister did not consent. He waited three months, during which time the company's losses were piling up, before he screwed up his courage to the point of sanctioning an increase in fares somewhat less in its effect upon gross revenue than Sir James Milne recommended. If the Minister had dealt with this matter in a realistic way and in an honest way, if he had come to this House and said that obviously public transport in this country is entering into difficulties which may make it hard to balance revenue and expenditure in the future —just as public transport is in England or America or France or most other countries—and had discussed the matter frankly with the Dáil, he would have got from the Dáil, I am sure, a reasonable response—even from those Deputies who got elected to this House because they pledged themselves to reduce transport fares when they came here.

Up to the 31st March this year, however, it is quite clear that the total amount advanced to Córas Iompair Éireann, on foot of the guarantee of debenture interest, was £360,000. The total amount which the Dáil can reasonably be asked to provide now to the Exchequer in recoupment of the amount so advanced is limited to £360,000. Where does the balance of this £4,000,000 come from? There were, we are told, working losses which were incurred in 1948. We are dealing with a company now that, subject to the reconstruction of the balance sheet, as recommended by Sir James Milne, had, on the 31st December, 1947, a credit balance in its profit and loss account of £75,000. We find it, at the end of 1948, after one year of the Minister's sabotaging tactics, with a debit balance in excess of £1,000,000.

Mr. Morrissey

Tell us about the 31st March, 1948.

Mr. Lemass

30th December, 1948.

Mr. Davin

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister said that the company had proposed to him that, in addition to increasing fares, it desired to dismiss some 2,500 workers employed on permanent way maintenance. I deny it. I want to say that there is no authority for that statement other than the Minister's word; that, so far as the Dáil has access to the published declarations of the views and intentions of the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann or of the former directors of Córas Iompair Éireann, that statement is untrue.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not untrue.

Mr. Davin

They are there still.

Mr. Morrissey

Ask the directors.

Mr. Lemass

I am going to do so in the most immediate practical way.

Mr. McQuillan

That statement should be cleared up, anyway.

Mr. Lemass

It will be cleared up right now. So far as the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was concerned, his view was set out in a letter to the Minister, dated 13th March, 1948.

Mr. Davin

Read it out.

Mr. Lemass

I want to get the reference to permanent way maintenance.

Mr. Davin

Read out the whole lot. Shall we send for the ex-chairman?

Mr. Lemass

That might not be a bad idea. I have the reference here and it reads as follows:—

"Of course", Mr. Reynolds said, "economies can and will be effected but they should not be brought about by a reduction in the present standard of maintenance of the permanent way, rolling stock and equipment."

I think that, in view of the fact that that letter was written in March, 1948, to the Minister, it may be taken as conveying the view of the then chairman of the company.

Mr. McQuillan

That covers nothing.

Mr. Davin

Read out the whole letter. I will read it out for you if you do not.

Mr. Lemass

I would be glad. I think it would be a good idea to get it on the record. The view of the directors of the company, that is, the representatives of the common stockholders elected by them, was also conveyed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in that month, March, 1948. It is set out in paragraph 496 of the Milne Report. It reads as follows:—

"The measures which the company considered should be taken to remedy its financial situation were communicated by the chairman to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in March, 1948, as follows:—"

—they put this first in their recommendations—

"—(a) Rehabilitation of the permanent way to enable increased speeds to be run in safety."

So far as the views of the chairman are known, they are contained in that letter published by him much later than the Minister received it. So far as the views of the board of the company are known, they are set out in that paragraph of the Milne Report. The Minister said they said to him in private that they wanted to reduce expenditure on the permanent way, involving the dismissal of 2,500 men. I do not believe it.

Mr. Morrissey

Not in private, but at an interview in my Department where I was accompanied by the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Lemass

I am certain that what happened is this and I shall ask Deputies to consider whether the explanation is reasonable: They came to the Minister and they said to him: "We think that because of the higher charges we must meet this year, fares and freight charges should be increased and if they are not increased, then the only way to balance our accounts is to reduce essential expenditure on the permanent way and carry through other economies of that kind"—which they did not want.

Mr. Morrissey

That is one of Deputy de Valera's fairy stories.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister has got to put his unsupported word——

Mr. Morrissey

Not at all.

Mr. Lemass

——against these published documents, one setting forth the view of the chairman as conveyed to the Minister, and one setting forth the view of the chairman as conveyed to the Minister, neither of whom intimated any desire to decrease expenditure on the permanent way, both of whom recommended in effect that if the company was to be rehabilitated, expenditure on the permanent way would have to be increased. However, the company in 1948 because of the Minister's blunder had a deficit and because the year ended with a deficit the taxpayers are to be called upon to pay the debenture interest.

Mr. Morrissey

Had they not a deficit in 1947?

Mr. Lemass

In 1947 they had a deficit on the profit and loss account on paper——

Mr. Morrissey

Of £811,000.

Mr. Lemass

——a deficit which is transformed into a credit balance of £75,000, if the retrospective modification of the balance sheets which Sir James Milne recommended is carried through—in other words, if the expenditure on renewal and maintenance of its assets were divided between revenue and capital in the proportions which Sir James Milne thought proper.

Mr. Davin

Do you agree with that?

Mr. Lemass

That is another question. I am prepared to discuss it. I think it is generally known that my views on a financial issue of that kind are fairly conservative and I find myself in considerable sympathy with the comment upon that proposal made by Mr. Reynolds and published by him in the newspapers. I am taking it, however, that the Minister accepts it and agrees with it and that the recommendation is going to be carried through. That is the basis from which we have to start. There was a financial loss in 1948 and, therefore, an obligation to provide £360,000 in respect of debenture interest. But where does the balance of the £4,000,000 come from? Did the Minister make it clear, that in this year of 1949, which is not yet over, he has made available for Córas Iompair Éireann capital sums on guaranteed debentures in excess of £1,000,000 and he is proposing now to make available by way of grant—or, at any rate, out of voted moneys to be repaid this year, next year, some time, never—another £2,500,000. He asks the Dáil also to recoup a loss in working which he thinks will be about £800,000 and, in addition, to provide, in advance, debenture interest payable next year. For what purpose? To ensure that this new board will start off on 1st April with a clean sheet, that it will not be required to take over the liabilities which arose out of the past working of the company, so that it will have provided, free of charge at the taxpayers' expense, the capital expenditure, or a large part of the capital expenditure which the old company undertook.

Will the Minister explain this situation a little further? He mentioned in the course of the debate on Second Reading that there was £1,500,000 debentures due for redemption next year. When were they issued? Not up to 31st March——

Mr. Morrissey

They were due for redemption in January.

Mr. Lemass

When were they issued? Is any part of this sum to be devoted to the redemption of these debentures? To what extent do we have to vote £1,500,000 because the Minister was not able to proceed with the Bill——

Mr. Morrissey

Oh!

Mr. Lemass

If the Bill became law before 1st January as originally intended, would not the redemption of capital stock of that kind be a proper purpose for which new transport stock could be issued? Is that not so? In any case, why is the Dáil being asked to vote the money? Even the present company, unless something has happened of which the Dáil does not know, had at the end of its last financial year £3,000,000 unissued debentures. Is that not correct? It was authorised by the 1944 Act to raise new capital with the consent of the Minister for Finance and subject to his guarantee, to the extent of £6,000,000. Up to the end of December, 1947, only £1,350,000 of that new capital had been raised. On that date, or the date on which the present Minister took office, the company still had the power, subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance, to raise new capital to the extent of £4,725,000 under the terms of the 1944 Act. In 1948 there was a further issue of £1,600,000 on October 18th of that year, but that still left the position at the date of the Milne Report, that the company had the right to raise new capital on guaranteed debentures to the extent of £3,000,000. Has it that right now? Has that money been squandered under the Minister's direction——

Mr. Morrissey

That comes well from you.

Mr. Lemass

Was that £3,000,000 issued, and if so, for what purpose?

Mr. Morrissey

I will tell you that.

Mr. Lemass

Tell me now.

Mr. Morrissey

If I did, Deputy de Valera would tell me not to interrupt you.

Mr. Lemass

Do Deputies not think that, coming to the Dáil with this Estimate, this is information which the Minister ought to give the House? Why are we to provide, out of voted moneys, capital for the contruction of carriages, locomotives or permanent ways? If the Minister wants to proceed under the 1944 Act, there is, so far as we know, an unused power of debenture issue still remaining. If he wants to wait until next year his Bill provides for the issue of transport stock for this purpose. Why has the money to come from the national Exchequer?

Mr. Davin

To clear up the mess that you left.

Mr. Lemass

What mess? Where is the £3,500,000? Does Deputy Davin know?

Mr. Davin

What about the sky-scraper in Store Street?

Mr. Lemass

Is that where the money is going?

Mr. Davin

I suppose it is.

Mr. Lemass

You suppose what? Do you not want to vote here as an apparently intelligent Deputy, knowing what to vote for?

Mr. Davin

I do not want you to confuse me.

Mr. Lemass

I do not want to confuse the Deputy as he is confused enough already. Perhaps I might direct attention at this stage to a speech made on this matter by the Minister for Justice on Sunday last, a speech which is typical of the honesty, straightforwardness and truthfulness of the members of the Coalition Government.

Mr. Morrissey

Honesty, straightforwardness and truthfulness?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

Coming from Deputy Lemass?

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister deny that this speech is typical of the honesty, straightforwardness and truthfulness of Coalition Ministers? This is what the Minister for Justice said, speaking at Moyne, Ballinamuck and Leggs, County Longford. I am not quite sure at which of these centres he said this. He may have been using a loudspeaker and was heard all over the three townlands:—

"When we fought against the Transport Bill, introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government, we were forced to the country. Fianna Fáil told you it was the right thing for you. I came down to tell you that that Bill, if passed into law, would rob you. To-day we are faced with a bill for £4,500,000, resulting from this maladministration of the Fianna Fáil Government. Now we have to meet this £4,500,000 which has been frittered away in the most violent fashion, but we are not going to let it rob you."

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What is the reference?

Mr. Lemass

The report published in the Irish Press on Monday last.

Mr. Davin

The Irish Press?

Mr. Lemass

For some reason the Irish Independent decided not to publish it. I shall let Deputy Davin guess at the reason.

Mr. Morrissey

For the same reason that the Irish Press decided not to publish the Taoiseach's speech.

Mr. Lemass

We were not doing the Taoiseach a bad turn there. "£4,500,000 frittered away in the most violent fashion". Up to the 31st December, 1947, the end of the financial year preceding the change of Government, the position, subject to the adoption of the Milne recommendation, was that Córas Iompair Éireann paid its way and still had £75,000 of a credit balance on the profit and loss account. Is not that so?

Mr. Morrissey

Is not that dishonest?

Mr. Lemass

Does the Minister deny it?

Mr. Morrissey

I say that it is a thoroughly dishonest statement.

Mr. Lemass

I read the paragraph but I can read it again. Subject to the reconstruction of the balance sheet for the purpose of charging to capital what Sir James Milne regarded as excess expenditure out of revenue upon the renewal of assets, the company, at the end of 1947, had a credit balance of £75,000.

Mr. Morrissey

They lost £1,000,000.

Mr. Lemass

"£4,500,000 frittered away by Fianna Fáil." Up to the end of 1948 the only money advanced out of the National Exchequer to Córas Iompair Éireann in respect of the State guarantee was the £360,000 required to pay the debenture interest falling due in that year. The Minister denied that. If his denial is correct, is not the Minister for Finance chargeable with having submitted a false return to the Dáil, because the return which is available in the Library says that up to the 31st March, 1949, the total amount advanced was £360,000? Therefore, in so far as this £4,000,000 represents money advanced to repay losses, it must be losses incurred in this year. But of course we know it is not money required to replace losses. It is money required to provide a hidden subsidy for the new transport board so that the Minister can come in here next year and say: "This board is doing very well. We do not have to vote money this year," and the only reason why they will not have to vote money next year is because he is voting it this year and voting it this year because he can represent it as a political heritage from Fianna Fáil when, as we know, it was due to his own bungling in 1948 and 1949, his inability to get his Bill through the Dáil in time and his desire to provide a nest egg in advance for the board he hopes to establish on 1st April, 1950. Why are we voting it now? Why is the taxpayer being asked to vote now debenture interest payable next April? Will somebody answer that question? There is no legal obligation on the taxpayer to pay it now. If the company at the end of the financial year in December is unable to provide money to pay debenture interest, then the Minister for Finance has to advance it out of the Central Fund. When he has advanced it out of the Central Fund, then Córas Iompair Éireann is bound by law to repay it within 12 months, that is to say, before 1st January, 1951. If they fail to repay it before 1st January, 1951, then within 12 months of that date, sometime in 1951, the Minister is obliged to come to the House to ask for its replacement out of voted money. Why is money due in 1951 being voted now except to serve a political purpose which the Minister has in view of blackening the reputation of the board which managed the old company and making it easier for the new board to show an attractive financial position during its first or second year of office which will elapse before the Minister has to face the country at a general election? Because of these dishonest political considerations the Dáil is being asked on behalf of the taxpayer to vote £4,000,000. If the Deputies do it, they are neglecting their duty to the people who send them here because it is voting £4,000,000, not for any losses incurred by Córas Iompair Éireann— not losses to that extent—but merely to provide a political argument for the Minister and to set the stage for a general election campaign to be run some time next year or the year after.

Mr. Davin

The majority of the taxpayers who gave authority in 1944 to Deputy de Valera and his expert transport officer, Deputy Lemass, now know that they will have to meet this bill to clear up the mess created by the establishment of a transport dictatorship, because that is what it was.

Mr. Lemass

It is created in the present Bill.

Mr. Davin

It was created under the Act of 1944. It is ridiculous for Deputy Lemass to refer here to the views of the board. There was no board in the proper sense. They were office boys, yes-men, who had the right to come to a meeting if they thought fit and draw their fees. But, if the chairman took a different view from what they had the courage to express, if they had the courage to express it, the chairman's word went. Nobody knows that better than Deputy Lemass, because he was the godfather of the section of the Act of 1944 which created that dictatorship and put into that position, as Sir James Milne properly describes it—at least he was told it—a certain man for reasons of expediency.

However, there is a bigger issue involved in this than the quibble which Deputy Lemass has been trying to carry on here to-day. There is the question of whether Deputy Lemass and Deputy de Valera believe or ever believed that the railway system should be or has to be the foundation for a sound economic transport system. There is evidence on the records of this House, certainly on the records of the company, that the brains trust set up under the 1944 Act set out deliberately, from the 1st January, 1945, to destroy the railways by prejudicing public opinion against the use of the railways as part of our transport system. I wonder will Deputy de Valera, if he takes part in this debate, recognise and realise, as he must have done during the emergency, how essential it is that we should have railway transport here or will he again take the risk of having to rely on outside concerns to supply us with the increasing quantity of fuel that would be required to run a road transport service as against the railways system?

The railway system of this country kept the life of the nation going during the emergency. There is nobody— Deputy de Valera or anybody else— who can say that we will not require the same kind of system in another emergency, if such a thing takes place during our lifetime. I assert that the brains trust put in charge of the transport system under the Act of 1944 set out deliberately to destroy the railways. There is evidence of that even in the letter which Deputy Lemass refused to read, the letter of the 13th March addressed to the present Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Lemass

I did not refuse to read it.

Mr. Davin

The former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, as has been indicated by the Minister, came to him two days after the Minister took office and presented him with certain proposals and requests and pointed out the alternative. He went on to elaborate on the extent of his proposals, or some of them, at any rate, in a letter which he sent to the Minister on 13th March. Deputy Lemass, in spite of the knowledge he has and the contents of that letter, asserts here across the floor of the House, to people who of course do not know whether what he is saying is true or not, that there would be no railway men dismissed under the proposals submitted by the former chairman of the company. I shall quote a portion of the letter addressed to the present Minister on 13th March, in which he had the brass neck to propose the elimination of 861 miles of track of Córas Iompair Éireann. Here is the letter. I shall read the essential portion of it.

Mr. Lemass

What are you reading from?

Mr. Davin

I am reading from a letter which was quoted by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House on the 3rd of November last. The reference is Volume 118 of the Dáil Debates, column 507. It is worth repeating this for the purpose of getting it in the Deputy's head:—

"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."

A certificate of safety is published every year in the company's report from its engineer. The letter goes on:

"To put them in order would need an expenditure of £3,250,000 spread over five years."

Will Deputy Lemass or Deputy de Valera say who gave that figure? It was not an Irish engineer employed by Córas Iompair Éireann. As far as I know it was drafted by a man with an elastic imagination who knew nothing about the railway side of a transport system. Who gave that figure or for what purpose was it quoted? The letter continues:—

"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"—that is a good word—"as road vehicles become available."

Does Deputy Lemass seriously suggest to any sensible Deputy, no matter what side of the House he sits on, that if that proposal of the late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, made on the 13th of March, was carried out that there was not going to be consequential unemployment on the railways as a result of it?

Mr. Lemass

It is going to be carried out by the present Government.

Mr. Davin

Is that your answer?

Mr. Lemass

But is it not?

Mr. Davin

If you were in office it would be carried out.

Mr. de Valera

The Deputy should not try to sidestep it.

Mr. Davin

I want Deputy Lemass, or Deputy de Valera, who undoubtedly can talk for Deputy Lemass, to tell me whether the closing of 861 miles of branch line all over the country would not mean considerable unemployment for railway men.

Mr. Lemass

Most of them are closed already.

Mr. Davin

What provision did the Deputy make in the 1944 Act to ensure that those men would get the compensation which he promised them?

Mr. Lemass

Better ones than are in this Bill.

Mr. Davin

Certainly not.

Mr. Lemass

Examine them.

Mr. Davin

Is it not an extraordinary suggestion for Deputy Lemass to make that he copied word for word some of the proposals in regard to compensation that I and some of my colleagues put forward in 1944, but which he, when he was Minister, rejected by a vote of this House? Is not that a brazen suggestion, to say now that he put forward suggestions for compensation?

Mr. Lemass

What is in the 1944 Act is better than what is in the present Transport Bill.

Mr. Davin

At any rate, I hope that I have disposed of that argument if it was meant as a serious one—that is that there would be no unemployment following the closing of 861 miles of branch lines proposed by the late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann who was the nominee of Deputy Lemass.

I want now to refer to the speech made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was concluding the Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill of 1949. Speaking at column 501, the Minister made the position clear on behalf of the Government and on behalf of Deputies on this side who support him and will support when he said:—

"This country cannot do without a railway system and must have a railway system."

That is the alternative to the proposals that were put forward to the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the 13th of March by the late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann. Of course, one could say that, if you wiped out all the branch lines, the railways would still survive, just as if you cut branches off a tree the tree will survive. Anybody, however, who knows anything about a transport system knows perfectly well that the branch lines are of considerable feeding value to the main trunk lines.

Mr. Lemass

You should be over here. I think you are on the wrong side.

Mr. Davin

I have already indicated that the policy of the nominee of Deputy Lemass, who has retired from the chairmanship of Córas Iompair Éireann, was to close the branch lines. There need be no further argument about that. The late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann went further in his efforts to prejudice the minds of the travelling public against the use of the railways. He abolished, in a unilateral fashion as far as I know, the wellknown and suitable system of through passenger rates and fares which had hitherto obtained. Before he did that, one could book, at considerable advantage, from Cork to London, and get a through service by rail and steamer without having to change at Kingsbridge. The same happened if you booked from London to Cork. You could get a through service and an efficient service. The late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann abolished that in a unilateral and in a silly fashion. That was done to prejudice the travelling public against the railways. I am quite certain that he did that with the approval of Deputy Lemass. Since that change was made, the scenes that are to be witnessed on Saturday mornings are simply disgraceful. One can see thousands of our fellow-citizens coming back here with their wives and children for a holiday. On a Saturday morning they are put into an out-of-date railway passenger coach at Dún Laoghaire, and when they come to Westland Row they are fired out of it. They have to make their own arrangements to get across the city. They have to do that in all kinds of weather, whether they are bound for Galway or Cork or for some other part of the country. Is that a system which could be called a reasonable and efficient one to cater for the needs of the travelling public? Is there a Minister of Transport in any country in the world who would defend a system of that sort?

In addition to the inconvenience which those people suffer as a result of that, they are put to considerable additional expense. When they get out at Westland Row they have to go to Transport House and rebook. Everybody knows that rebooking means, in effect, a 20 per cent. addition on single fares. That is the state of affairs that was produced by the abolition of the through passenger service. I assert again that it was done for the purpose of prejudicing the travelling public against the railway system. We all know that that happened, and although it may appear to be a minor matter it is one of considerable inconvenience so far as the travelling public are concerned. They are the people to be provided for in the Transport Bill that was recently introduced, either under the Bill or under the 1944 Act or by any same Minister whose job it is to cater in an efficient way for the needs of the travelling public.

He proceeded to wipe out the dining rooms and refreshment rooms, particularly at junction stations. The people in cold winter weather, who had to wait for connecting trains at places like Ballybrophy and Portarlington, had to ramble around and could not get even a cup of tea. Was that done for any other purpose than to injure the railway system, of which he was the head? I hope the Minister will give us the reasons for such actions, because we may be sure Deputy Lemass will not.

What was the reason for handing over control of the refreshment rooms and the hotels to a foreign company? It would be interesting to hear that, in view of the abuse that is hurled across the House about foreign experts coming in. There were more foreigners brought in under the régime of the late chairman than there were brought in at any period since the railways were established. The hotel section, the only section of the railways that was paying approximately 10 per cent. on its capital, was handed over. I will read out some figures for Deputy Lemass, though he must know something about this. He can give the reasons if he wants to and, if he does not want to, I advice the Minister to tell us. This is part of the great mess created when the Deputy was a Minister.

Why did they hand over the old Great Southern hotels to a foreign company? They were the best managed hotels in the country. The profit up to 31st December, 1948, according to the company's balance sheet, was £70,000 more than in the previous year. The receipts had gone up from £254,207 to £324,684. Deputy Lemass, Deputy de Valera and other Deputies had experience of hotels at Parknasilla and elsewhere, and they know they were just as well managed as the best hotels in Switzerland or other continental countries. What was the necessity for handing over the only section of the railways that was paying in 1948 to a foreign company? Was it done for the purpose of prejudicing the public against the new régime?

I have travelled by rail to my constituency ever since I became a Deputy. It is most inconvenient and expensive for me, because there is no railway system operating on a Sunday to any part of my constituency. As a constant traveller on trains, I do not see any improvement in the dining cars, in the catering side of Córas Iompair Éireann since it was handed over by the late chairman to a famous London firm, with the full approval of Deputy Lemass.

Will Deputy Lemass tell us why the pre-war proposal for the modernisation of accommodation for travellers from Dún Laoghaire to Dublin was not proceeded with? Certain proposals were submitted in pre-war days, with the approval of Government Departments, but they were rejected by the late chairman. I know well what I am talking about. Conferences were held for a year or so prior to 1939. Government Departments—Industry and Commerce and the Board of Works—Córas Iompair Éireann, the Great Northern and the London, Midland and Scottish were represented at these conferences. A scheme was hammered out and a recommendation made that all would be a party to the modernisation of the transport system that brings travellers to this country from Britain and back again. There were to be new ships, a new pier was to be provided by the Board of Works, and a new railway station at Dún Laoghaire was to be provided by Córas Iompair Éireann. Then came the most important thing of all—and Deputy Lemass referred to this. People who can claim from long experience to be transport experts suggested, as part of the proposals, that Amiens Street should be the central station for the City of Dublin. If these recommendations had been seriously considered by Deputy Lemass, when he was a Minister, I believe he would have had a far better, a more efficient and more up to date system of transport for travellers between this country and Great Britain. He could have avoided people being pitched out of trains at Westland Row and told to go how they liked to their destinations.

I understand that Amiens Street can provide more accommodation for rolling stock and more places of storage than any other Dublin station. If that scheme was carried out in pre-war days it would mean that travellers could go from the pier to Cork without having to go back into Kingsbridge and they would save an hour on the run from Dún Laoghaire to Cork or Cobh. That would be a very desirable improvement on the conditions that prevailed along that route. You would be able to run all the trains from Dún Laoghaire pier to Amiens Street and trains could start North, South, East or West without passengers being forced to change from their carriages. Conditions would then be the same as in continental countries.

Mr. Lemass

Are you in favour of it —a central railway station in Dublin?

Mr. Davin

Yes. The chairman nominated by you, with the knowledge of what was in the minds of the transport experts, immediately proceeded to put up the big sky-scraper in Store Street in order to prevent that desirable project from being put into operation.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister now says: "Thank God we will not have it."

Mr. Davin

Deputy Lemass glossed over that proposal very quickly; he went off the rails immediately. I hope he will tell us what his attitude was when he was Minister. Has he ever had a look at these recommendations? They are lying somewhere in the pigeon-holes of the Board of Works or the Department of Industry and Commerce. I hope the present Minister will take them out.

Mr. Lemass

But he is going to bury them—he said so.

Mr. Davin

I hope he will ask the new board to give the recommendations favourable consideration. I mention this thing because it is one of a number used by the late chairman to prejudice the public against the railway side of our transport organisation.

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is getting mixed up. The late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was for it, but the present Minister is against it.

Mr. Morrissey

Then why did he abandon it?

Mr. Lemass

Because the Minister told him to.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

Mr. Davin

In regard to many proposals for which the taxpayers will have to pay dearly, the late chairman took no steps to consult any of his railway or other transport advisers. He consulted outsiders, whoever they were. These people were well paid for the bad information they gave him. Some of the information was very silly, but it will be costly for the taxpayers. Those who voted for the dictatorship set up under the 1944 Act cannot growl so much, because they gave a free hand to the Fianna Fáil Government to do these things. Is it not laughable to hear Deputy Lemass talk about the board that managed the company? Does he not know perfectly well that they did not manage the company? They were not allowed to decide anything. When we were discussing the News Agency Bill, to my surprise—a pleasant one I must admit—Deputy Lemass confronted the Minister for External Affairs with the statement that he knew personally, speaking from his own knowledge as late Minister for Industry and Commerce, that there were dozens of unselfish business men in this country who were willing to give and did give their time free and who did not claim any directors' fees from the companies of which they were directors until the companies concerned were put on a profit-making basis. I would like to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce what fees were drawn by the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann—the directors that had no power—considering that the company got itself into this bankrupt condition. I do not blame the directors because they had no power. They may have had the power to talk at board meetings and to have a lunch after the meeting, but they certainly had no power to do anything effective. It was news to me to hear that there were so many unselfish industrialists in this country prepared to give their time free in the companies set up by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.

There is plenty of evidence on record to prove, and Deputy Lemass has the evidence himself, that the late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann made a grave mistake in refusing, for reasons known only to himself, to consult his experts before he decided to go ahead with these projects the cost of which are included in the big bill the Minister is now presenting to the House. If the late chairman had wanted the cooperation of the staff with whom he was associated, particularly on the railway side, I think he should have made it his business to see them and discuss matters with them. I think he should have evinced some evidence of his desire to see that they were fairly treated. I can assure Deputy Lemass and all my other hearers that there were senior officials with 40 years' service in the company who never were permitted to speak to the chairman or the general manager. When they made representations, as they were entitled to do, for additional remuneration to meet the increases in the cost of living during the emergency, the chairman refused to see them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that not detail as apart from policy?

Mr. Davin

The failure of the chairman to do what was reasonable and just is to some extent one of the causes for the increased bill that we have before us this evening. Deputy Lemass was the grandfather of the Wages Standstill Order. Nobody could get an increase of 1d. or a 1/- or £1 in his wages or salary without the approval of the then Minister responsible for the operation and administration of that Order. I can give you particulars of at least 55 senior officials of Córas Iompair Éireann who never got so much as 1d. increase, notwithstanding the responsibility of their positions, during the whole of the emergency period. But Deputy Lemass had no hesitation, even though he has denied this, in giving the chairman of the company an increase of £1,500 per year on the £5,000 he had sanctioned for him when he took up office in 1945.

Mr. Lemass

That is not correct.

Mr. Davin

Of course it is correct.

Mr. Lemass

If this type of subject is to be discussed here, then I take it we can all discuss it.

Mr. Davin

It was a nice princely sum, but good senior officials whose positions were worth £800 a year pre-war are to-day working at £600 per year at a time when the £1 is worth only 10/- as compared with 1939. Was that proper treatment of these officials by the late chairman? These men had to carry heavy responsibilities. Deputy Lemass knows just as well as anybody else that it was the men in the senior clerical positions at headquarters and down the country who carried heavy responsibilities.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It seems to me that the Deputy is now dealing with administration as apart from policy. The Deputy should confine himself to policy.

Mr. Davin

I take it the additional £1,500 which was paid to the late chairman is included in this bill of costs. If it is not, then I do not know how the bill is made up.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am sure the £10,000 compensation is.

Mr. Lemass

In view of these references being made and the fact that they have been allowed to go for so long, I think it would be most undesirable to rule them out now because those of us who can refute them should be given an opportunity of doing so.

Mr. Davin

The late chairman and the general manager shared between them a sum of £10,000 a year.

Mr. Lemass

I say that is untrue.

Mr. Davin

There was no attempt made by Deputy Lemass to implement the Standstill Order so far as they were concerned. But other unfortunate officials had to suffer and some of them had to go right through the whole period with an increase on their pre-war income of only 4 per cent. whereas the average worker outside got an increase of 65 per cent. The failure of the late chairman, nominated by Deputy Lemass and by the Government of Fianna Fáil, to treat his staff in a proper way or to consult them before taking some of the silly decisions that are now costing us so much, has helped to add considerably to this bill to which Deputy Lemass takes such exception.

Mr. Lemass

The whole bill arises this year. Deal with that.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy knows well that it does not arise this year.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy explain how it does not arise this year?

Mr. T.F. O'Higgins

He is trying to, but you will not let him.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Lemass made many remarkable statements during the Second Reading of the Transport Bill. Among other things he said—and I take it he was re-echoing the advice of the late chairman and those who think as he did—that:—

"I am not at all sure that the whole error in railway organisation in this country, right from the beginning, has been the employment of British railway managers to operate Irish railway undertakings or companies."

Sir James Milne in his report refers to that in another way. He says:—

"The co-ordination of the rail and road activities of the company has presented many difficulties and no decision has yet been reached as to the ultimate organisation of the various departments."

There is some relationship between these two statements. There is the statement made to Sir James Milne by an executive officer of Córas Iompair Éireann, three years after Mr. Reynolds had taken office. He goes on to make an even more serious statement:—

"Considerable difficulty has been experienced in finding suitable personnel for the higher positions and a number of new appointments have been made on grounds of expediency rather than as part of a planned reorganisation."

I say that anybody who required three years, and apparently the late chairman did, to come to that conclusion wasted that three years——

Mr. Lemass

He merely wanted the war to end.

Mr. Davin

——at £5,000 a year for portion of the period and £6,000 a year for another portion of it. The transport expert, if it is right for me to use the word expert in such a connection, who could not provide a proper organisation under the Act of 1945 inside a period of three years should certainly look for some other job. Deputy Lemass will be interested to know, and this matter was raised by Deputy Lehane here, that while that report was being drafted by Sir James Milne, including the paragraph to which I have just drawn attention stating that appointments had to be made on grounds of expediency, an advertisement appeared under the name of the traffic manager of Córas Iompair Éireann, with the approval of the general manager and chairman, in a paper called Modern Transport. I am going to quote from Modern Transport, dated 16th October, 1948— a paper that is not in circulation amongst Irish railway men. There was no copy of it in circulation amongst Irish railway men. The quotation is as follows:—

"Manager for furniture removals——"

I think they should have taken some other things away besides furniture—

"——and storage department, also road freight operators to control fleets of 50 to 100 vehicles. Applicants should state age, experience, salary expected and give particulars of types of vehicles and traffic operated. Apply immediately to Traffic Manager, Córas Iompair Éireann, Kingsbridge Station, Dublin."

Why did the ex-chairman or his advisers not make that public in an Irish paper? There were many competent men associated with the road transport industry in this country who would be entitled to apply. I am quoting that as a typical example of the people who object to the appointment of British railway managers and, yet, who have gone out of their way, since the coming into operation of the Act of 1945, to bring over people from the other side and put them over the heads of men who were trained in the school of experience. These men who were trained in the school of experience were not seen by the ex-chairman or by the general manager or other executive officers. How, therefore, could they know they were competent for the vacancies available? If there was any question of expediency in the making of some appointments, it was undoubtedly associated very closely with political expediency. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that and the majority of the railway men believe that.

I am not going to blame Deputy Lemass, as ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, for everything which was done wrong by Córas Iompair Éireann. I know it is impossible for any Minister of any Government—with the responsibilities attached to the huge Department that they are in control of, the Department of Industry and Commerce—to devote any reasonable period of their daily activities in the Department to the running of the transport system. There should be no necessity for it, if experienced men or men who knew their jobs were put into these jobs. What is an expert? An expert is a fellow who has learned his job in the school of experience. I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce follows the line of his predecessor and of the previous Government who believed, apparently, that the most competent people in the country were those who were lucky enough to get the certificate of a chartered accountant. A chartered accountant is an essential part of a big business concern, but I know from experience that he could not tell you anything about the operating of a transport system. He could work out everything on a sheet of paper, as directed by his directors, and figures, I am sure, quite correctly. But if the same gentleman were put to do the operating side of a transport job, he would smother himself doing the work as he put it on paper. There is a practical way of doing things, different from the way mapped out by a man with an expert knowledge of figures. Deputy Lemass would not send down Deputy Derrig or Deputy Little to take charge of the British and Irish boat and run her down the river this evening to Liverpool. I imagine that if he did do so—although they are very experienced in the legal and in the educational line—there would be many collisions between the North Wall and the Pigeon House. An expert, as I say, is a man trained in the school of experience. Deputy Lemass would, I am sure, privately admit that, in respect of work which was being done during the emergency period on the county council bogs throughout the country, it was well known that the road ganger knew much more and was a much better man at his job than the junior engineer who came out of the university with his degree.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What has all this to do with the business before the House?

Mr. Davin

I have heard so much about experts during the discussion on the Second Reading that I should like to get a practical definition of the word "expert". I hope that when the Minister comes to think seriously of the type of people he will put on the new board, who will have a big, dirty job to do, he will not overload it with experts, as in the past. Córas Iompair Éireann has been destroyed by a team of experts. You want a different type of expert to clean up the mess and run things right in the future compared with the so-called experts put there by Deputy Lemass and his advisers in the Fianna Fáil Government.

I heard Deputy Childers—I always like to hear Deputy Childers speaking here; he certainly makes himself thoroughly understood and he is quite polite in the way he puts his point of view to the House—say on the Second Reading that the nationalisation scheme of Great Britain—he was, apparently, opposing this Bill or giving some reasons for it—was a financial failure.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

How does the nationalisation scheme arise on this Estimate?

Mr. Davin

The Bill that is before the House at the present time——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the Estimate we are discussing.

Mr. Lemass

It is the Estimate. The Bill will come later.

Mr. Davin

It is related to the Bill and to the financial provisions of the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The nationalisation scheme of Great Britain is not relevant.

Mr. Davin

I may have an opportunity, with the approval of the Chair, during the Committee Stage of the Bill, to bring myself back to the point I was just discussing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair is not making any promises in advance.

Mr. Davin

I submit to the ruling of the Chair and I shall not now proceed further along those lines. Deputy Lemass talked very loudly this evening and worked himself into a state of excitement because he said we have been asked here this evening to pass an Estimate which, in his opinion, is unnecessary. He went so far as to say, when he commenced his speech, that the statement made by the Minister was completely dishonest. I can understand very well why Deputy Lemass wants to get off the rails and why he went off the rails in connection with this discussion and got himself involved in a delicate discussion on the necessity for the redemption of debentures, and so forth. What Deputy Lemass will have to do here in this House, and he has not done it this evening, and in the country—and some of us will make him do it when we see him down the country—is to tell this House and the people of the country the reason for the creation of such a mess in the transport and railway system of this country that the taxpayers have to foot the huge bill of £4,091,000 to clear it up. If Deputy Lemass does not want to do it here in this House, he will be forced to do it at some other time and in some other place.

Mr. C. Lehane

One would expect that the Minister presenting this Estimate would be the person on the defensive, the person with a case to make to the House, a case which he had to defend. But we find that, on this occasion, the person who adopts the rôle of defendant is not the Minister but his predecessor in office.

Mr. Lemass

I did not sound like that, I hope.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am afraid that that is the way it sounded to me and that is the way it sounded to many Deputies in this House, and that many Deputies, and not alone Deputies on this side of the House, will agree with my statement. An attempt has been made to make the case to-day that this bill for £4,091,000 is a bill presented to the people and presented to them because of the manner in which the present Minister administered this particular section of the affairs of his Department. That attempt has been made. It is an impudent attempt and one that must fail.

Every single citizen of this country who examines this problem honestly knows perfectly well that the reason that bill is presented to the people to-day is because a policy was pursued not by the present Minister but by his predecessor in office—a policy of incompetence, of muddling and of refusal to be guided by advice, expert or otherwise. To attempt to suggest that the raison d'être for this Estimate lies in the activities of the present Minister during the last 12 months is, to my mind, an assertion which can only be characterised as impudent and as one that will not be accepted for a second by any thinking person.

In the very nature of things, the debate on this Supplementary Estimate partakes of the character of an inquest, and Deputy Davin covered most of the details of the career of the deceased. There are just one or two matters to which I thought Deputy Davin might refer which he neglected to mention and which I think it is no harm to mention in the House. One of the reasons why we have this bill presented to the House, one of the reasons why the operating losses are so high, is the fact that, pursuing that policy of refusal to listen to any sort of advice, Córas Iompair Éireann operated for the period of, I think, three years without the assistance of a chief mechanical engineer. One of the reasons why we are presented with this bill to-day is that the destinies of Córas Iompair Éireann were controlled by the Minister through a nominee who was so intolerant of any type of criticism, who was so intolerant and independent of any expression of opinion by other people, that when the workers were forced to have recourse to the strike weapon in 1947, he told the representatives of a newspaper in London—where he then was concluding an agreement with London hoteliers to sell them certain rights on Irish railways—that he knew nothing of any strike in Córas Iompair Éireann. It was that mentality and the operation of that mentality in our transport services, that left them in the condition which necessitates our facing this Bill here to-day.

Of course there was an attempt to prejudice the people against the railway system generally and against rail transport generally. I challenge Deputy Lemass to deny that his nominee did express the view, and, if allowed to continue, would have carried it into effect, that rail transport west of the Shannon should cease.

Mr. Lemass

That is not what the Minister charges. The Minister charges the reverse. He charges that he spent too much on the railways.

Mr. C. Lehane

I am quite capable of speaking for myself. I am speaking for Clann na Poblachta and for Deputy Con Lehane. I am not affected by anything the Minister said. There are no "yes men" in this Party. I make that statement, and I challenge contradiction on it, that that was the long term view, that that was the end to be aimed at. I think it is a good thing for the country that that point of view has gone by the board. I think it is a good thing that there has been a little bit of sanity brought into our approach to this problem. If the salutary effect of a bill of these dimensions is lost on Deputy Lemass, I do not think it will be lost on the people. I think they will realise the condition of affairs that this Supplementary Estimate discloses, a condition of affairs the responsibility for which they are able to fix. I think that is something that even Deputy Lemass's eloquence will not be able to explain away to the people.

I described the debate on this Estimate as being in the nature of an inquest. I do not think that inquests should be protracted. I am not going to protract it further but I should like information on this point—I do not know whether the information has been sought already. Is the £10,500 compensation which is to be paid to the late chairman included in this Estimate? Because if it is and Deputy Lemass has the effrontery to adopt a critical rôle of the Minister's administration of this section of his Department's affairs, then I should like to compliment the Deputy on having achieved "tops" in impudence and effrontery.

Mr. Derrig

The Minister has been asked if he accepts the recommendations of the Milne Report in connection with the new reorganisation of national transport. I notice that in paragraph 487, it is suggested that if the company is unable to meet losses from its own resources, the Government should be empowered to finance it by temporary advances at a low rate of interest, either directly or by means of a Government guarantee of principal and interest on moneys borrowed from outside sources. It has been pointed out if the company goes to the Minister and the Government and asks them to honour the obligations which the State has undertaken in connection with the payment of interest on debentures, that commitment has to be honoured. I fail to understand why the Minister should go further than he is bound to go legally in the provision of moneys to provide for operating losses, why he should not have followed the suggestion made by the Milne Report that such advances should be made on a temporary basis. If the House is to retain control over the expenditure of the large sums of money which will necessarily be involved in all this transport reorganisation, then I think we should take a most conservative attitude and assure ourselves that we are not paying out money except where it is absolutely necessary and that, as far as possible, if we have to make the taxpayer liable for the interest, the operating losses or any other charge, in so far as it is humanly possible, we should see to it that the company will be made to recoup the expenditure to which the House has agreed.

There is also the question of the reconstruction of the balance sheet. I do not know why the Minister should persistently interrupt Deputy Lemass when he is making the reasonable point that, if the balance sheet of Córas Iompair Éireann from 1945 is to be readjusted on the basis of the Milne Report recommendations, then it gives a different picture of the situation. It certainly does not bear out the grossly exaggerated statements made that the present Administration were handed over a bankrupt concern. If the suggestion is that the concern was made bankrupt by something the previous Minister for Industry and Commerce did, then I think it does not require very much examination to show that that is not the position. As I pointed out in the Second Reading debate on the Transport Bill, the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the time took steps to bring in the valuable Dublin omnibus traffic into the general national pool and, to that extent, he certainly helped to keep the railways going and, quite possibly, their situation would have been very much worse than it has been if that measure had not been passed into law.

I do not know why Deputy Davin argues, when the Ministers whom he supports try to argue to the contrary, that this concern was completely bankrupt. The Minister for Finance suggested that it was unfortunate that they had to keep bolstering the finances of Córas Iompair Éireann, but now we are asked, as well as meeting the particular losses and charges which the country is being asked to meet in this Estimate, to undertake commitments for the future which no one can accurately estimate. I do not know why Deputy Davin closes his eyes to the situation which the Milne Report in its concluding paragraphs referred to—that the principal causes that existed in 1939 for the grave financial difficulties of the railway were (1) road competition; (2) increases in wages and improvements in conditions of employment; (3) the burden of unremunerative lines. That was the finding, as summarised by the Milne Report, of their predecessors who examined this question in 1939—the Tribunal of Inquiry on Public Transport. The Milne Report goes on to discuss the position between 1939 and 1944 when it says there was some improvement in the financial position of the company. It goes on to say:—

"The net receipts from the railway, which had been £250,000 in 1938, were maintained at a figure of approximately £350,000 during the whole period with the exception of the year 1942."

It goes on to refer to a rise in the total net revenue from £351,000 in 1938 to £789,000 in 1944, an increase of more than double.

The report goes on to refer to the shortage of coal, the restriction on rail services during the emergency period, and the expansion of the road services. It says that wages and fuel costs rose but the receipts were maintained at a level sufficient to keep pace with this rise. It goes on to say:—

"The year of the incorporation of Córas Iompair Éireann saw the end of the war. During 1946 and 1947 the financial difficulties of the new company were increased by cessation of services as a result of two major labour disputes and the fuel crisis."

Therefore, I think the position is not attributable to the action of any human factors. It is attributable to the general circumstances of the war emergency during which the railways, if they had sufficient coal, would have enjoyed even more comparative prosperity than they did enjoy. But, immediately after the war period, when road transport and, particularly, the private operator came on the road, the competition which had reduced the railways to such a parlous condition long before the war again came along and was very gravely accentuated, with the result that the losses of the undertaking so far as the railway side was concerned became very serious.

I was referring to this question of the reconstruction of the balance sheet. By the way, I do not know why Deputy Davin should have such a grievance against the former chairman. I think that, if one were examining the chairman's record from the point of view of the employment he gave, one might question, having regard to the circumstances and the fact that the State guarantee operated to make it a matter of interest to the taxpayer, whether he was not perhaps overgenerous in some matters.

According to the report, the actual salaries and wages bill of the company at the rate ruling in November, 1948, is estimated at £6,500,000, as compared with £4,000,000 paid in the year 1945, an increase of £2,500,000. If you take £4,000,000 as 100, that will mean an increase of 62½ per cent., of which £1,600,000 is the result of improved rates of pay and conditions of service and £900,000 is due to an increase in staff establishments. According to my reading of this report, the number of employees increased from 17,000 to 21,000. If that increase was justifiable on the ground that there was plenty of work for them to do, well and good. But it certainly does not seem to bear out the attack made on the chairman that he wanted to get rid of railway staffs.

Mr. Davin

He was going to sack them in March.

Mr. Derrig

Deputy Lemass has given an explanation of that. If Deputy Davin was a member of the board and was going to the Minister of a new Government for financial aid, I am sure that he would not be behindhand in using the weapon that, if the concern was not able to carry on with Government assistance, there would be no alternative except to let some of the staff go. After all, if a concern is not able to pay its wages, in what other way can it carry on?

According to paragraph 161 of this report, the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was also extravagant in the means he provided for depreciation on renewals of wasting assets. I have not the good fortune to know the chairman. I am not interested in any way in the gentleman personally, but I think that, for the purpose of getting a proper picture of the situation, we have to bear in mind that it was stated in the discussions when the 1944 Act was going through the House by no less a person than the present Minister for Finance who had gained experience of this problem not only by virtue of his ministerial office, but as has already been pointed out in the House, as an advocate in the courts dealing with railway cases, that one of the great reasons for the decline of the railways was that, in his view, moneys which ought to have been set aside for replacement and renewals and for keeping the permanent way and the rolling stock in particular, at a proper level and in a proper state of efficiency, was put aside to pay dividends, and that that was one of the reasons why the concern found itself in such a bad way. According to this report, the total amount provided for depreciation or the renewal of wasting assets was £933,000 in 1945, £632,000 in 1946 and £758,000 in 1947. This report argues that the amounts were more than sufficient and that some amount ought to be taken off each year over a period of years. We must assume that would be the normal way, but we have to have regard to the fact that, in the words of this report itself,

"the rolling stock and the property of the company had run down very greatly, particularly during the war years."

We all know that it was not in a fit position to carry out satisfactorily the tasks that we had entrusted to it then. It is stated in paragraph 495:—

"a very large part of the wasting rail and road assets taken over by the new company in 1945 were overdue for replacement."

If they were overdue for replacement in 1945 they must be in a very bad state indeed, in 1949.

"There was a heavy accumulation of repair work due to the general shortage of material. Since 1945, it has been much easier to obtain replacements of road vehicles and materials for their repair than in the case of railway assets, and this has led to a further expansion of the road facilities already increased by the Great Southern Railways during the war."

Having regard to the situation with which the chairman and the board were then faced in regard to the deterioration of these assets which had been going for so many years, it surely was not easy to come to the conclusion that the largest possible amount ought to be set aside for depreciation, and that, in fact, the renewals so far as capital was concerned should be charged against current revenue. Whether that was according to the principles of conservative railway accounting, I think there was ample justification for it, having regard to the particular circumstances of Córas Iompair Éireann. If the Milne Report is right, and that more than sufficient was allowed for depreciation, a lesser amount ought to be sufficient to calculate over a period of years. The balance sheet, as Deputy Lemass pointed out, might be readjusted accordingly. This is not a Fianna Fáil recommendation or a Lemass recommendation. It is a recommendation made by the Milne Report in paragraph 165:—

"These proposals for a revision of the basis of provision for depreciation in the company's accounts should be made retroactive and a reconstruction of the balance sheet carried out as at 1st January, 1948. Adjustment of the capital values of the assets and the release of the Renewal Fund would enable the company to convert the adverse balance of £811,901 on profit and loss account at 31st December, 1947, into a credit balance of approximately £75,000."

I think the House has already asked for information as to what the policy was going to be in future regarding the economies and the long-term recommendations made in the Milne Report. If the taxpayers are to be asked to meet this very heavy expenditure, it is only right that they should have some guarantee that, in the future, the necessity for such an Estimate as this will not occur. We ought to be told that something definite is in mind as to what measures are necessary to secure additional traffic or to bring economies, or both.

We know, as has been pointed out here, that the new board will scarcely be in a position to undertake the necessary decisions. They will scarcely be in a position on their own initiative to make the necessary decisions if they feel that Government policy is antagonistic, or that they are not in line with the general conduct of affairs which the Minister would prescribe or the instructions which he would give. We know that the board appointed by the Government is a new board, and that it is scarcely likely to make itself unpopular by carrying out any drastic changes or by treading on people's corns. It is much easier to come here and look for the money in the knowledge that it is going to be unpopular here for any particular Deputy or Party to get up and say that so and so should be done on the grounds of economy if the position which the undertaking has reached by virtue of the serious decline in revenue on the railway side in particular is to be compassed.

The Minister was asked in the House as to what was being done or what was the Government's feeling with regard to the recommendations made in paragraphs 476 and 477 and as to the steps that might be taken to improve the company's financial position. It is true that, after a period of time, the Minister gave permission to the company to increase its charges, and so an additional income of about £600,000 was brought about. The Milne Report foresaw a further increase of perhaps another £400,000 or some increase in traffic. It would be interesting to know—they have given no indication— as to how they thought themselves the increase might come about. Perhaps it depended, to some extent, on the restrictive recommendations which they made further on. In any case, the general picture they gave was this:—

"On the assumption that the volume of traffic in future years is the same as that estimated for the year 1948 and the costs, including £250,000 as the cost in a full year of wage awards made during 1948, remain at the present level, the deficiency of net revenue, after providing for liquidation of goodwill but before payment of debenture interest, would be approximately £850,000."

The assumption was that even if traffic does not decline and if costs remain at their present level without any increase, before debenture interest is dealt with the loss will be in the neighbourhood of £850,000. I think that it will be easy to establish, when the Money Resolution for the Bill comes along, that if allowance is made for operating losses or for debenture interest, that figure is bound to be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 a year, if it is not greater.

That only envisages the present position. It does not envisage future capital commitments. The report stated that very heavy capital expenditure would be necessary, perhaps up to £10,500,000, of which £7,750,000 would have to be expended on the railways. It is quite clear that, in the future, we are very likely, unless the situation brightens in a way that the Minister apparently does not foresee, to face difficulties. He was careful to warn us, in his opening statement, that we are not likely, even in spite of this huge expenditure which the country is called upon to meet, to have anything very attractive for a period of some years.

If the situation improves, however, and if the Dáil can have some assurance that steps will be taken by way of doing something more vigorous, using more initiative in the recovery of traffic, we will all be very glad. If the Dáil can be assured that the position is likely to alter and the State will not be called upon to meet these charges after a reasonable period, that will be regarded as satisfactory. At the moment, however, my feeling is that these charges are likely to continue.

Deputy Davin complained of dictatorship, but it must be clear to him that by reason of the continuing decline of receipts on the railway side of the concern and the way the competition of motor transport has affected the railways, only drastic steps could right that situation. We have not got any information from the Minister as to what the Government's policy will be in the long term in that regard.

We are in the position now that we have 2,000 miles of railways which have to be maintained and which some board or other will have to try to make pay. In the future they will not be the responsibility of the stockholders, but they will be the responsibility of the State. As Deputy Larkin pointed out, the stockholders will draw their interest and dividends. They will not, it is quite true, control the company or interfere in its management, but it is the taxpayer who will be called upon to meet the bill when it is presented.

Captain Cowan

I feel that the country is now suffering for its failure to do its duty in 1944. In that year we had what I consider to be the greatest public racket that any of us have experience of. At that time the railway system, under its then management, was bankrupt and about that time statements were made by the then chairman and the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that the position was parlous. As a result, there was quite an exchange of railway stock and railway shares and, when the exchange had taken place, there was a Government guarantee to shareholders and a very considerable number of people in the country at that time made well out of that racket. In our 27 years of Government, that was the greatest racket that was ever perpetrated on the people.

When the 1944 Act was introduced and passed by this House, it made it possible for the racketeers to rake in a huge fortune. This was done under certain false pretences to the community. People were told that if the Bill was passed and Córas Iompair Éireann established in the way the then Minister said it should be established, it would be a paying concern and that, although there was provision for the Government guarantee, that guarantee might not be called upon.

At that time the people were fooled, and because they were fooled they have to pay through the nose now. If this House had been doing its duty in 1944 and if the people of the country had been alive to the real situation confronting them, Córas Iompair Éireann, as it was to be known, would have been nationalised then and the shareholders would have been bought out at what would have been a fair price for their useless stocks and shares. Instead of that we had this Government guarantee, and that guarantee is going to be carried on and is carried on into the new legislation, placing as it does, a millstone around the necks of the taxpayers of the country.

But the chickens have come home to roost. Those who perpetrated this hideous fraud five years ago on the people generally are now reaping the benefits. This bill for £4,091,000 must shock the whole community and it is the community which must foot the bill. They must foot it because their business was done incompetently five years ago, and because their business has been done inefficiently and incompetently ever since in relation to the management and control of Córas Iompair Éireann. Somebody should express some sympathy with the unfortunate taxpayers. I express my sympathy with them because they deserve sympathy. There should be no reason why, in these bad times, they should have this heavy bill for £4,091,000 imposed upon them. The only excuse for it is the incompetence and inefficiency of those who managed this concern for the last five years.

We were told in 1944 that when these new experts, as Deputy Davin describes them, were called in everything in the garden would be lovely. What do we find to-day? We find that they did not appear to be concerned with transport as a public utility, but they appeared to set themselves to the task of destroying rail transport by making it unpopular and thereby abolishing the assets of the company. Reference was made to the closing of the hotels. In addition to that this company sold all the houses it owned in the City of Dublin for the accommodation of its own workers. I asked the Minister recently how many houses had been sold, for what sum they were sold and to whom they were sold. The Minister replied that he was precluded from giving me that information. I am sorry the House did not get that information. I have been told that these houses were sold for £150 each. That is the sort of administration they had in Córas Iompair Éireann. These houses were sold for a song. I think the Minister should reconsider the answer he gave me and make the information I asked for then available to the public. I think it is a serious matter that the company should have sold their property to private landlords because these landlords refuse to do what Córas Iompair Éireann did. They will not put the premises in repair. They have increased the rents. Surely there was no necessity for that step. To me it is just one further example of the maladministration of Córas Iompair Éireann for which we now have to take responsibility in shouldering the burden of putting through this Estimate of £4,091,000 to pay the expenses incurred and certain capital charges.

In the Minister's statement to-day— and no one has adverted to this—he referred to the fact that under the wages pensions fund the company for a period of years has not paid into that fund its own contribution. Not only that, but the contributions paid by the workers have been embezzled by the company. If that had happened anywhere else the men who did it would be above in Mountjoy or Maryborough.

Mr. Lemass

That is not true.

Captain Cowan

But that is what the Minister said.

Mr. Lemass

That does not make it true.

Captain Cowan

I accept the Minister as being responsible.

Mr. Morrissey

Is the Deputy denying they withheld these moneys?

Mr. Lemass

I am denying that the Minister would not let them issue the capital sum to pay for this.

Captain Cowan

Does the Deputy deny that since 1945 the collected contributions in respect of the salary staff fund and, since 1947, in respect of the wages pensions fund have not been paid over by the company to the trustee fund?

Mr. Lemass

They invested them in the company's stock which they could not issue without the Minister's consent.

Mr. Morrissey

You may quibble as you like now.

Mr. Lemass

That is the fact.

Captain Cowan

I am concerned only with the statement made by the Minister to-day——

Mr. Morrissey

And the statement is absolutely true.

Captain Cowan

——the statement that during the years 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 the contributions paid by the workers to their pensions fund were not paid into that fund by the company but were used for some other purpose. I say that was a criminal action and I hold that it should involve the charging, trial and conviction of the people concerned. If we have one law for embezzlers outside Córas Iompair Éireann, we should have the same law for embezzlers inside it. Why was that done? It is shocking that these moneys should have been used for the particular purpose for which they have been used. It is shocking that the Dáil should now hear about it for the first time.

This bill includes £99,000 for income-tax. The company owes £66,000 income-tax at the moment and by the 31st March next it will owe an additional £33,000. The amount that will have to be paid to the wages pensions fund is in the region of £306,000. Motor taxation is in the region of £160,000. If this money is not paid the buses and the lorries of the company dare not run. On that point, may I mention that it has been discovered in Córas Iompair Éireann, that approximately 100 vehicles which only work for a short period in the year are taxed for the whole year? The private citizens who have to foot this bill could not afford to do that with their own private cars. They could not afford the luxury of taxing their cars for the full year while only using them for a couple of weeks in the summer. But Córas Iompair Éireann could do it and we shall have to pay. I am not going to deal with capital expenditure. They are items of capital expenditure that have been spent.

Mr. Lemass

Have they? Does the Deputy know that?

Captain Cowan

I understand they have.

Mr. Davin

You must pay for Store Street.

Captain Cowan

I understand that £928,000 of the item for capital expenditure has been expended or will be expended by the end of this year and that there will be capital expenditure of £252,000 between the 1st January and the 31st March——

Mr. Lemass

Why must the taxpayer have to foot it all?

Captain Cowan

——making, in all, £1,280,000 in respect of capital expenditure up to the 31st March next. Why must the taxpayer be called upon to pay it?

Mr. Lemass

Why not issue stock?

Mr. S. Collins

Who would buy it?

Mr. Lemass

It is Government guaranteed stock. I presume the credit of the Government has not fallen to the extent——

Captain Cowan

We should deal with the problem now.

Mr. Morrissey

It is because Deputy Lemass would not face his responsibility that we have to face this £4,000,000—the long finger.

An Ceann Comhairle

Captain Cowan.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Lemass referred to Sir James Milne's Report and to where Sir James Milne said that if the accounts were put in a different way they would show a credit balance. I do not care what way you put the accounts, this concern is up to its neck in debt.

Mr. Lemass

Now. That is, the last two years.

Mr. Davin

Since you went out, of course.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Lemass knows it was up to its neck in debt in 1944.

Mr. Lemass

Sir James Milne did not.

Captain Cowan

Do not mind about him. I am talking about the facts. This was a bankrupt concern in 1944.

Mr. Lemass

I did not exist in 1944.

Captain Cowan

If Deputy Lemass had done the right thing then he would have paid the stockholders and shareholders the few miserable bob they were entitled to, and he would not have put this millstone of 3 per cent. around the necks of the community in sæcula sæculorum. That would have been the approach—to go and nationalise it decently in 1944.

Mr. Lemass

At 3 per cent.

Captain Cowan

But he preferred to work it in the way he did. However, we have to face up to it. Deputy C. Lehane referred to this as an inquest. It is an inquest to some extent. At the same time, we ought to avail ourselves of the opportunity to advance some suggestions that may be helpful to the Minister in dealing with this problem in future. Our railway stations are a disgrace and a scandal. If you look at them at the moment, they have the appearance of an 1840 workhouse. These stations will have to be brightened up. They will have to be made attractive. Our rolling stock, our carriages, will have to be made attractive. Our engines will have to be speeded up. In other words, there must be, in so far as it can be provided, luxury for the travelling public —luxury in the railway stations, luxury in the carriages. There must be a place where you can get a cup of tea, or a glass of whiskey even at the increased price.

Might I say, too, to the Minister that he has still the golden opportunity of providing the grandest and most up-to-date station of all for our travelling passengers, that is, the central bus station in Store Street?

Mr. Davin

Which is in your constituency.

Captain Cowan

Which is in my constituency.

Mr. Lemass

And the central bus station at Amiens Street that Deputy Davin wants.

Captain Cowan

He would like that there too. I should like to see it there. Here is the position in regard to Store Street. According to the Taoiseach it has been decided to take that building over for the Department of Social Welfare. If the Department of Social Welfare is put in there to do clerical work——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has an amendment to another Bill and should not discuss it in advance.

Captain Cowan

I am not discussing it in advance.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Bill not being before us, the Deputy's attempt to discuss it now, in my interpretation of ordinary English is an attempt to discuss it in advance.

Mr. Davin

He is only canvassing it, Sir.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot have it both ways.

Captain Cowan

I am afraid that Córas Iompair Éireann will not own the place at all by the time my amendment comes up.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has expressed his fear. Very good.

Captain Cowan

If I cannot say anything in support of Store Street now I certainly could say a few things in condemnation of Smithfield.

Mr. Morrissey

There is no money in this for Smithfield.

An Ceann Comhairle

No.

Captain Cowan

I think there ought to be. I thought it was covered in the architect's fees.

Mr. S. Collins

You may be sure they are not doing it for nothing.

Captain Cowan

Let me put it in a general way. An effort will have to be made to make Córas Iompair Éireann pay its way. Even with that effort, capital expenditure will be required. State support will be necessary for a period of years. There is no doubt about it. We all must face it. The taxpayers and the Dáil must face the fact that the Minister will be bringing in Estimates not of this size but he will be bringing in Estimates for a number of years to come. Let that money be wisely spent in providing decent conditions of comfort for the travelling public.

However, in addition, every effort must be made to make Córas Iompair Éireann self-supporting. The only way Córas Iompair Éireann can be made self-supporting, in my view, is to deal with the competition to Córas Iompair Éireann by the private lorries. That is not a popular thing, I take it, but it is necessary that it should be said. I am sure that the Minister or one of the Minister's colleagues, probably in the next Budget, may be dealing with that.

In conclusion, I regret very much that the necessity has arisen for the introduction of an Estimate such as this. It will come as a shock to the public, just as it has come as a shock to the Deputies of the Dáil. But this shock has been what we might term delayed shock and has been due to incompetence and inefficiency over a number of years. Let us hope that the new steps that are to be taken will eliminate incompetency and inefficiency. If it does that, it will reduce the load the taxpayer will have to bear and, as one person who likes to sympathise with the taxpayer, I hope, in his interests, that that will be the position in the future.

Mr. McGrath

I had not any intention of speaking in this debate until I heard Deputy Cowan's contribution. One would think, listening to him, that a lot of people have forgotten what happened in 1944, 1945, 1946 and 1947. Deputy Cowan must not have had much experience of travelling by railway at all. Any of the Deputies who had to travel any distance in 1946 and 1947 will remember very well that the railways, due to lack of fuel, were only running once or twice a week on the main line. Deputies had to come up on the night mail. They had to leave Cork at 8.45 p.m. and arrive in Dublin at 9 o'clock the following morning. That was because of the type of fuel which was available. Everybody knows that railway staffs were retained during that period. I am sure that there would have been a fine outcry if an attempt were made to economise by cutting down staffs at that time. I am glad to say that Córas Iompair Éireann did not resort to that expedient, even though many other concerns were compelled to do so.

The Deputy also said that we should have bought up shares for a couple of "bob", their value at the time. So far as my knowledge goes, the value of stockholders' shares was reduced at one time from £100 to £10, which was a pretty good cut. I think that is as much as they should have been asked to bear. We all know that we had a big bus strike during that period which cost Córas Iompair Éireann a large amount of money. We know, too, that wages were increased for Córas Iompair Éireann as well as for everybody else, and that when this Government came into power they refused the company permission to increase fares when Córas Iompair Éireann asked them to do so. I think anybody with any common-sense will agree that it was impossible for any concern, no matter what it was, to pay increased costs for everything while it was not allowed to increase its charges. That was evidently done to make the position of Córas Iompair Éireann appear worse than it was when this Government took over. We were told that there would be no increase in bus fares, rail fares or anything else, but after allowing Córas Iompair Éireann to get into a far worse position than it was at the beginning of 1948, it was agreed that the fares should be raised.

I think that if people like Deputy Cowan, who had not much experience of travelling up and down the country during the emergency, will look back on the terrible conditions in which the railway service was carried on during those years, they will agree that it was marvellous that it was able to exist at all, because everybody knows that whether the railway is doing good business or bad business it has to maintain its staffs at the various stations. For a considerable time we had no passenger trains at all. We had only a coach on the night goods or the night mail, and one had to spend 12 or 14 hours in travelling from Cork to Dublin and the same period on the return journey. Surely no one could expect that any railway could pay under these conditions. I would ask Deputies opposite to remember these points and to remember that were it not that the company was eventually allowed to increase its fares it might have got into a far worse condition than that in which it is at present.

Mr. P.D. Lehane

I think everybody in the country was very disturbed at the alarming Supplementary Estimate that has been introduced this evening. I do not think there is much use in blaming one Party or another for it. It is a bill that must be faced by the already overburdened taxpayers. I would suggest to the Minister that Córas Iompair Éireann have never gone out of their way to facilitate the public or to attract business. They have proved themselves absolute dictators and people with whom it is impossible to deal. I have known cases in County Cork where farmers came along to railway stations at five minutes past 5 in the evening and their stock or their produce would not be accepted by the railway. That has been the attitude of the railway company, whether it was the Great Southern Railways or Córas Iompair Éireann, during all these years. Even though they might have changed their name considerably, the policy and the attitude of the company remained the same during all that time. They are doing nothing to facilitate the public travelling on the railways in County Cork, particularly in West Cork. So far as I can see, they are doing their best to prevent people from using the railway stations and to divert them on to the road services. Anybody can travel under first-class conditions on a bus to the same destination as he can travel first-class by train, and he will do so in a very much shorter space of time at considerably less money.

Deputy Cowan has advocated the abolition of privately owned lorries. I think that the private lorry owners are giving very definite and useful services to the people. They are able to pay their way and they have not to come to the Dáil to ask the taxpayers to subsidise them to the extent of £4,000,000. They are able to carry on their business efficiently on their own resources. I think it would be wrong for the Minister because he has to deal with a bankrupt company, to try to put people out of business who are doing a very fine national service and who are a definite national asset, particularly in rural areas.

Mr. Lynch

In the course of the speeches of Deputy Davin and Deputy Cowan about half an hour ago, it was sought to lay blame for the present position of the transport system on the enactment of the 1944 Act. I think that anybody who will examine the transport problem of the country, particularly in reference to the railways, must admit that there was a transport problem in existence long before the enactment of the 1944 Act. The two Deputies to whom I referred in particular did their best to create the impression that it was the enactment of that Act, the administration of the late Minister for Industry and Commerce and what they termed the maladministration of the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, that were responsible for the necessity of having to introduce an Estimate of £4,000,000 odd this evening. I would invite these Deputies to throw their minds back a couple of years and to remember the conditions that then prevailed. I certainly cannot throw mine back very far but I know of my own knowledge, that as far back as 1924, an Act was introduced by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government with the object of overcoming the grave transport problem which even then existed. It was sought to overcome that problem by amalgamating several companies into what we then knew as the Great Southern Railways Company. The root cause of the problem was the development of road transport and there is no use in suggesting that the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann or the present or past Minister for Industry and Commerce, is responsible for the advent of motor transport in this country. On the other hand, no one would suggest that motor transport should be banished because, if it were banished, the railway problem would be ended.

In 1932, on the accession of the Fianna Fáil Government, there was a very serious problem, and a glance at the figures as to the receipts of the Great Southern Railways at that time would be most enlightening. In 1925, the receipts from the passenger services of the Great Southern Railways amounted to £1,500,000. In 1933, the receipts had dropped by almost 100 per cent to £794,000. There is the kernel of the problem. Fianna Fáil faced the problem in 1933 when they brought in one of their railway Acts. They found that even the receipts from passenger transport of the Great Southern Railways had dropped by almost 100 per cent. Then take the transport of merchandise and live stock. In 1925, the receipts from the transport of merchandise and live stock amounted to £2,273,669, whereas by 1932 they had dropped to £1,697,404. Therefore, you had not to wait until 1944, 1945 or 1943 to realise that there was a serious situation facing the people in charge of the administration of railways.

If one examines the situation with an open and fair mind one knows that Córas Iompair Éireann or any other railway company are common carriers bound to accept any traffic in the form of merchandise that is offered to them to carry. They cannot do what licensed hauliers do and pick and choose between economic and uneconomic traffic. Nobody would try to impose on the private haulier the burden of uneconomic traffic. If that were done, the Minister would be able to find a remedy, in part at any rate, for the present-day problem. But, if anyone suggested or tried to enforce such a proposition, I would be one of his greatest protagonists. I think it is unfair for people like Deputy Davin to misrepresent the problem by trying to blame people who tried honestly to remedy the situation. I maintain that the situation was remedied to an extent, so far as the economic conditions of the country would allow at the time.

The receipts from passenger transport had increased from £794,000 in 1933 to £844,000 in 1938 and the receipts from the carriage of live stock and merchandise had increased from £1,697,000 in 1932 to £1,856,000 in 1938. That in itself proves that the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was succeeding to some extent in arresting the decay of the railway system. Everybody knows that motor transport, both from the point of view of private registered cars and goods vehicles has increased considerably in these years. Despite that increase, the last Administration were able to maintain and increase the revenue from these essential rail services. From 1925 to 1938 private motor cars registered in the Twenty-Six Counties increased from 16,000 to 48,500. That is an alarming increase and each new motor car registered meant so many passengers less for the railways. Goods vehicles increased from 4,500 in 1925 to 10,400 in 1938. In spite of that increase, the Great Southern Railways were able to increase their revenue from the transport of goods. It is ludicrous to suggest that the people who were responsible for the administration of transport were not able to grapple with the problem. In spite of this alarming increase, Great Southern Railways were able to increase their receipts. I have not the figures at the moment of the increase in road vehicles from 1938 to 1948, but I would not be surprised to hear that they were almost doubled.

Mr. Davin

More than doubled.

Mr. Lynch

Is it not reasonable to assume that the transport problem in the past two or three years has more than doubled in its seriousness? Nobody should try to deny that there is a serious problem or try to put the blame on the shoulders of one, two or a dozen individuals. You might as well accuse Henry Ford of creating the transport problem, although he probably was as responsible for it as anybody else.

Deputy Davin suggested by reference to reports that Deputy Lemass's policy was to do away with the railway system as much as he could. I am sure Deputy Davin was in the House when Deputy Lemass, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, introduced the 1944 Act and heard him say, as reported in column 1796, Volume 93, of the Official Reports:—

"Our experience during the war years clearly demonstrated that the railways remain the backbone of our transport system and it is the Government's view that no transport policy is sound unless it makes ample provision for the maintenance of these services."

That was the spirit in which the 1944 Act was introduced and that is the spirit in which I know Fianna Fáil would approach the transport problem. Nobody need impress on me the necessity for the maintenance of the railway services, particularly during emergency years. If war comes again, which God forbid, it is obvious that it will be almost impossible to get fuel oil and petrol for motor vehicles. It would mean that motor cars would be practically off the road and we would have to fall back again on the railways for the transport of passengers and merchandise. Therefore, it must be the policy of any sane Government to maintain the railway services as the backbone of our railway system. In spite of what Deputies Davin and C. Lehane said, it was the policy of the last Government and it will continue to be their policy while in opposition.

Deputy C. Lehane, in trying to put the blame on the shoulders of Deputy Lemass, made no effort to examine for what purpose this £4,000,000 is needed. Neither did Deputy Davin make any serious attempt to inquire as to the purpose for which this sum is now to be provided. It is obviously to be provided to meet a situation which has arisen as a result of the Minister's policy in not meeting certain demands by Córas Iompair Éireann. I also seriously suggest that the Minister is trying to anticipate certain charges that would normally come for payment from the Central Fund in the course of the next few months or year in the hope that, when his new board is set up, as a result of voting this money now the new board will not be required to call on the Government for any substantial sums for a reasonable period while they are in office. The Minister can come before the House and say: "The new board do not require as much as I had to provide as a result of the maladministration of the last Government" and, like the boy who pulled out a plum, go to the company and say "What a good boy am I".

Mr. O'Leary

Deputy Lynch and Deputy McGrath were not in this House in 1944 when we were told by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that we were going to have an extended transport system. We were to have grand carriages, lovely buses and cheaper fares, but what happened? In the middle of the night, after the Government was defeated by one vote, the country was plunged into a general election on the Transport Bill. The present position is no mystery to the people of the country at all. After 1948, Deputy Byrne had a question down about bus fares being increased. The present Minister for Industry and Commerce said that the House and the country would have to be told that we had a bankrupt transport company, and that there was not a penny to pay the workers in Córas Iompair Éireann. The Minister had then to go to the Minister for Finance and get £500,000 to pay the wages of these men.

No one on this side of the House is a bit concerned about the present position, because they know how the country was placed by the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce. We all know that people were appointed to positions in Córas Iompair Éireann who knew nothing about the business. They were friends and relations with big salaries. The former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann said that he wanted to make the people road-minded. He did not want the railways at all. We had all classes of big lorries with trailers going to the fairs and markets and carrying the live stock which heretofore were carried on the railways. The loading banks at the railway stations for horses, cattle and sheep were left lying idle, and instead the horses, cattle and sheep were taken on the double-decker lorries.

We want to see the railways maintained because they give more employment than vehicles on the road. No country can do without railways. A bus carrying 32 passengers can be run by two men. We all know that these buses have been competing with the railways and in many cases are running alongside the railway lines. I would have no objection to buses on routes which are not served by the railways. I do not want to see the buses competing with the railways. That was the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government and Party. When Deputy MacEoin was sitting on the opposite side of the House he told the then Minister for Industry and Commerce what would happen when we were discussing the 1944 Transport Bill. On the first of these Bills, the Government was defeated. The Taoiseach then went up to the Park in the middle of the night and had the Dáil dissolved when the country was asleep. According to the present Minister, when the new chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was appointed, there was not a penny in the Kingsbridge to pay anyone.

Mr. Lemass

Who paid them?

Mr. O'Leary

You will get your answer to-night to all the slander that you put out in Donegal. As I say, there was no money to pay the wages of the Córas Iompair Éireann men.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I have not very much to say on this Estimate, except to remark that I think it would be a pity, on such an important subject as the transport of the country, to allow an undue amount of political bias, or to have statements made that were unduly biased politically. I am quite sure of this, that it will be fairly hard in future to get a manager to run a transport system in this country. The Minister, too, will be fairly careful about adventuring on a transport system. Has not our problem here been created entirely by a more modern invention in the case of transport? Is not that the whole difficulty? Undoubtedly, the people can maintain an economic railway system if they want to do so, but the fact is that they have not done so. It is now a question of trying to see how we can induce them to support the railways. Most of us here remember when we had several railway companies in the country: the Midland Great Western, the Great Northern, the Great Southern and the Dublin, Wick-low and Wexford Railway. I saw all those companies in competition with one another. The Great Northern was in competition with the Great Western and carried on a fight in regard to freights. That, mind you, was at a time when these railway companies were paying, but still they were in competition.

Mr. Davin

But they were not paying their men.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

The moment they were semi-nationalised they ceased to pay. The lesson that is to be learned from that should be studied by the present Government.

Mr. Davin

The Deputy is talking about dividends.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

I am stating facts. Therefore, what Deputy Davin says is not true, that the late manager was responsible for the present position.

Finally, the railway company kept on and maintained what was an old system, a system which was undoubtedly foreign to the majority of the people. It was never what you would call popular, either. We all remember what happened away back in 1925, 1926 and 1927 when the lorries and the buses began to make their appearance on the roads. The lorries and the buses were privately owned. They gave what might be called a personal service. During that period these lorries and buses got a grip on the people. After a time, the buses became dangerous due to over-competition between them. Attempts were made to relieve that position and to maintain some sort of balance. What I believe we are faced with now is the entire elimination of private lorries and, in fact, the entire elimination of motor transport on the roads. Can we do that? Have we liberty for all those systems here? I do not believe we have. If we were quite serious and honest about putting the railways into the position they were in and getting the people to support them, we would have to pass legislation to eliminate all other competition. I think that is the only way.

The statement is made that the railway company, in 1947, had a deficit. It may have had but, according to what I am told and what I have read, that balance sheet, if it had been produced in a different form, would not have shown any such deficit. I know, and I suppose the Minister knows, that many of these balance sheets are capable of manipulation.

Mr. Davin

By experts.

Mr. M. O'Reilly

If that is the case, and I believe it is, it would call for some attention. I believe the position is that up to 1947 the railway company was economic and able to meet its liabilities. The money must have been there anyway, and I think that cannot be denied. What happens? The Minister refused to sanction an increase in wages and there was a strike. Is not that the case? There was a definite refusal to sanction an increase of wages. What sort of business is the railway business? They have not any assets and they have no credit. I do not think they have any assets. They may have some rolling stock and some lorries. They have big long lines with a bit of land attached and a few railway stations that are really worth little. They have no liquid security so far as I can see and, therefore, it was incumbent on the Government to come to the relief of the railway company and allow them to increase their fares in order to meet the wages after they had been increased.

Therefore, the Minister should have a good deal to say about this thing and that point should be clearly explained. The only way the railway company had of getting extra money was by sanction from the Minister and then they could get it from the banks or elsewhere-whatever way they have of borrowing. The railway company is a very defenceless system so far as borrowing is concerned because it has no assets.

Mr. Davin

Although it was run by bank directors for so many years?

Mr. M. O'Reilly

A lot of nonsense is talked in that way. It was run as best it could be run. They ran it for dividends, the same as you work for your salary. I am not a believer in that type of talk. I hope the Minister will try to lift this very important question over the level of mere politics. It is not very much advantage to the people who are faced with this bill to be told that the Coalition or Fianna Fáil scored. We should look at it in a totally different light. It is a very important question, one which should be handled in this House without any political fear, favour or affection and without looking for political credit. It should be regarded as a national issue.

We cannot live without a transport system. There are no people who suffer more from a bad transport system than the farmers. Up to the present, whatever this Government may do, Córas Iompair Éireann as a system did not give the necessary services. They were limited to time. Farmers and others engaged in the breeding of pure-bred stock had the greatest difficulty and, generally, they were forced to have their own lorries. If they had not their own lorries they were forced to hire private lorries. Córas Iompair Éireann will have to drop the old ideas and give a more personal service to the community. I hope the Minister, whatever control he may have over the system, will eradicate the old ideas and see that the people are given the services they want. Then there will be no further need for legislation here.

Mr. Bartley

I do not think I could let Deputy Davin's speech pass without making a comment on it.

Mr. Davin

Thanks very much.

Mr. Bartley

I think it is unfortunate that the transport difficulties we are trying to solve should be made the butt of Party politics. That mistake was made, with disastrous consequences to the country, over the land annuities and, if it is not too late now, I hope a similar mistake will be avoided in this instance.

It should be obvious that the development of road transport in every country has hit the railways. There was one remark made by Deputy Davin to which I would like to refer. He said the previous Administration had a bias against the railways. We can disprove that, or we can prove, in any event, that there was a still stronger bias against the railways in the earlier Administration. Deputy Davin was then a member of this House and railway administration was a subject proper for discussion in the House. Hereafter, I understand, it will not be when this Bill goes through. I would like to quote part of the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was introducing the Transport Bill in 1944. In column 1796 of Volume 93, Parliamentary Debates, he is reported:—

"The Government believes, as its earlier legislation demonstrated and as many public statements by members of the Government have emphasised, that the maintenance of our railway services, now and in the future, is the kernel of our transport problem. Our experience during the war years has clearly demonstrated that the railways remain the backbone of our transport system, and it is the Government's view that no transport policy is sound unless it makes ample provision for the maintenance of the main-line railway services. To make provision for that purpose, the only practicable method is to secure for them sufficient traffic to permit of their profitable operation."

There is not any bias in that against railways. Here is something from the Milne Report, page 18, paragraph 33:—

"The most efficient and economical transport system would be one under which all forms of transport are employed to the greatest national advantage in meeting the requirements of users at the lowest possible cost."

There is not any bias there in favour of the railways. Deputy Davin based his case on the branch lines.

Mr. Davin

I read what the previous chairman suggested on 13th March.

Mr. Bartley

Deputy Davin referred to the treatment of the branch lines as the ground on which he based his charge of a bias against the railways.

Mr. S. Collins

The Deputy is trying to prove that two wrongs make a right.

Mr. Bartley

I want to put this forward for the consideration of the Deputy concerned, that if the closing of the branch lines indicates a bias against the railways, surely the Deputy should hold a fortiori that the closing of main lines indicates a still stronger bias against the railways. Take what was done by the Administration there before Fianna Fáil came in. Deputy Davin was a member of the House at the time when the railway administration undertook the closing of 170 miles of line on the old Midland Great Western Railway. That is still closed.

On this question of railway bias, I do not think there is anything to choose when making political capital out of what has happened to our railways under our two Governments. I think one should approach this matter from the point of view of the hard economic facts of the actual position. On the question of politics, it seems to me that a more serious charge could perhaps be laid against the present Government inasmuch as it refused to permit any increase in rates and fares until after six months had elapsed and the losses had been increased still further. I think that is much more serious than what has happened to the branch lines. It was interesting to hear Deputy Davin say that he uses the railways although they are inconvenient for his purposes. I know other Deputies who have had the same experience. Not only that, but they undertook in my constituency to establish road services which had the result of finishing the railways altogether. On the board of directors of that company there were two T.Ds. They were not Fianna Fáil T.Ds. The less said on this question of bias the better, particularly since the charges cannot be proved. If we approach the problem from the point of view of economic facts we shall avoid unnecessary recrimination. In so far as the Minister will make an honest attempt to solve the problem of our railways, he will have the backing of this Party, but only on condition that he drops this imputation of blame to Fianna Fáil because of the unsuccessful running of our railways. That charge cannot be substantiated.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

I am not agreeing to the Minister concluding.

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Deputy want to make another speech?

Mr. Lemass

If necessary.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have called on the Minister to conclude and the argument does not arise now.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy wants to change the rules.

Mr. Lemass

I am sticking to the rules.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

A matter relating to order does not arise between Deputy Lemass and the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

The Minister is assuming it does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have called upon the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

I am objecting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If Deputy Lemass thinks that he is aggrieved, there is advice available to him as to how to proceed.

Mr. Lemass

On a point of order. I am not quite clear. The House is in Committee and, under the rules of the House, the Chair has no power to call on the Minister to conclude the debate. The debate concludes only when the subject has been fully discussed by the House. I take it I am not being deprived of my rights under Standing Orders.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The general procedure that has been established for years is being carried out now.

Mr. Lemass

I am not concerned with the procedure carried out for years or the Chair's interpretation of it. I want to be informed of my rights under the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

This matter arose quite recently when the Ceann Comhairle was in the Chair. Deputy Lemass was the objector also on that occasion and the Chair ruled that the procedure established would be carried out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is so. I am calling on the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

I want to register my protest. The Chair has no right to deprive me of my rights under Standing Orders.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has made his protest and his statement.

Mr. Lemass

May I reinforce my protest by reference to two facts? Firstly, in my speech upon this Estimate I protested against the inadequacy of the information given by the Minister. Whether that will be remedied or not I do not know. Secondly, may I point out that the debate on this Estimate wandered very far afield and covered a number of subjects affecting the transport situation which were not directly relevant to the Estimate? I confined myself strictly to the Estimate, but I think I have a right to deal with the other matters raised here since they are matters which may influence the Vote of the House upon this Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

What is wrong with the Deputy is——

Mr. Lemass

I have raised a point of order and I am raising a point of order now.

Mr. Morrissey

This is a point of disorder.

Mr. Lemass

I want a specific ruling from the Chair as to whether or not I shall be entitled to continue this debate after the Minister has spoken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is not for me to give an indication of that now. I have called upon the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

Am I entitled to ask you——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy would allow me to finish. The Minister is entitled to intervene at any stage. If the Deputy wishes to raise a further point when the Minister has concluded, that is a matter for the Deputy. It is not for the Chair to give an indication in advance.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite satisfied with that so long as the Chair is not specifically ruling me out.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy, of course, would be perfectly satisfied if he could make a speech after me every time I spoke. I have been called upon to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

I hope the Minister is going to conclude.

Mr. Morrissey

I am going to conclude and, further than that, I am certainly not going to leave the House or Deputy Lemass under any illusions as to his or their rights so far as I am concerned.

Mr. Lemass

Fortunately for me, I am not dependent upon the Minister for my rights.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy, of course, is trying his usual tricks. He does not want to hear the truth. But he will not prevent me from speaking the truth and I will not be interrupted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister will now deal with the Estimate. The Chair will deal with all points of order.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not attempting to deal with a point of order. I am dealing with Deputy Lemass and his antics and I want to make it quite clear that the Deputy will not get away with it. The Deputy must realise that he is on that side of the House now. He had the first and last word for 16 years and he insisted on having it.

Mr. Allen

Where were you then?

Mr. Morrissey

I was over there and I did not do half the squealing in 27 years on that side of the House that you have done in the past 18 months.

Mr. Allen

You could have all the words you liked then.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall have a few words now and I advise the Deputy to remain silent. He is not helping himself or his Party. He is certainly not helping his colleague on the Front Bench. Deputy Lemass has tried every trick in the trade to prevent me giving the House and the public the true facts. Deputy Matt O'Reilly, speaking from beside Deputy Lemass, moved me by his appeal to raise this debate to a higher level than it had attained at any stage to-day. I wonder was the Deputy out of the House when Deputy Lemass was speaking. I wonder was he ashamed of the line Deputy Lemass took upon this Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

There is nothing——

Mr. Morrissey

Sit down and take your medicine. You are very good at dishing it out. We got the usual histrionic performance from Deputy Lemass. He made a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue. He gave a performance that was a mixture of brazen impudence and frothy eloquence. But I have known the Deputy for a long time and so has this House. Listening to him here and reading him in the Fianna Fáil organ, one has to say that, whatever tender spots the Deputy has in his physical make-up, none of them are located in his neck.

Mr. Lemass

Cut out the personal abuse and get on with the Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

I shall get on with the Estimate in the way I like, subject only to the ruling of the Chair in this House. I shall not allow Deputy Lemass or anybody else to dictate to me what line I should take.

Mr. Lemass

I am asking you to cut out the abuse.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy should practise what he preaches.

Mr. Lemass

I do practise it.

Mr. Morrissey

I object to being lectured on honesty, straightforwardness and truthfulness. I probably know a good deal more about those virtues than does Deputy Allen. I certainly resent, and I think I have a right to resent, a lecture from that side of the House on honesty, straightforwardness and truthfulness. I could give examples of the sort of honesty, of the sort of straightforwardness, of the sort of truthfulness which we have experienced, not only in respect of this matter that is now before us but in respect of many others. The Deputy is talking about personal abuse. He objected that my statement was brief. It was a purely factual statement, giving the facts and figures of the situation—figures which have been prepared by the accountants in Córas Iompair Éireann and by the officers of my Department—and scrutinised by the officers of my Department and by the officers of the Department of Finance.

Those figures are made up of the sums that are absolutely essential to enable this concern to pay its way to the 31st March next. Deputy Lemass's way, of course, of paying the debts of this company is to borrow more. That is a well-known way, of course. The Deputy's case is that you improve your financial position by going deeper into debt or you improve your financial position by changing or borrowing from one person to another. The Deputy told me that all I need come for to the House now is £360,000. That statement was made to this House and expected by Deputy Lemass to be taken seriously. A sum of £306,000 alone is required to set right the position in relation to the two pension funds.

Mr. Davin

Confiscated money.

Mr. Lemass

Nonsense.

Mr. Davin

You know it.

Mr. Morrissey

I did not make any accusations of embezzlement or misappropriation or misuse of moneys. I stated the facts. I explained that I wanted that £306,000. Does Deputy Lemass or Deputy de Valera or anybody over there with any knowledge and experience of government seriously suggest to this House that I could go to the Department of Finance, and the Minister for Finance, and get not only the money which was required, the absolute minimum that was required, to pay the debts that must be paid but that the Department of Finance were so generous that they insisted on giving me more than was required? If that was Deputy Lemass's experience of the Department of Finance in his day, it certainly has not been my experience—and very properly so. The Department of Finance will test and sift every figure over and over again before they will agree to it. The Deputy, of course, is sore and his Party is sore because this rather sordid, unfortunate story has been exposed. It had to be exposed and it has to be set right. So far as I am concerned, and so far as this Government is concerned, my way of facing up to difficulties and to obstacles and obstructions is not to ignore them, not to imagine to myself that they are not there, not to postpone them.

The Deputy, and his colleague, Deputy Derrig, and some of his back benchers, are completely wedded to the Milne report. They are delighted with it. They hold it to their breasts. Deputy Derrig has read and absorbed every line of it and he agrees with every line of it. Deputy Lemass, who denounces as British experts the people who prepared that report, can quote it or attempt to quote it against me when it suits his book; the devil quoting Scripture. The Deputy quotes that to try and assert that Córas Iompair Éireann did not lose money in 1947.

Mr. Lemass

Oh, it did.

Mr. Morrissey

But the Deputy said "Not at all"——

Mr. Lemass

I did not say 1947. I said that at the end of 1947, at the end of three years, according to the Milne recommendation it had £75,000 to credit in the profit and loss account.

Mr. Morrissey

Let me remind the Deputy of what he said on the first day he sat on those benches opposite. I quote from column 59 of the Official Report of the 18th February, 1948:

"I saw statements made by some of the Coalition Deputies during the election to the effect that the railways were making vast profits for their private shareholders. The railway system of Córas Iompair Éireann last year lost £1,000,000."

That is what Deputy Lemass said on 18th February, 1948. Deputy Lemass knows that if he had not agreed to allow Córas Iompair Éireann in 1947 to increase their rates and their bus fares that that loss would have been £2,000,000. Does the Deputy deny that?

I went into the Department of Industry and Commerce on 18th February, 1948. Within a week or so, I think, the Chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann saw me in connection with the application which reached the Department on 20th February. He was then able to tell me that their estimated losses for 1948 would be £1,250,000. Actually they were over £1,420,000. Deputy Lemass compares losses or tries to compare 1947-48 with 1949. They had not begun to pay for some of the white elephants in 1947. The moneys which we are now seeking I have set out here—notwithstanding what Deputy Lemass has said —in the clearest possible way. I have broken down the figures to show what is for working losses, what is for debenture interest, what is for capital and what is for repayment of debentures. I have broken down the capital to show what was in respect of capital commitments entered into this year— and practically all of them were in respect of buses, lorries, wagons, carriages, rails, sleepers, plates and so forth; in other words, in respect of commodities which it is absolutely essential to get if this transport system is ever to be made pay.

But the other half of the big sum for capital expenditure is in respect of projects which were entered upon before I came in here and none of which were essential to the efficiency and economic running of a transport system, and not one of which would enable it to earn an extra shilling. Remember, this transport system that we are told about now did not build a railway carriage since 1937. Remember that, notwithstanding the millions, with all those grandiose schemes they have, they were not investing any of that money and had not gone to the distance of investing that money in anything that was going to be remunerative and was going to enable them to earn revenue—except five super diesel electric engines for a cost of £80,000 each and 90 or 93 locomotive boilers which were not required. Remember, further, and do not forget it, because it marks the mentality of the people who were in charge of Córas Iompair Éireann, that as late as October, 1948—four months after informing me that they had not the money to pay the interest on the debentures that were due, and within three weeks of coming to inform me that they had not the money to pay the wages of the men —they were embarking on a scheme at the Broadstone at an estimated cost of £927,000.

When that was brought to my notice, knowing the financial position in which they were, having being informed by them of that, knowing that their own estimate was that they were going to lose between £4,000 and £5,000 per day for the whole of 1948, I, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, requested them to defer starting that work at the Broadstone until such time, at least, as we got the report from Sir James Milne, and I was informed that they regretted they could not see their way to accede to my request. They regretted ! They were embarking on an expenditure of £1,000,000 at a time when they did not know where they were going to get the next week's wages. Then I am supposed to sit here and listen to Deputy Lemass lecturing, denouncing and suggesting that of course nobody is right except himself. This is the gentleman, the head of the Party organ which yesterday had the brazen effrontery to publish a long leading article about Córas Iompair Éireann which they headed "Muddling Through." If ever a greater muddler cursed this country than the Deputy responsible for that and for the charges made here this evening, I have not heard of him and I hope I shall never hear of him.

The Deputy and his colleagues have only one line of attack. That is that they should be allowed to say what they like, that they should be allowed to attack whom they like and that nobody should be allowed to hit back. The Deputies opposite, because of their weight of numbers, were able to assert that and they took full advantage of it for a long number of years. I have a statement there. Every word of it will be on record, every figure of it will be on record. That is not a statement made at a crossroads or in the columns of a political organ. It is a statement made here in Leinster House, a statement containing figures, every one of which has been checked by responsible officers of this State, every figure of which was put before me, not one figure of which was put there by myself or by my colleague the Minister for Finance. Deputy Lemass knows that. He knew that when he suggested that these figures were deliberately cooked for political purposes by either myself or the Minister for Finance or both of us. He knew the statement he was making was untrue. Of course the Deputy is never more brazen and never further from the truth than when he is conscious of having a bad case and when the ground under his feet is not very firm.

There are many other points that could be dealt with and they probably will be dealt with. The Deputy's colleagues appealed to me to have this matter of the national transport system dealt with, if possible, without any Party prejudice or Party bitterness, without any attempt on one side to score off the other and having regard only to the fact that this is a national service. Deputy Lemass and his colleagues were so readily agreeable to enter into the spirit of that appeal that when a suggestion was made from the Ceann Comhairle's office to enable the business of the Committee Stage of this Bill to be got through more expeditiously and to give Deputies a better chance of doing it in a clear lucid way, that Government amendments should be taken first and that when they were disposed of the Bill should be reprinted with whatever Government amendments the House agreed to insert, so that Deputies could see it in its then form and decide whether they would move other amendments, Deputy Lemass would not agree to that suggestion.

Mr. Lemass

That is not true. It is a complete misrepresentation. The only question that was put to me was whether it would save time and I said that I thought it would not.

Mr. Morrissey

If that is untrue, I readily apologise to the Deputy. I do that with all sincerity and I regret having made the statement but I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to my Department to get into touch with Deputy Lemass and to put the suggestion to him as I thought it might save time, though in one way it might not. I was informed that the Deputy would not agree to the suggestion.

Mr. Lemass

I was asked whether it would save time and I said it would not. The Minister agrees with that.

Mr. Morrissey

It would save time in one sense but not in another. It would certainly lead to a much clearer discussion on the Committee Stage. I am not concerned one way or the other but if what I have said is denied by the Deputy, I accept his denial.

Mr. Lemass

I did not agree that it would save time.

Mr. Morrissey

Does the Deputy agree to that course now, whether it does or not?

Mr. Lemass

That is another question.

Mr. Morrissey

That is interesting.

Mr. Lemass

The only suggestion that was put to me was that it would save time.

Mr. Morrissey

I put the other question to the Deputy. He answered one and he sidesteps the other. The Deputy can have it his own way. I regret more than I can say that it is necessary to come to the House for this huge sum and I agree entirely with Deputy Cowan that the taxpayer is deserving of our sympathy. I was only hoping that the Deputy might have spared a little bit of sympathy for me because I think I am entitled to it, not to the abuse which I got from Deputy Lemass but to a bit of sympathy also. In any case whoever is responsible for the present position— Deputy Lemass again in his organ described it as "the mess" over Córas Iompair Éireann—it has got to be put right. When any body is in financial difficulties, whether it be a large corporation, a limited company or an individual, the first essential to help it or to put it right is to clear off its debts and let it start on an even keel. The suggestion was made—not a word of truth of course in it; the person who made the suggestion did not believe one word of it himself—that in this £4,000,000 there is a camouflaged subsidy for the new board. That is entirely untrue. The suggestion was also made that I was doing this deliberately so that I would not have to come to the House for a subsidy. That is untrue. I stated quite clearly when I was introducing the Estimate that I could not hold out any hope of any spectacular improvement overnight. I said I believed, and I do believe, that there can be and will be a gradual improvement in the service. But I also stated that, in my opinion, it will be necessary for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, whoever he may be, for some years to come to this House annually and make provision in the Estimate for a certain sum for Córas Iompair Éireann. I hope the sum will be a small one and that it will be a diminishing one.

I want to put it to Deputies on all sides of the House, on my own side as well as on the far side, that this does disclose a serious position and that it ought to shock them into a sense of reality. I hope it will get Deputies to realise that you cannot insist, on the one hand, on shackling and restricting, in relation to its services, its charges, wages, pensions and redundancy and everything else, a public transport service and at the same time say that it must work efficiently and economically. Still less can you do that if, side by side with insisting on shackling, tying and restricting in every way a national transport service, you are going to insist, as Deputies on all sides of the House are insisting, that its competitors must be absolutely free to work where they like, when they like, whatever hours they like, pay whatever wages they like, operate over any routes they like, carry any merchandise which they themselves may select and refuse to carry any merchandise which they do not select.

Captain Cowan

I am certainly against that.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not saying the Deputy is in favour of it, but he knows as well as I do that that is the point of view held by people inside and outside of this House. I hope Deputies will face up to the reality of the situation. If Deputies want to attempt to reconcile what I think cannot be reconciled as I have outlined it, then I cannot stop them. I would prefer if we could have debated this Supplementary Estimate in a different way and in a different atmosphere. I did not import any heat into the debate. As I say, the statement was a factual one containing the facts and the figures. There is not a figure that should not be there or a figure omitted that should be there. These are sums of money which I am advised are required to meet the various commitments outlined there up to the 31st March next. If I have any regret, it is that the big sum I am asking the House to vote will not carry us beyond the 31st March next.

Mr. Lemass

Will you tell me what are my rights, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lemass is not entitled to speak after the Minister has concluded.

Mr. Lemass

That is not according to the Standing Order. It is your personal ruling.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is according to the Standing Order.

Mr. Morrissey

It is in accordance with 27 years' practice.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Standing Orders say that a Deputy is entitled to speak twice during the Committee Stage on the matter before the House. Nobody denied Deputy Lemass that right. When the Deputy raised a point before the Minister spoke, it was not for me to tell the Deputy that he should speak then.

Mr. Lemass

I ask you to refer me to the Standing Order which gives the right to the Chair to terminate the debate by calling on the Minister to conclude.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must bring the debate to finality some time. No Deputy offered himself at the time the Minister rose and the Chair called on the Minister to conclude. Deputy Lemass made a protest against the Minister being called on, but he did not offer himself to speak.

Mr. de Valera

On the point as to whether the Minister, when he speaks, is concluding the debate, I remember the present Minister for Finance insisting on his right to speak after the Minister had been called on to conclude on the ground that there was no limit to the number of times that a Deputy could speak in debate on the Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Surely when the Chair looks round the Chamber and sees no Deputy offering himself to speak, the Chair must conclude that every Deputy has spoken who wants to speak.

Mr. Lemass

I made it quite clear that whether I would intervene again depended very much on the adequacy of the Minister's explanation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lemass did not offer himself to speak. The Deputy protested. I told him that the Chair gives no advice in the matter. It is for the Deputy to decide for himself when he should speak.

Mr. de Valera

The point is whether at a certain point the Minister concludes the debate or not. I am perfectly certain that the records of the House will show that, after the Minister had been called on and the Chair said he was concluding the debate, the present Minister for Finance demanded as a right, under the Standing Orders, that he be allowed to speak as there was no limit to the number of times a Deputy might speak in Committee. He claimed that he could speak after the Minister and that the Minister could speak again if he wanted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister moved an Estimate for a certain amount and Deputies offered themselves from various sides of the House. They were allowed to speak. I do not know why Deputy Lemass protested against the Minister being called upon to conclude. He did not offer himself to speak. If Deputy Lemass had offered himself to speak at that time, I would have allowed him. The Chair must bring the matter to finality some time. When nobody offered himself to speak, the Chair came to the conclusion that no Deputy desired to speak and I called on the Minister to conclude.

Mr. Morrissey

I submit, with all respect, that Deputies opposite know quite well what is meant by Deputies being allowed to speak more than once in Committee. That is a right which has been exercised over and over again. I submit, however, that Deputies have not been allowed to speak after the Minister dealing with the particular matter has been called upon to conclude.

Mr. Lemass

With the consent of the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot allow this to deteriorate into an argument.

Mr. Lemass

May I point out that another Deputy did rise, but resumed his seat because the Chair called upon the Minister to conclude? I refer to Deputy Collins.

Mr. S. Collins

I gave way deliberately to the Minister.

Mr. Lemass

To conclude?

Mr. S. Collins

Yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If a Deputy offers himself and then withdraws, it is no concern of the Minister. I rule that the Minister has concluded the debate.

Mr. Morrissey

It is the old story; they want to change now.

Mr. Lemass

Am I entitled to ask the Minister a question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to ask a question but not by way of a speech.

Mr. de Valera

On the occasion I referred to I contended, as the present Minister is doing, that the Minister should be allowed to conclude and that when he had concluded nobody else should speak. I am anxious that the matter should be set right and the procedure well established.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not adding very much to it.

Mr. de Valera

I suggest that the matter should be set right by having the Standing Order changed.

Mr. Lemass

Without prejudice to my rights, I want to ask a few questions which relate to the Estimate. Of this Estimate of £4,000,000, £2,500,000 is described as an advance for capital purposes. Is not that correct?

Mr. Morrissey

Yes.

Mr. Lemass

That is to say, that that £2,500,000 is not to meet losses or to pay debenture interest, is not to meet any purpose except capital expenditure by the company. Why is that money required for capital purposes being advanced from the Exchequer? Why is it not being provided in the way prescribed by law, by the issue of guaranteed debentures under the old Act, or by the issue of transport stock under the new Bill?

Why is the taxpayer being asked to provide the money required to meet losses? Why is the money that is required for capital purposes going to be expended on capital assets? Is there any reason why that money is being advanced out of the Vote? Secondly, is any part of that capital advance of £2,500,000, which is by far the greater part of this Estimate, required to redeem the debentures already issued, before the 1st April next? Thirdly, will the Minister explain how it is that the amount required to pay debenture interest——

Mr. Morrissey

This is complete evasion.

Mr. Lemass

——exceeds the amount set out in the statement laid on the Table of the House by the Minister for Finance? As regards that debenture interest, when under the law must the Dáil vote it? Am I right in assuming that it must not vote it before 1951? Lastly, is the Minister's estimate of working losses, as he described them, being prepared on the basis of the appropriations for depreciation practised previously by the company or recommended by the Milne Report? Are these questions relevant to the Estimate, or has the Minister answered them already?

Mr. Morrissey

I think if you were listening to me, or if you will read the report, you would get the answer to nearly all the questions you ask. With regard to the last one, the answer is "yes."

Mr. Lemass

Which one is that?

Mr. Morrissey

Have you forgotten it already?

Mr. Lemass

The amount for depreciation which the Milne Report recommended should be appropriated for that?

Mr. Morrissey

I cannot "cod" myself into believing that a loss of £811,000 is a profit of £75,000.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am putting the question.

Mr. Lemass

I want it to be put on record that, in so far as I am not dealing with matters which were raised in this debate and which were not relevant to the Estimate—matters dealing with the administration of Córas Iompair Éireann—I am not doing so because I am not allowed to do so.

Question put.

The Committee divi ded: Tá, 76; Níl, 58.

Tá

• Beirne, John.
• Belton, John.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Brennan, Joseph P.
• Browne, Noel C.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Byrne, Alfred Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Collins, Seán.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Connolly, Roderick J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, John A.
• Cowan, Peadar.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Davin, William.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donnellan, Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• 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.
• Keyes, Micheal.
• Kinane, Patrick.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, James.
• Lehane, Con.
• Lehane, Patrick D.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacBride, Seán.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• McQuillan, John.
• Madden, David J.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William J.
• Norton, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Gorman, Patrick J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Reilly, 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.
• Tully, John.

Níl

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

Tellers:-Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy.

Question declared carried.

Supplementary Estimate reported and agreed to.