Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Feb 1950

Vol. 119 No. 2

Transport Bill, 1949—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on amendment No. 19 (Section 14).

When progress was reported last night I had mentioned the necessity for a central bus station in Dublin City. I had expressed the opinion that the central bus station proposed to be built in Store Street and already partly constructed was the ideal place for the bus station. Córas Iompair Éireann, with the approval, apparently, of the Government of the time and of the Dublin Corporation, agreed to construct that central bus station in Store Street. There were difficulties in getting the corporation approval but the corporation approval was forthcoming. The bus station was planned and substantial sums have been expended in constructing it, so far. The Government have announced, through Córas Iompair Éireann, that it is not proposed to complete this bus station. There has been a suggestion that a bus station should be erected in Smithfield instead. I think that that decision was taken on insufficient grounds. I think that it was probably a snap decision and that it was taken without any reasonable consideration of all the issues involved. No clear statement has yet been made by the Government or by Córas Iompair Éireann as to why the Store Street project should not be completed. No statement based on logic has been made by the Government or by Córas Iompair Éireann. The decision was taken and was announced but the reasons for taking the decision have never been made public. At least, I have heard no reasons to justify the decision that was taken.

It has been said that the establishment or the utilisation of Store Street as a bus station will involve a serious concentration of additional traffic in the centre of the city. I understand that that matter was considered in the early stages and that it was proposed, by diverting south-going and westgoing traffic from the centre of the city, to, in fact, ease the burden of the traffic in the centre of the city so that an objection based on that ground is not tenable. If Store Street is utilised as a bus depot it can mean an easing of the traffic problem, in so far as that traffic problem is affected by long-distance buses, by the diversion of those services that I have mentioned from the city centre. Store Street has other advantages. Store Street is convenient to Amiens Street Station so that persons wishing to change from road to rail can change with the minimum of trouble, travel and inconvenience. Store Street is also convenient to the centre of the city. It is convenient to the place where most long distance travellers want to come, in the first instance. There is an excellent local bus service passing through Store Street and passing very convenient to Store Street that can take passengers arriving in the city to any destination in the city and, similarly, passengers travelling from any part of the city, in order to avail of long-distance buses, can reach Store Street with the minimum of trouble and with the minimum of expense. That is, I think, a very important consideration to be kept in mind.

There is a further matter that I think ought to be considered. Aer Lingus has offices all over the city. Those offices could conveniently, by arrangement with Córas Iompair Éireann, be housed in this new building so that the building would facilitate passengers travelling by rail, by road and by air. Those railway booking offices that are, also, in the centre of the city could be housed in Store Street—and that would release for other use those offices at present utilised by Aer Lingus and by Córas Iompair Éireann in the city. Store Street has all those advantages.

When the suggestion was made that the Store Street project should not be continued, there was a suggestion that Smithfield might be used as an alternative site. I am not aware that permission for the utilisation of Smithfield has yet been given by the Dublin Corporation. Whatever chance there is of the present Dublin Corporation giving permission for the utilisation of Smithfield, I am satisfied that a new corporation, in which this particular matter would be made an issue, would not give approval for the utilisation of Smithfield.

Smithfield has enormous disadvantages. It is not within easy reach of the centre of the city. It is not on any of the bus routes. If passengers are dumped in Smithfield, they have either to walk to a bus line, walk to the centre of the city, avail of taxis or find some other means of getting to the centre of the city. It is inconvenient from every point of view. The provision of transport, whether by taxi or otherwise, to bring these passengers from Smithfield into the centre of the city will create chaos in the traffic in the centre of the city. I think the Minister must realise that.

There is another aspect that must also be considered. The entrances to Smithfield are not suitable. The exits from Smithfield are not suitable.

Who said so?

I say so. They will not be suitable for that heavy bus traffic unless Córas Iompair Éireann arrange to send some type of staff in front of every bus to ensure that some of the little children living in the vicinity of these entrances and exits will not be killed by the buses travelling in these areas. The entrances and exits are not suitable for that heavy traffic. I think that most of us feel a sense of pride in our own City of Dublin and we like to give people coming to Dublin for the first time as good a view of the city as we possibly can. Smithfield is the most depressing site in the whole City of Dublin. Certainly no person would be anxious to dump travellers, particularly strangers, in a place like Smithfield and say: "This is Dublin."

Every Deputy is concerned with this problem because every Deputy represents an area from which people will be travelling by road services to Dublin. Every Deputy knows that his constituents, as things are at the moment, have to put up with the greatest hardship, the greatest inconvenience and risks to health in the conditions that are obtaining now, and that have obtained for many years. If this project that has been half completed is to be abandoned, and if all the preliminary work that has to be done in regard to a bus station elsewhere in the city has to be done all over again, there is no likelihood of the situation being eased for bus travellers for the next four or five years. I see very little hope of getting over all these difficulties, getting plans that will be agreed upon, plans that will be approved because, as I mentioned on Second Reading, I understand that two sets of plans prepared for Smithfield have been scrapped and that the last instructions to the architect were to shove up some form of hayshed which would fit in with the particular requirements of the bus traveller.

Of course that statement is not true.

I hope it is not.

It is not. I am most emphatic on that.

Will the Minister say whether plans have been prepared for Smithfield and rejected?

They may have been.

Within the last six months?

Not to my knowledge.

Would the Minister say whether two sets of plans have been prepared and rejected since it was decided to abandon Store Street?

Not to my knowledge. It is definitely untrue to say that instructions were given to put up some sort of ramshackle hayshed.

That is what has been said. If the Minister can assure me that no plans have been prepared and rejected——

So far as I know.

Is it possible that instructions for the preparation of plans have been given and that plans have been prepared and rejected on two occasions without the Minister's knowledge?

It is possible.

It is possible. I would ask the Minister whether he could ascertain from Córas Iompair Éireann before the debate closes if that is so.

Would not that denote, if it were true, that they were not considering putting up a hay barn?

I do not know. If the Ministerial view that has been expressed in regard to Store Street being too elaborate, has been communicated to Córas Iompair Éireann, it may have influenced Córas Iompair Éireann as to the sort of bus station that would be acceptable to the Government. I am, as I said at the beginning, concerned with this from many points of view, but I am concerned with it primarily from the point of view of the travelling public who ought to have reasonably decent facilities provided for them. I think that, in the normal way of democratic government, where one Government has come to a decision and has progressed a long distance towards putting that decision into effect and has expended hundreds of thousands of pounds on the project —as in this case, where a building has been designed, planned and erected for a particular purpose and where it does suit that purpose—I say that, in the normal way of Party following Party in the democratic system of government, that particular project should be completed and put into operation. If, every time we have a change of Government, work that is half done is to be abandoned, notwithstanding the fact that some £500,000 has been spent on it, that will not be good for the community.

I would make this final appeal to every Deputy in the House that, as so much money has been spent on the project, as it has been designed specially to cater for the bus travelling public, where the building is almost complete——

Indeed, it is not.

Captain Cowan: Well, it is a long way towards completion. Where that has been done, we should see the finished job. We ought to go ahead and finish the project, so that in the shortest possible time we will be enabled to provide facilities and amenities that are so badly needed by the suffering and the travelling public.

Deputy Cowan is a very good advocate. What was running through my mind when listening to him was what an infinitely better case he could make for Smithfield than I hope to make, if we were dealing with Dublin North West instead of Dublin North East. Deputy Cowan knows as well as anybody in this House, and as the vast majority of the people in Dublin know, that from every point of view Store Street is entirely unsuitable as a site for a central bus station. I think it is generally agreed in the city that if you set out deliberately to find the most unsuitable site in the City of Dublin for this purpose you could not get a better spot than Store Street. The Deputy might throw his mind back and remember the very extreme reluctance with which the Dublin Corporation acquiesced in this project. He might throw his mind back to the time when it was first mooted, and remember the outcry that there was in the city about it. I think the Deputy was stretching it too far altogether when he described Smithfield as the most depressing sight in the City of Dublin. That is not true. From every point of view, Smithfield is unquestionably a better site for the bus station.

Has the Minister seen it lately?

I have. I have been acquainted with it for a long number of years and I have seen it again at least four times in the last 12 months. The more often I see it, the more satisfied I am that it is not only a suitable spot for a bus station but, in my opinion, the most suitable spot in the whole city.

That is my opinion and surely I am entitled to it.

The Minister is entitled to it; no one will try to take it from him.

Deputy Lemass, of course, as always, knows everything about everything. He knows more about any particular project than any of the technical experts who were engaged to advise on these matters.

And what technical experts recommended Smithfield?

I will tell the Deputy and, mind you, they were consulted about Smithfield. Unfortunately, they were not consulted so frequently about other projects in the past. They all agreed——

They all agreed about Store Street—the Town Planning Committee, the Garda Síochána and the Dublin Corporation.

That is not so.

They all agreed to it.

Deputy Cowan mentioned every important point in connection with Store Street. He urged that we should go on, and he spoke as if the building were going to be abandoned and left there as a skeleton if it were not going to be used as a bus station. That is not so. The building will be completed and will be used for a purpose for which we think it is more suitable and more necessary and for which the site is certainly more suitable. Deputy Cowan talked about the bus station, but buses do not need a superstructure of five storeys. He did not talk about that.

I am not concerned with that.

Unfortunately, I am.

The Minister can hand those over to Social Welfare if he likes.

Social Welfare does not want them: they require the whole of that building.

What do they want the bus place for?

They want the bus place and the basement as well.

To store copies of the White Paper.

No. Let us look at this in a real way. Deputies talk about traffic congestion. Is there a more congested part of the City of Dublin, from the point of view of traffic, than the vicinity of Store Street?

The vicinity of Smithfield.

Did the Minister ever try driving down along the quays?

Deputy Lemass will have an opportunity of intervening if he so desires.

He is not interrupting—only asking questions.

He is like the Deputy himself—quite harmless, innocent and civil. I do not mean that in any offensive way.

We will see who is harmless when the time comes.

Any one of us who has been here for the last 25 years is harmless.

Mr. Boland

I hope we will not hurt anyone, anyway.

I hope not. Deputy Lemass talks about the quays. He knows the quays very well. I think he had an idea of where I was going and was trying to divert me. This building in Store Street was originally estimated to cost £430,000. The revised estimate was £800,000. With professional fees, it is £850,000.

I thought the Minister had settled the professional fees part of it.

I am giving the Deputy the figures as I got them. By the time it would be equipped and furnished to house the whole of the Córas Iompair Éireann clerical staff, I venture to say that it would be in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000.

What will it cost to convert into offices for Social Welfare?

That is a matter for Social Welfare.

They do not know.

I am concerned from the point of view of my responsibility and from the point of view of Córas Iompair Éireann. Córas Iompair Éireann cannot afford, and have not got, another £600,000 to put into Store Street, along with the £380,000 or £400,000 that has gone into it already. Córas Iompair Éireann cannot afford Store Street.

They cannot afford anything.

If the Deputies get their way, they will not be able to afford very much.

Deputy Cowan got an uninterrupted innings to himself.

We gave them £4,000,000 and he wants me to come back looking for another £750,000. We not only cannot afford it, but there is no necessity for it. There is no necessity for five storeys of offices in the centre of the City of Dublin. Córas Iompair Éireann can carry on their work in the offices they have already.

What about the bus passengers? That is what I am concerned with.

If the Deputy will allow me. There can be erected—and if Córas Iompair Éireann were facilitated it could be on the way now—a bus station that would be adequate to cater for all the long-distance buses and that would provide reasonable amenities for all passengers at Smithfield within 18 months.

Costing approximately £150,000 as against £1,000,000 and available as a bus station, and to the public probably before Store Street could be available as a bus station. There is no use in the Deputy talking about providing some sort of ramshackle building like a hayshed at Smithfield. There is no intention of doing any such thing. There is an intention to provide an adequate bus station, but not a superstructure of five storeys of offices. Apart from any question of congestion of traffic, apart altogether from the question of suitability of site, in their present very bad financial situation, Córas Iompair Éireann would be utterly irresponsible, in my opinion, if they were to continue with a project costing £1,000,000, which they did not require, when they could make adequate accommodation available for the public at a sum estimated at £150,000. I do not claim to know the City of Dublin as well as many Deputies, but I have been knocking around the city for the last quarter of a century and I have fairly frequently been around the Butt Bridge-Beresford Place-Store Street-Amiens Street area. It is the first part of Dublin that I saw when I first came to Liberty Hall.

Have you ever been around Smithfield?

Yes: I know Smithfield also. I know it fairly well. I know enough about the Butt-Bridge-Beres-ford Place-Abbey Street-Store Street-Amiens Street-Talbot Street district to know that it is one of the most congested districts in the city, that it is an area that carries the heaviest traffic in Dublin, that it is an area where the most slowly moving traffic operates. That is my view and that view is supported by people who know infinitely more about it than I do.

In any case, the building at Store Street is a building that Córas Iompair Éireann cannot afford, in the first place and, in the second place, it is a building that they do not require. If the Department of Social Welfare take it over, they will do so on the basis that Córas Iompair Éireann will be repaid whatever their outlay on the project has been up to the date of taking over. That is the position. As far as I am concerned, I would be completely disregarding my duty and my responsibility both to this House and to the users of the national transport system, who have to pay this £1,000,000, if I did not put the facts as I have put them before the House. I have no doubt in my mind whatever that, no matter from what angle it is approached, whether in regard to the question of suitability of site, Córas Iompair Éireann's requirements, or traffic, Store Street is not what Córas Iompair Éireann requires. Store Street has not all the advantages even from the point of view of being so very central—a point that Deputy Cowan talks about. If you concentrate all southern, northern and western traffic there, most people will find themselves not merely walking there but lugging their luggage there. It is not answering the question merely to say that there is a bus service there already. That bus service, I think most Deputies will agree, is hardly sufficient to meet the normal call that is made upon it. It is not true to say that Smithfield is remote from the centre of the city and it is not true to say that there is no bus service to Smithfield. There is a bus service running along the quays, probably the most frequent bus service in the whole city.

At which end of Smithfield will the new bus station be?

At the end nearest to the buses.

Is that right?

I hope so.

That is the point.

They will have a job getting buses out that way.

Not at all. The transport experts are perfectly satisfied that the outlets are there and that the outlets are adequate. They did not say—some of the Deputy's colleagues tried to put the words into their mouths—that it would be necessary to knock down streets of houses. They said the very opposite to that. It is not remote, and there can be a bus service, if it is required and it would be required, operated from there to any part of the city, to bring people to the centre of the city and to take them to the central bus station.

That is a fairy tale.

I have to try to balance Deputy Cowan's opinion against the opinion of the people who are engaged in transport and who are supposed to be competent to advise us on this matter. In support of that, like Deputy Cowan, I can only give my own opinion. Frankly, my own opinion is that Smithfield, even apart altogether from the question of finance, is a much more suitable site for a central bus station. What I do want to emphasise to Deputies is that it is a question of Córas Iompair Éireann, heavily in debt and losing money, undertaking a commitment of approximately £1,000,000, or undertaking a commitment of £150,000.

Will the Minister say if the decision to abandon Store Street was a Government decision or a Córas Iompair Éireann decision?

And when it was taken?

And when it was taken?

What does the Deputy mean by "when it was taken"?

May I remind the Minister of two facts? When the Irish Press reported that the Store Street building was being taken over by the Government as offices for the Department of Social Welfare, the Government Information Bureau issued a statement to all newspapers and had it broadcast on the wireless that the report was incorrect. May I remind the Minister that when I asked him here during last year on the debate on the Estimate for his Department whether there was any truth in the report he said there was not? When was the decision taken?

I could not give the Deputy the date at the moment. I can get it for him.

Was it taken by the Government or by Córas Iompair Éireann?

That decision was taken by the Government.

Yes, I thought so.

But not without consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann.

The cat watching the mouse consultation.

We will hear the Deputy on that afterwards, I hope.

At last we have had an attempt made to defend the decision to abandon Store Street. It has taken 12 months to get it and, indeed, it was very poor when it came. I think I know Store Street and its surroundings better than the Minister. I pass through it several times a day and I also, in the course of my rounds, have to go around Smithfield. I never have any fears when passing through Store Street, but I certainly avoid the exits of Smithfield when I possibly can and any man who travels around Dublin and knows Dublin as I do—I was born and reared in Dublin—will tell you the same, that it was a place to be avoided even in the days before motor traffic. So much for the traffic end of it.

What about the other advantages possessed by Store Street? Córas Iompair Éireann were lucky to be able to get a site as good as Store Street is, a site which gives rise to no inconvenience to business or housing, a site so convenient to the central railway station, the city bus termini and to the docks instead of away in Smithfield where it will be necessary for any traveller in or out to have to resort to a taxi or other means of transport. The fact is that the bus depôt is practically complete now. It should have been completed and could have been completed long before this.

That is not so.

It is only 12 months since I put a question to the Minister about the completion of Store Street. He then told us that the work was not stopped. How much has been done since? How much is being done at the moment? The only progress one can see for the past six months is the putting in of certain panes of glass, and not many of them at that. The building is lying there practically derelict, unfinished and exposed to the elements, after all the money which has been laid out on it. Will the Minister tell us how much it will cost, in addition to what has been already wasted, to convert that portion of it which was to be a bus depot into offices? To my mind, it is criminal waste to do it and the people are going to have to pay for it in one way or another, whether the Department of Social Services or Córas Iompair Éireann takes it. It is capital expenditure and we know the Government's view about it, but my view is that if the capital expenditure required by Córas Iompair Éireann had been allowed to them, there would have been the possibility of recovering it at some time. There will be no possibility of recovering it if it goes to Social Services. The want of a bus depôt is a long-felt want in Dublin.

Hear, hear—about 18 years.

We are agreed on that, but when the building is practically completed, we have this turn around to delay it still further and we are then told that Social Services are to be housed there. I do not know whether that Department is badly off for extra accommodation, but they are not exposed to the elements, as the people waiting for a bus depôt are. I think these people should come first. It is outrageous to tell us at this hour of the day that the matter was to be left over until another bus depôt was built. It is all very well to make a promise that it will be completed—we had all these promises about Store Street, too. A definite effort should be made to look after the bus travelling public, and I do not think that any case whatever has been made for abandoning this project.

The Minister probably has the idea at the back of his mind that my only reason for pleading for Store Street is the fact that it happens to be in my constituency. Let me tell him that no trader or anybody else in that area has approached me on the question, and, if I were standing for Cork to-morrow, I would take this line with regard to Store Street with the knowledge I have. I am not influenced one way or the other by that fact. I believe that, in the public interest, the bus depôt should be at Store Street and that you cannot get a better site in Dublin, Smithfield notwithstanding. Let the Minister or anybody else say what he likes, if Smithfield becomes the bus depôt, the cost will be thrown on the citizens of Dublin of widening the streets and housing hundreds of people in order to widen these streets.

That is untrue.

I wonder will the Government or Córas Iompair Éireann face up to that or will it again be thrown on the Dublin ratepayers like many another thing.

That is untrue, and the Deputy knows it.

We will see whether it happens after some years and after some deaths arising out of the traffic congestion there.

This is the old game.

The traffic congestion there is far worse than it ever could be around Beresford Place or Store Street. Of necessity, it must be, because of the narrow streets running out of it, from which those coming out converge on to the narrows of the quays with their immense traffic.

Neither the Minister nor anybody else has so far referred to the citizens' rights of market in Smithfield, rights which have existed for hundreds of years. Nobody seems to count these rights—they are merely stepping in and taking over the place which was allotted hundreds of years ago to the citizens of Dublin as a market. Nobody is thinking about them, but some people may assert their claims and their rights, if this is proceeded with.

We have heard about the cost of the building, but the building was not to be only a bus depôt. The late chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann found that it would actually save money. That may be disputed by other people, but it was his view and many of these views have turned out to be right. It was to be far more than merely a bus depôt, but the total cost of the building is being counted as against the cost of the same bus depôt in Smithfield. I do not think that is a fair way of putting to the citizens the matter of the cost. In any event, I am convinced that a better site could not be got in Dublin for a bus depôt than Store Street, and I am certainly going to back this amendment.

I would like to support the viewpoint expressed by the Minister on this amendment. I think it a pity that the discussion on this amendment should have resolved itself into a controversy as between Smithfield and Store Street. The amendment is quite a simple one and from the point of view of Deputies Cowan and Colley it is very natural for them to support the calls for the completion of the Store Street structure as a central bus station. It does not mention the question of Smithfield or alternative sites. I want to say despite the fact that Deputy Colley seems to think there would be some reflection on him if this were stated, that I think it perfectly natural that Deputies Colley and Cowan, who represent Dublin North East constituency should adopt the attitude of supporting the views expressed in this amendment. I think the reason they do it is purely because of the constituency they represent and the local interests in that constituency, possibly because they have been approached or at any rate because they feel it would add to the wealth and prosperity of an area in that constituency if this project were proceeded with. I think it perfectly natural.

Deputy Colley said that he had not been approached by traders or anybody else in Dublin N.E. constituency to advocate the retention of Store Street as a bus station. I do not represent Dublin N.E., nor am I within miles of it, but I have been approached by a traders' organisation called, I think, the Talbot Street Traders, to support the retention of Store Street as a bus station in the interests, naturally enough, of the people forming that organisation. I do not see anything wrong about that. I do not see why Deputy Colley should feel that it was any reflection on him or on Deputy Cowan to say that they were concerned with the interests of the people they represent in a local matter in their constituency. I think, however, that it would be entirely wrong if the Deputies of this House were to decide a question of such importance as this by relating it to the interests of particular traders or a particular section of traders in Dublin N.E. constituency, and I sincerely hope that the majority of Deputies in this House will not give their judgment on this amendment from motives of that sort, and I am not criticising either Deputy Cowan or Deputy Colley in any way when I say that. I had hoped that this amendment was not serious and that Deputy Cowan would have felt that he had discharged to a great extent his obligations to his constituents in Dublin N.E. if he made a protest here.

I take grave exception to the line on which Deputy O'Higgins is proceeding in a very insulting way. I have been asked by nobody. I have put down my amendment as a matter of public interest and I resent such a suggestion as has come from Deputy O'Higgins regarding it. He can be approached but I am not in the same boat.

I am expressing my own point of view on this and I intend to express my own point of view whether or not it treads on Deputy Cowan's corns. Deputy Cowan seems to be infected with the same bug as Deputy Colley. He seems to think that there is something to be ashamed of in approaching this matter from the point of view of the constituents he represents.

That is a typical O'Higgins comment

On the other hand, I do not think there is anything to be ashamed of in that. Like Deputy Cowan on another occasion, I count ten before I proceed. I could make references to the same Deputy about which he might not feel so cocky later on.

Deputy Colley spoke of the Minister's speech here to-day as being the first attempt to defend the decision to abandon Store Street as a bus station. I do not think that in point of fact that is accurate, but I do not think that any necessity for putting forward a defence arises at all. I think that the people in the dock, the people who are defendants as far as this matter is concerned, are those who initiated the scheme. I think it was a madcap scheme from the start. It was ludicrous that any concern in as bad a shape financially as Córas Iompair Éireann was at the time should even contemplate a scheme of the dimensions outlined by the Minister, a scheme which would cost £1,000,000 or more to complete. Deputy Cowan refers to this as being a matter of public interest and I think he is right on that. I think it is definitely in the interests of the public that Deputies in this House should do their utmost to see that the waste and extravagance envisaged in this particular scheme should be stopped and stamped out. I am glad to know that the decision not to proceed with the Store Street project came from the Government in consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann. The Government would have been quite justified in coming to that decision without consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann and, if they had the necessary authority, in ordering Córas Iompair Éireann not to proceed with that scheme.

I think it was Deputy Colley who mentioned that if the scheme were proceeded with and finished it would result in an annual saving to Córas Iompair Éireann. I do not think he is accurate in that. I am speaking from recollection now and have not any figures to substantiate what I am going to say, but I think that either the Minister, in a previous statement to this House, or else the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann, in a statement or correspondence to Dublin Corporation, pointed out that that was not so, although originally it was considered that a saving might be effected. The Córas Iompair Éireann offices at the moment cost about £4,000 a year in rent and rates and the figure, as far as I am aware, for the new building, if it were completed, in rates and whatever rental might be payable on it, would be £40,000 a year. Instead of an annual saving there would be an annual loss of about £36,000. I am not in a position to stand over that statement at the moment if I am contradicted, but I am pretty certain it is correct.

I do not want to follow the lines of Deputy Colley by drawing comparisons between the Store Street site and the Smithfield site. What is important is the nature of the structure on whatever site is adopted. Personally, I do not care whether it is Smithfield or not, but as a member of Dublin Corporation I should like to correct Deputy Colley on his statement that some £100,000 would have to be spent and levied on the ratepayers of the city to put Smithfield in order as a site for a bus station. That matter was discussed at Dublin Corporation, and Deputy Colley may have misunderstood that discussion when he read it in the papers.

There was a report from a corporation official that if certain work were to be done it would cost about £100,000. But there was a very big "if". The chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and his officers met the corporation in connection with Smithfield and they pointed out that that work would not have been necessary and would not have been done. The position, as far as I am aware—and I think Deputy Barney Butler will bear me out in this—is that if Smithfield were to be selected as the site to-morrow morning, as far as the ratepayers of the City of Dublin are concerned, it would not cost them a penny piece.

The getaways from Smithfield would still be dangerous as far as the public are concerned.

We can all agree to have our own opinion on that.

The Deputy knows the narrow exits that are there.

At any rate, I think it would be a mistake if Deputies were to be misled, particularly Dublin Deputies, by the suggestion made by Deputy Colley in his speech. The Dublin Deputies who are members of the Dublin Corporation—many of them are Deputy Colley's colleagues—are in that position and know exactly how much reliance can be placed on that particular suggestion. They know it is untrue, and I think it is a great pity that Deputy Colley did not consult them, some of the more responsible of them at any rate, before he stood up to spout out that kind of propaganda here.

I am sorry if Deputy Cowan resented some of my earlier remarks. I would just like to assure him, now that I have succeeded in counting ten several times over, that the remarks I made with regard to him, or to any other Deputy in that constituency, were made in a perfectly friendly and bona fide manner. I did not intend to suggest that there was anything wrong at all in Deputy Cowan or Deputy Colley or any other Deputy from Dublin NorthEast constituency supporting the views contained in this amendment. I tried to explain that attitude of mine as clearly as I could, and I am sorry if Deputy Cowan should have misunderstood me. It certainly was not intended that there should be any reflection cast on him.

I want to reiterate that I myself, and, I think, all of us in the Dublin Corporation, were, in fact, approached by letter from a traders' organisation in the Talbot Street area in connection with this site. It is just because that approach was made, and because it is known to every Deputy who is a member of the Dublin Corporation, that I referred to the fact that the traders in that area are naturally anxious, in their own interests, to try and retain Store Street in their locality if it can be done. I do not believe that there is anything wrong in that at all. I think they are perfectly entitled to agitate for that if they want to. For these reasons, I made the remarks that I did make on that particular question. I hope the House will accept what the Minister said here to-day as the true position, that Córas Iompair Éireann simply cannot afford a bus station of the size or cost which would be entailed in the Store Street structure, and that the requirements of Córas Iompair Éireann and the requirements of the travelling public will be fully met by a more modest structure elsewhere. Consequently, I would urge the House to reject the amendment.

I wonder is there any prospect that we can induce the Government to change their mind in this matter? For myself, I would be prepared to agree to let the issue between Smithfield and Store Street be decided at a conference of representatives of the Dublin Corporation, as the city authority, of the Garda Síochána, as the traffic controlling authority, and of Córas Iompair Éireann as the transport operating authority, provided they were allowed to consider the matter impartially on technical grounds and to arrive at a decision without being subjected to influence or pressure of any kind. I would be prepared to agree to that, even to the extent of asking the conference to ignore the fact that the Store Street building is there. Most of us would regard it as foolish to consider the problem of a bus depôt in Dublin and leave out of account that there is, in fact, a bus depôt almost completed, but I would be prepared to agree even to that. I think myself that the Government would be glad of a way out of the difficulty in which they find themselves, because they are in a difficulty.

The Deputy is in the difficulty.

I do not think so. I believe that if the Government could reconsider their decision and find a means of reversing it, and saving face, they would adopt it. However, if that is not so, we can merely put the arguments on record in favour of such reversal of decision and attempt to convince the public that the Government are acting foolishly.

I am very curious about the history of this decision. I have tried already to extract from the Minister some information as to when it was made. We know that the Government came into office in February, 1948, that work on the Store Street building was then in progress and was continued actively all throughout that year, and that there was no decision on the part of the Government to interfere with it. On the contrary, every suggestion which was made to the effect that they might interfere with it was indignantly denied by them through Ministerial statements in this House as well as by statements issued by the Government Information Bureau. It was emphatically stated that the Government had no intention of interfering with the operations at Store Street or of taking over the building there for any purpose other than that for which it was designed.

Then at some stage, because of some action taken by the Government, work on Store Street stopped and has never been resumed, and, eventually, it emerged that the Government had, in fact, decided to acquire the building from Córas Iompair Éireann and use it for offices for the Department of Social Welfare. I admit that the Department of Social Welfare requires offices. Perhaps the history of that particular matter is also interesting, because the need for offices for the Department of Social Welfare was recognised in 1947, and plans for the construction of these offices in Ship Street were prepared by the Board of Works and brought to the stage where construction was about to begin. The abandonment of these plans was one of the first economies of the Government. They decided to stop the building before they had investigated the necessity for it. Later, of course, it became obvious that additional accommodation was required for the Department of Social Welfare. The Minister for Social Welfare realised the circumstances under which his staff was working; he appreciated that an expansion of social welfare legislation would necessitate additions to his staff and that accommodation had to be got and, because of the Government's earlier decision, it had to be got in a hurry. Hence this decision, I take it, to acquire the Store Street premises.

The secrecy with which the decision was made to acquire the premises and the speed with which work on the completion of the premises was stopped is in marked contrast with the fact that nothing has been done since. Twelve months ago the work on Store Street was stopped. Six months ago we were informed that the building was to be acquired by the Government and adapted for use as offices by the Department of Social Welfare. Yesterday the Minister for Social Welfare told us that not a penny has been spent by any Government Department in preparing plans for the conversion of that building to offices for his Department. It is going to take a considerable period of time to prepare plans for the conversion of that building. A substantial building which was in large part designed as a bus garage cannot be easily and conveniently converted into offices without a great deal of planning which must be done before any conversion work can be started. I do not know whether we got the whole truth from the Minister for Social Welfare. If, however, it is a fact that nothing has been done by any Government Department, not a penny spent in the preparation of plans for the conversion of that building into offices for his Department, then there has been scandalous delay, a delay which some member of the Government should attempt to justify. If the Government had not interfered, that building would be completed and a central bus station would be in operation by now.

That is not so.

The Minister says that that is not so. I shall content myself with reading paragraph 133 of the Milne Report, which was published in 1948:—

"Considerable progress has been made with the erection of the building, and it is anticipated that the work will be completed towards the end of next year."

That is to say the end of 1949. However, on the assumption that the Government cannot be induced to change their mind and recognise that they made a bad decision and should get out of the position which it has created for them, we have got to deal with this issue. It is not true, I think, that the decision to abandon Store Street as a bus garage was taken by the Government in consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann. Córas Iompair Éireann were told of the Government's decision and disliked it. Subsequent to the taking of that decision by the Government, the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann appointed by the present Government went back to the Government and urged them at least to permit of the retention by Córas Iompair Éireann of the bus garage portion of the building and to limit their acquisition to the offices overhead. He was refused that concession by the Government. It is, therefore, unfair to Córas Iompair Éireann and to its chairman to represent the decision as having been taken by the Government in consultation with him.

As between Store Street and Smithfield sites, it is a fact that every technical expert whose opinion was sought on the matter favoured Store Street. It is a fact that before the Store Street site was chosen the possibility of using Smithfield was considered and rejected. It is a fact that the Town Planning Committee of the Dublin Corporation, the traffic section of the Garda Síochána and Córas Iompair Éireann regarded Store Street as suitable. It is a fact that Smithfield is unsuitable and, I understand, will not be sanctioned by the Dublin Corporation for use as a bus depôt unless street widening on a considerable scale is part of the plan. If there is street widening, then clearly it would be unreasonable to expect the Dublin Corporation to pay the cost of it. It is no answer to the criticism of Smithfield to say that buses can operate there without streets being widened. It is a fact that no sensible person would like to sanction the use of Smithfield unless that widening took place in the interests of public safety.

We are, therefore, in this position, that there is a building there in Store Street which could be adapted for use as a central bus station in a very short time. The need for a central bus station has existed for many years. It existed before the war. A decision to construct it before the war was hampered by the fact that the Great Southern Railways Company of those days was not in a position to finance it and could not by any means raise the capital for the purpose. Construction could not be undertaken during the war. It was begun as early as possible after the conclusion of the war. To criticise that decision of Córas Iompair Éireann on the ground of the company's financial position ignores the fact that work on Store Street was begun in 1946, a year in which Córas Iompair Éireann made profits in excess of £1,000,000. It is, of course, nonsense to say that Córas Iompair Éireann are not in a position to finance that undertaking.

I do not know what conception Deputies have of the function of a national transport organisation. Surely its function is to provide proper transport facilities. If we are going to decide that proper facilities are not to be provided because they cost money, then much more than the construction of a central bus station in Dublin is liable to be abandoned. The construction of that central bus station and central offices was decided on by the Córas Iompair Éireann board with the approval of the Government, under pressure from the Government, for two reasons: (1) because the construction of a central bus station was regarded as an essential facility for bus travellers, a facility which they should have, just as railway travellers have corresponding facilities in the railway depôts, and (2) because a centralisation of their administration was likely to increase its efficiency and reduce its cost. I do not want Deputies to take my word for that. Sir James Milne commented on that aspect of the scheme also:—

"Centralisation of headquarters should facilitate the general administration of the company's business and enable several economies to be effected, but some sections of the administrative work could be equally well carried on elsewhere."

I have already on another occasion given the Dáil my personal experience in the Department of Industry and Commerce of the tremendous increased administrative efficiency and convenience which follows upon the centralisation of activities in one building. I am quite certain that a similar improvement in the administration of Córas Iompair Éireann would follow the centralisation of their staffs in the proposed offices at Store Street. If, however, there is an urgent need for accommodation for the Department of Social Welfare, if the Government decide that that need is greater than that of Córas Iompair Éireann, and if, therefore, they feel justified in taking over the offices which were being built for the Córas Iompair Éireann staff and using them for the Department of Social Welfare, that does not necessarily involve the abandonment of Store Street as a central bus station. That is a fact which the Minister tried to obscure.

It may be that the total of the staffs for which the Department of Social Welfare requires accommodation is greater than can be fitted into the office portion of the Store Street building, but, nevertheless, there is sufficient accommodation there greatly to relieve their present problem and to permit of time to the Department to proceed with the far more intelligent plan which was prepared for the construction of the additional accommodation adjacent to their present headquarters in the Castle.

I am not going to attempt to offer a technical opinion upon the suitability of Store Street. It is very misleading to represent the location of a bus depôt there as necessarily involving that all the long-distance bus traffic must pass over Butt Bridge. The intention, as I understand it, was that some 80 to 90 per cent. of the long-distance bus traffic into Dublin would come down the North Circular Road to Store Street and thus avoid crossing the traffic in the centre of the city.

The consideration I want to put to the Dáil is this, that wherever the central bus station is to be located, it should be convenient to the centre of the city; it should be within a radius of a mile from O'Connell Bridge. I think that Córas Iompair Éireann and the Dublin Town Planning Committee were remarkably fortunate in the fact that, convenient to the centre of the city, there was such a site as Store Street. I invite any Deputy to get a map of the city and a compass and put the point of the compass on O'Connell Bridge and draw a circle of a half or three-quarters of a mile radius from the centre of the city and find there any place at which a bus depôt could be built without involving the demolition of buildings in use or considerable alterations in the width of streets.

But in Store Street there was a building that was not in use, a deserted store, a building that was so ugly, as I said before, it should long ago have been demolished on æsthetic grounds. It was there to be purchased cheaply and to be demolished without inconveniencing anybody. It was so located that, in relation to Amiens Street railway station, the shipping services on the quays and the city's shopping centre, it was almost ideal.

No doubt, any expert town planner would have justified some other site if it was equally available. The original town plan of Dublin, I think, contemplated the construction of an omnibus station west of O'Connell Bridge on Aston's Quay or, preferably, in Christchurch Place. Anybody who can afford to ignore the practical difficulties of getting the work done quickly could recommend some such location as that. The officials of the Dublin Corporation and of Córas Iompair Éireann were, however, well aware of the long and tedious process that would have to be completed before title to any suitable site in this area could be acquired, much less construction work begun. There was no such difficulty in relation to Store Street and, although it may not be described as the perfect site, it was, from many points of view, superior to any other site that could be procured.

Whether they were right or wrong in taking that site, there it is. Whether they were right or wrong in spending money on it, there is the building completed. Is it reasonable at this stage to intervene, to attempt to adapt a building designed by experts for one purpose so as to utilise it for quite another purpose altogether?

One-sixth was designed for the buses and five-sixths for offices.

The Minister is now taking about the portion of the building above the ground. Will he look at the portion of the building that is below the ground?

Apart from what is below ground level, there are at least five storeys.

Are the staffs of the Social Welfare Department to occupy all that building? I do say this, that the alterations in that building in the provision of lavatory accommodation, fire escapes and the other amenities that must be provided for the men and women who are to be employed on clerical work, will involve far more expenditure than would be needed for the construction at Ship Street of far more suitable buildings for the same staff. I think it is untrue—I know it is untrue—that no State money has been spent upon the preparation of plans for the conversion of that building. I know that plans have been prepared. I do not know who is paying for them.

The Deputy appears to be well informed.

I am informed by public gossip—the whole town knows it.

The Deputy does not depend on public gossip?

I do not, fortunately. So far as the records of the House are concerned, the Minister for Social Welfare said that not a penny has been spent by any Government Department on plans for the conversion of that building. That is on the record and that conveys a worse situation than I am assuming exists. Eventually time will tell whether it is correct or not. I am not forgetting that the Government Information Bureau once published an indignant denial that the Government ever intended to take over Store Street station for the purposes of the Department of Social Welfare.

That the Government had taken a decision.

For once the Irish Press was well informed.

The Irish Press published in advance what the Government was to decide. We published that report in the full knowledge that it was true and we were able properly to appreciate the reliability of the Government Information Bureau when it contradicted it.

The Deputy has many sources of information himself; he is not dependent on the Government Information Bureau.

I would be in a bad way if I were. I put this proposition to the Government: they can get out of this situation if they take what appears to be the intelligent course. I will undertake on my part never to taunt them with changing their minds. I think the man who will not change his mind when he realises he has made a mistake is very unintelligent. The Government have made a mistake. They can reverse it, because no work has been done towards the conversion of the building for use by the staffs of the Department of Social Welfare. If they reverse that decision the work on the Store Street building can be resumed and the building can be in use by the end of this year as a central bus depôt. The need for the depôt is recognised. The only thing holding it up is the unwillingness of the Government to release the building for that purpose, the purpose for which it was approved by every expert whose opinion is available to members of the Dáil. Therefore, I urge at this stage that the Minister will, in relation to this amendment, at least indicate that the position will be reconsidered. If he does that, I will urge Deputy Cowan to withdraw his amendment.

Most of the speakers to this amendment have addressed themselves to the amendment with what I might describe as the Dublin urban mind. I am what might be described by Dublin dwellers as a country man, though Cork City people would not so describe themselves. Before I became a member of this House I myself thought Store Street most unsuitable as a central bus depôt because I was then under the impression that the greatest volume of traffic from the south and west would have to cross O'Connell Bridge to and from that central depôt. Since I became a member of this House, I have become more familiar with the City of Dublin and I have come to the conclusion that the greatest folly the Government could commit would be to abandon Store Street. Traffic using such a bus depôt need not touch upon the nerve centre of the city at all at O'Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge. North, south and westbound buses could use the North Circular Road. There is nothing like the same density of traffic on that route as there is on O'Connell Bridge and along the quays. Travelling to the west the buses could travel the full length of the North Circular Road and then proceed either through the Park, or down Infimary Road and out by Chapelizod. Going south the bus traffic could use the North Circular Road, pass out over Island Bridge and through Kilmainham. Going to the north Circular Road at Drumcondra. In that way density of traffic could be avoided. Possibly buses travelling to the south-east might contribute to the density of traffic on Butt Bridge.

I submit that the alternative proposed by the Government in relation to the erection of a central bus depôt at Smithfield would only make confusion worse confounded. It would, indeed, create chaos. I get my car serviced in Smithfield. Sometimes I have driven to Smithfield. Sometimes I have had to walk. No one can deny that even at the present time, without any ferry service to bring people from Smithfield to the centre of the city, the traffic along this route is much too dense. It is outside the bounds of practicability to suggest putting any more traffic on these routes. From any point of view the proposed site at Smithfield is most unsuitable. I have here a quotation from the Irish Times of October 28th, 1949. In the column headed “London Letter” there is a reference to this particular problem. It is stated there:—

“Modern Transport, a technical journal, which enjoys a high standing in the transport would, has recently had two members of its staff in Dublin to make an investigation on the spot into the question of the central bus station.

In an article in the current issue, it is held that the decision to turn the Store Street building into Government offices, and put the bus station instead at Smithfield, is mistaken. Smithfield, it is pointed out, is threequarters of a mile from O'Connell Bridge, and if it were to be used, a connecting bus service to Smithfield would be necessary. This would cause as much congestion as the provincial buses are said to be in danger of causing at O'Connell Bridge, particularly to passengers with luggage, and the advantages of a concentrated loading area would be wiped out.

The conversion of the building to Government offices, the article suggests, will probably involve much additional expense, while there will be no return, such as Córas Iompair Éireann would have received from rent of shops, catering, etc., at the station."

It concludes with a quotation from the periodical itself as follows:—

"Whatever may be the final decision, Dublin's need of a bus station is urgent... the hope may be earnestly expressed that in the wider public interest and, indeed, in the cause of true Irish national economy, the Government will feel that there now seems every reason to use the new Store Street building for the purposes for which it was originally intended."

That quotation is taken from a well-informed journal on transport. It is published in England and certainly it cannot be said to have any particular bias one way or the other. Two impartial observers were sent by it to examine this problem. I submit that they have reported, not only impartially but most intelligently, as to the proper solution. From a countryman's point of view, I suggest that the advantages of Store Street as a central bus depôt far outweigh any advantages in the alternative site proposed at Smithfield. From the point of view of congestion, there can be no argument since Smithfield must add considerably to the already existing congestion, whereas Store Street, using the routes I have suggested, would go a long way towards relieving the present chaotic condition of transport around O'Connell Bridge and Butt Bridge.

Having listened to the Minister and the Minister's advocate in this debate, I feel that it is a good job that Dublin was built before the Minister came into office. We have a city full of magnificent buildings. If these buildings were to be erected at the present time, they would be exceedingly costly. One asks oneself what would be the attitude of the Government and the Minister if they had any responsibility in regard to the erection of such buildings. I think, if they had any such responsibility, we would have no buildings, and we would have no city.

Wattle huts!

That seems to be the idea. That is the kind of mentality that shows itself in the Minister's speech in regard to this particular matter. We have a magnificent airport at Collinstown. It is a good job that was completed before the Minister came into office; otherwise, he would have scrapped it. It is a good job that his own departmental building was completed because, clearly, on his own argument here this evening, he would have scrapped it. Each generation must contribute something towards development. Store Street was some contribution towards development, but it has been decided to scrap it. Deputy Lemass said this afternoon that the decision to scrap Store Street was taken by the Government without any consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann.

If Deputy Lemass made that statement, then he was speaking in his usual fashion.

And that the present chairman reported to the Dublin Corporation that he urged the Government to reconsider the decision so as to permit them to have the bus depôt at Store Street.

That is a very serious statement to make. I take it the Deputy is in a position to support that statement.

Certainly. Any member of the Dublin Corporation is in a position to support it.

That is not good enough in relation to a statement of that kind. Can the Deputy produce proof of his statement?

The members of the committee urged him to go back to the Government and put forward the suggestion that only the offices portion should be taken over. He said that he had already done so and had been turned down.

I again challenge Deputy Lemass to produce proof of that. That statement is untrue.

Obviously we cannot settle it now. Deputy Cowan.

I want to brand a lie when it is uttered.

It is not a lie.

I am trying to prevent Deputy Cowan from being misled.

I want to clarify this, because I appreciate the seriousness of it. The point is that the decision to abandon Store Street, the Minister says, was taken by the Government in consultation with Córas Iompair Éireann.

That is what he says.

I want to ask the Minister if it is correct that the decision was taken by the Government and communicated to the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann and that the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann implored or requested or asked the Government to allow him to have the bottom part of the building as a bus depôt.

That is not true.

That is not true? Then we know where we are. May I ask the Minister if it is true that the Garda authorities refused to sanction Smithfield as a bus depôt?

They wrote to the corporation sanctioning it——

That was after they were consulted—in the same way as Córas Iompair Éireann was consulted.

——within the last six months, and they said that in the light of experience they withdrew their objections.

"Experience". That is a new word for it.

I want the Minister to say if it is correct that the Garda authorities, in the first instance, after due consideration, decided that they could not sanction Smithfield as the site for a bus depôt. That is, in the first instance, because I understand that after they were consulted in the way the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann was consulted——

Before they were liquidated.

After consultation, apparently, the Garda authorities changed their decision.

What is the Deputy's suggestion? Is the Deputy suggesting that they were coerced into giving a different decision?

What I am saying is perfectly clear. If the Garda authorities were doing their duty in the first instance and if, having approached this problem and examined it, they came to the conclusion that Smithfield was an unsuitable site, then it was an unsuitable site.

What the Deputy is saying is not at all clear.

I think it is very clear.

Deputy Boland gets the drift of it, like everybody else. However, I want the Deputy to state it a little more specifically.

It is very clear to me, anyway.

What I am saying is as plain as a pikestaff. There is no doubt about it. The Garda authorities did condemn this site and refused to give their approval——

Has the Deputy no doubt about it?

Every Deputy in the House is aware of that.

It was turned down several times.

Deputy O'Higgins says that they wrote to the Corporation withdrawing their objection.

So, when the Garda authorities examined it in the first instance, they objected to it. Subsequently, apparently, they approved of it.

They withdrew their objection.

Which is less than approval.

There were a couple of changes of opinion, when it was first mooted, on Store Street.

There would have been a few changes in the Guards if the objection had not been withdrawn.

That is very dangerous ground. There would not have been as many changes as would have been the case in the Deputy's time.

Deputy Cowan, without interruption, please.

I am sorry that an effort should be made to make this a political issue.

And, of course, it is not.

I do not think it ought to be a political issue.

Hear, hear!

Unfortunately, it is made a political issue.

Despite all your efforts

By your suggestion.

Some Deputies want to take the line that the Government have come to this decision. They have come to this decision after the type of consultation that has been mentioned with the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann; after the type of consultation with the Garda authorities. They have come to the decision that they will not proceed with Store Street and that they must have their bus depôt in Smithfield. The Government may have been wrong in that decision. But whether they were right or wrong, if we approach this from a purely political point of view then they must be supported by a majority of Deputies in the House. Is that not what it boils down to? No matter how wrong they may be, no matter how wrong the Minister may be in his approach to it, that is the position. I do not know whether this is a Government decision or whether it is the Minister's decision.

I do not know whether it is the Minister's decision, approved by the Government, or whether it is the Government's decision that the Minister has indicated. I just do not know. I do not know what the Minister's own views are in regard to it— whether, personally, he believes or, personally, he does not believe. But, anyway, as I have already said—and I just want to repeat it, in conclusion— this building is almost completed. It can provide amenities and facilities for bus travellers. If, as Deputy Lemass says, the Department of Social Welfare requires those offices, arrangements can be made to let them have the use of the offices for a time. The general view is that those offices were offered to the Department of Social Welfare. The office portion of the building was offered to the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Social Welfare said:"No, we must have the building, lock, stock and barrel." If that rumour is incorrect I should like the Minister to nail it now and say that no such thing as that happened.

The Deputy should not listen to so many rumours.

Did the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann endeavour to retain the bus depôt part of the building and did the Department of Social Welfare say: "We will have nothing to do with it unless we get it, lock, stock and barrel."

I have already told the Deputy very emphatically and very clearly.

I have answered the Deputy's question.

No, that question has not already been put nor has it been answered.

The first part of it was put and answered.

Yes, that the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann did not want the bus portion of the building.

I want this cleared up.

I am sure of that.

Is that what the Minister says—that the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann did not endeavour to get the bus portion of this building as a bus depôt?

The Deputy is in Leinster House at the moment.

This is a very simple question. I am putting it in two ways.

The Deputy is in the Dáil Chamber.

I am entitled to ask my question. Did the chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann request that the bus portion of this building should be left available as a bus depôt, and did the Department of Social Welfare say that they would have nothing to do with it unless they got the building lock, stock and barrel? That is the general rumour. That is the general opinion.

The Deputy knows that we cannot proceed by way of question and answer.

I am proceeding by way of question but I am not getting answers.

The Deputy will either make his statement now or conclude. It would be better if he were to proceed by way of statement than by way of question.

I simply asked these questions for the purpose of endeavouring to clear this up for the public.

No harm in trying.

There is no harm in trying. If you do not try you will not succeed, and probably, notwithstanding how this matter may go on a vote in this House, the Minister may yet respond to pressure in regard to it. I am quite certain that in that event Deputy O'Higgins would be just as eloquent in supporting a change of front by the Minister and in suggesting improper motives to me——

On a point of order and of personal explanation, I attributed no improper motives to Deputy Cowan. All I said was that I saw nothing wrong in his trying to look after the needs of his constituency. I still think that. The Deputy now talks of bringing additional pressure to bear in this matter. Is he going to bring the Volunteer movement into this now?

I knew Deputy O'Higgins was endeavouring to get that in.

You made it very easy for him.

It is a good thing if somebody will enable me to get Press publicity for it.

You will have to pay for it in the Irish Press. No other paper would take it from you.

At least the Irish Press took it. The others would not do it.

At what price?

They are reasonable in their charges. However, that is not the issue. Deputy O'Higgins did suggest that the only reason this amendment was put down was that Store Street happened to be in my constituency and he suggested that I should be satisfied with making a show, as it were, in regard to it and that I should withdraw the amendment.

With making your protest.

Making my protest? I want Deputy O'Higgins to realise that my attitude is somewhat different from what he supposes it to be. If that Store Street building were built anywhere else in Dublin City, I would support the completion of it exactly in the way in which I am supporting it now.

I accept fully what Deputy Cowan says. If he wants me to accept it, I accept it unreservedly.

It may come as a surprise that some people can believe in supporting a matter on principle, no matter how that may affect themselves personally or politically. That does happen. However, so far as this is concerned, I understand that the Talbot Street Association which has been mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins have been in touch with members of the corporation and that they have also been in touch with Deputies in my area but they have certainly overlooked me or at least they have not approached me in regard to it.

Put another "ad." in the Press.

That is again typical. I would ask the Minister to accept this amendment. I know that probably he will not accept it now but at least it must be put to the test as far as this House is concerned.

I do not want to prolong this debate further and I am certainly not going to follow Deputies down side lanes. A lot of ground has been covered. Every aspect of this matter has been touched upon except one. Neither Deputy Lemass, Deputy Cowan nor anybody else adverted to two facts—(1) that this building, except for that portion of it which could be used purely as a bus station, is not required by Córas Iompair Éireann and (2) the much more important fact that Córas Iompair Éireann cannot afford it. Nobody adverted to the fact that a bus station, at least as good as the one in Store Street, can be provided for an estimated sum of £150,000 as against an expenditure in Store Street of £1,000,000. Deputy Cowan repeated over and over again that the building in Store Street was almost completed-Deputy Lemass asserted that also.

I quoted the Milne Report——

Let me put the Deputy right.

——that it would be completed by the end of last year.

No. Let me put the Deputy right. The final estimate was that before it would be ready for occupation it would cost approximately £1,000,000. About £380,000 has been spent on it, and there is still £600,000 to be spent on it. Even if there had been no interruption, no change in the plans which were made by the old company and approved by the previous Government, the building would not now be ready for occupation and would not be ready for a considerable time. Deputy Cowan—of course one can understand Deputy Cowan's attitude— and Deputies on the other side are weeping over the conditions under which people have to wait for their buses and descend from them on Aston's Quay. Deputy Colley was appalled at the conditions that obtain on Aston's Quay. Some of us who had to suffer these conditions during the war, lining up and queueing there, knew of these conditions and knew that they existed for many years before the war.

They could not be remedied during the war.

They could be remedied before the war.

When we tried to remedy them you stopped us and held up the work.

No. The Deputy and his colleagues on the Dublin Corporation are trying to check us in providing a new bus station in Smithfield, to improve conditions for the people generally. I want again to ask do Deputies believe that Córas Iompair Éireann, which is a bankrupt concern, can afford to spend £1,000,000 on the project in Store Street with a superstructure of five storeys for modern offices which they do not require? Deputies have very short memories. It is only a few weeks since I had to come to the House with a Supplementary Estimate for £4,000,000. I do not suppose I am giving any secret away when I say that I will probably have to come to the House for some more money.

So will the Minister for Social Welfare, to finish this building. You will have to pay for it, anyhow.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If the Department of Social Welfare never required offices, so far as the Government is concerned it was not going to spend or allow Córas Iompair Éireann, in their unfortunate financial plight, to attempt to spend £1,000,000 on a building to provide accommodation—necessary accommodation—which could be provided for £150,000. I do not want to sail away on the fact that the Department of Social Welfare require offices. Whether they require them or not, this project would not go on. It is easy for Deputy Cowan——

Has there been an estimate of £150,000?

It is easy for Deputy Cowan to say, in the way he has, that it is a good job the City of Dublin had had such fine buildings built before I came here. May I remind him that the grand buildings and grand streets and structures in the City of Dublin were not built, by bankrupt concerns?

Some of them were; that is why they went bankrupt.

This is not being built by a bankrupt concern. It is being built by the Government now—and I will not say that it is bankrupt.

In any case, whether it is the Government or a private firm, they were not going to provide this in order to obtain what could be provided for £150,000.

Has the Minister got an estimate for £150,000?

From the builders?

I have got it. Deputy Cowan is very quick to resent what he described as Deputy O'Higgins's attempt to ascribe to him improper motives, but Deputy Cowan is very free himself in attributing improper motives.

I have asked a simple question.

The Deputy's questions are not simple at all and the Deputy is in no way simple, either. I am not objecting to the questions the Deputy asked, but am just reminding the Deputy that he jumped to his feet very quickly when he alleged that Deputy O'Higgins had attributed an unworthy motive to him; yet he has attributed, in the course of the last speech and in his questions, unworthy motives to quite a number of people and to people who cannot defend themselves here.

That is new.

It is not new, but it is no harm to remind the Deputy of that. I do not propose to waste time in following Deputy Lemass in a lot of the points he made. The suggestions as to pressure being put upon various people regarding where the bus station should be——

I will leave it to them now. If the Minister leaves the House free to decide on the merits, I will accept that decision.

I say this, and say it most emphatically, that the interests concerned are much freer to decide than when Store Street was first decided upon.

Take a chance and leave it to them.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he suggests that it would cost £1,000,000 just for Córas Iompair Éireann to take only the garage.

It would not cost even £150,000 now.

I want to associate myself with the objection made by Deputy Cowan to the remarks of Deputy O'Higgins. If we were to follow his reasoning to a logical conclusion, a Deputy from a particular constituency in which some project or another might be under examination should, or would be, excluded from discussing that particular project. That is a rather narrow, childish suggestion that he made. In addition, he went on to say that the reference by other Deputies in this House who did not agree with his views was pure propaganda. That was equally childish.

I do not hope to convince the Minister that he should change his mind, as his mind is set. There is no possibility of inducing him to do the logical thing at this stage, as he has been obviously defending a prejudice here right from the beginning of this debate. He is not defending the project at all. He has been defending the prejudice that has been built up against this structure because it was conceived in the time of the Fianna Fáil Government and for no other reason. It suffers from the same defect as the transatlantic air lines, the travel bureau and all the rest.

In the course of the Minister's remarks here, he said he had a reasonably good knowledge of the City of Dublin. Had he not said that, I was going to point out that, as a Deputy coming from a rural district, he was suffering from the disability of not knowing the particular area about which this discussion is being taken. When he went into the question of traffic congestion—and he seemed to be very worried in respect of the tremendous congestion that would ensue following the use of this building as a depôt for the buses—he seemed to be unaware of the fact that the exit from this bus depôt is through an eastern route. He seemed to be unaware that buses leaving for the south, the west and possibly the east, such as Wexford and Wicklow, would have been via Amiens Street, the North Circular Road and right out to the thoroughfare that would take them to the east, the west and the south. Thereby the congestion which he appears to have feared to a considerable extent would have been eliminated.

The proposition now of removing the bus depôt to Smithfield, to my mind, will add to the congestion that exists on the northern quays of Dublin City. He has also suggested that there will be practically no necessity for alterations in the Smithfield district. If he knew Smithfield as well as he has stated he knows it, he must know that the only exit from Smithfield on to the northern quays is a narrow thoroughfare, probably not 20 feet wide. I have not gone to the trouble of measuring it, but I would be prepared to vouch for the fact that if it exceeds 24 feet it is as much as it is. How these large buses are going to emerge from a thoroughfare of that width into a thoroughfare which is carrying all the traffic from the north side I cannot imagine.

It has also been stated here that whatever alterations may be necessary, whatever removal of buildings may be required and whatever reconstruction may be needed, the cost will not fall upon the ratepayers. Doubt has been expressed as to whether that is correct or not. However, if it does not fall on the ratepayers of Dublin, it will fall surely on the people as a whole. It is the people who will pay eventually, whether it is the citizens of Dublin or the people of the nation. It will be paid for anyhow out of the pocket of the people. That cannot be disputed.

In the course of his remarks, the Minister also said that if he were looking for the worst site in Dublin—or words to that effect—he would not pass Store Street by. I think he was not serious when he made that statement, just as he cannot really be serious when he tells us that Smithfield is a much more ideal site for the purpose. If he looks into the matter, he will find that not only was the exit from the bus depôt along the routes I have mentioned but that it was proposed to carry a thoroughfare right direct down through Amiens Street and out on to the Custom House Quay, which would have brought tremendous relief to the area around Beresford Place into Abbey Street. While it would not in any respect ease the terrific congestion which continues at Butt Bridge, it would at least relieve the congestion around the bus depôt.

I want to say, in addition to what has been said by other speakers, that the bus depôt has been left there practically derelict for the last two years. I raised this question with the Minister before and he informed me that I was making a misstatement, that there was quite a number of people employed. If there was, I could not find them or see them. I saw one or two individuals going about the outline of the building which, to my mind, has been left there a gaunt skeleton in order to raise the minds of the people against it. Certainly, no construction of any kind worth talking about has been carried out on that building for the last couple of years. I am pretty certain that, as a result of that neglect, there must be a certain amount of serious deterioration taking place.

If the Deputy will allow me. That statement of the Deputy's is not true. It is not true to say that no work has gone on for the past two years.

For the past one and a half years?

For a year?

No work is going on in the building now.

"Two years,""one and a half years,""12 months,""now"—where is the Deputy standing? Is the Deputy standing on "now" or "two years ago"?

They have been working there with lights.

Fireflies you saw.

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 71.

  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Dan.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Brennan, Thomas.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Buckley, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Butler, Bernard.
  • Colley, Harry.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Corry, Martin J.
  • Cowan, Peadar.
  • Crowley, Honor Mary.
  • McGrath, Patrick.
  • Maguire, Patrick J.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • O Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Sullivan, Ted.
  • Davern, Michael J.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • De Valera, Vivion.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Friel, John.
  • Gorry, Patrick J.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Kilroy, James.
  • Kissane, Eamon.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lahiffe, Robert.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick J.
  • Lydon, Michael F.
  • Lynch, John.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • Rice, Bridget M.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Mary B.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

  • Beirne, John.
  • Belton, John.
  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • 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.
  • Crotty, Patrick J.
  • Davin, William.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • 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.
  • Keane, Seán.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Kinane, Patrick.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, James.
  • Lehane, Con.
  • Lehane, Patrick D.
  • McAuliffe, Patrick.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Madden, David J.
  • 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'Leary, John.
  • O'Reilly, Patrick.
  • O'Sullivan, Martin.
  • Palmer, Patrick W.
  • Redmond, Bridget M.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Reynolds, Mary.
  • Roddy, Joseph.
  • Rooney, Eamonn.
  • Sheldon, William A. W.
  • Spring, Daniel.
  • Sweetman, Gerard.
  • Timoney, John J.
  • Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Kissane and Kennedy; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Kyne.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 15.

I move amendment No. 19 (a):—

Before Section 15 to insert a new section as follows:—

The board shall furnish to the Minister such information as he may from time to time require regarding matters which relate to its activities, other than day-to-day administration, and which appear to him to affect the national interest.

I move this amendment in order to try to meet, to some extent at least, the point of view put by many Deputies on Second Reading, that there should be some machinery which would enable them to get from the Minister information regarding the operations of the company. As Deputies are aware, I stated in reply to those of them who asked for this that I would not be prepared to put myself in the position of having to answer to the Dáil for the day-to-day administration of the company; but seeing that it is going to be a national company and that certain of its decisions or projects may be of a character that would affect the national interest, I have tried to meet Deputies to the extent that the company will be required to supply me, on request, with information concerning what might be described as matters of major policy. The House, I think, ought to agree that I have gone as far as is reasonable to meet the point of view put up and I hope Deputies will be satisfied with the amendment.

I do not see how the amendment meets the point at all. The purpose of the amendment is to require the board to furnish information to the Minister. What the House desires to have, or what we can assume from the speeches made on the Second Reading debate there was a general desire to have, was a degree of Ministerial responsibility to the Dáil which would permit of the Dáil raising here for the purpose of getting a decision questions of general policy. The board would, it is assumed, supply the Minister with information concerning its activities in any circumstances. Does the fact that the Minister will have that information mean that Deputies can procure it by way of Parliamentary question? Will it mean that any Deputy who is dissatisfied with the activities of the company in any particular matter will be able to table a motion here and get recorded a decision of the Dáil disapproving of the activities of the company or calling for their revision? If it means that then I think it is important enough. We are setting up a national undertaking. It will be carried on in accordance with the legislation we enact. It will be, for some time at any rate, in need of financial help from the taxpayers which Deputies will be required to vote year after year. In the circumstances it seems clear enough that the House should have some means of getting information from the Minister, some means of raising questions affecting the company from time to time. I do not suppose that any Deputy would desire to put the Minister in the position of being required to answer why a particular officer of the company was dismissed or transferred or why some other administrative arrangement of that kind was carried out, but if there is an alteration in train services or other facilities which affect commercial interests in a Deputy's constituency he should be able to get from the Minister an explanation of the action of the company in making the change and a justification for it. If he is dissatisfied with the explanation he should be able to bring all the facts before the Dáil and endeavour to get other Deputies to support a motion calling for the restoration of the old conditions or the institution of new arrangements. Does the Minister intend that this amendment if it is adopted will mean that he will be open to be questioned here by Dáil question and liable to have the policy of the company debated upon a motion tabled here?

I like the change of attitude on the Minister's part indicated by the submission of this amendment. In my view, while the amendment does not go perhaps as far as many of us would like, at least it does indicate a material change, a fundamental change in the whole character of this piece of legislation. With many other Deputies on this side as well as on the opposite side of the House I was one of those who urged in unmeasured terms upon the Minister that it should be possible for Deputies of this House to bring under review the activities of the new nationally controlled transport company. In my view—I am open to correction on this —the amendment goes a considerable distance to meet the point of view which was expressed to the Minister during the course of the Second Reading of the Bill. I take it—I would like the Minister to be explicit in answering this—that there is no doubt but that the inclusion of this amendment will mean that it will be open to Deputies on any matter other than a purely day to day matter to elicit information from the Minister.

The purpose is to enable Deputies here in the House to raise matters, particularly of course by way of question, in connection with any information which I feel under the terms of this amendment I should require the company to furnish me with; in other words any matter other than an ordinary day to day matter.

Not by way of motion?

I am not saying that it cannot be done by way of motion. It probably can. My idea was to get the amendment drafted so that it would go a reasonable way to meet Deputies without going so far that it could be abused. The Deputy can take it that it meets his point.

That argument was advanced on the Second Reading as well as now by Deputies who did not see eye to eye with us and it is a point I can readily appreciate, but it is not the desire of any Deputy that the time of this House, public time, should be wasted by questions to the Minister concerning the trivia of administration in the new Córas Iompair Éireann. That was advanced as an argument, not altogether honestly I think in some cases, against the whole principle of allowing Deputies to bring the activities of the transport company under review. I think that the Minister has now made it plain that as far as matters other than day-to-day matters are concerned it will be open to Deputies to elicit information from him by way of Parliamentary question. I should like to say that I appreciate the fact that the Minister has met the opinions expressed by numerous Deputies in the way he did. Those of us who had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Minister and of placing our views before him realised that we had a wall of objection to break down in the views the Minister held. He held them honestly and he certainly held them very strongly and for that reason my appreciation of the length to which the Minister has gone to meet us is to that extent enhanced.

I hope that we will not on any occasion be faced with the situation of a Minister saying: "My opinion of what is or is not of national importance is the operative thing." I hope that there will be a reasonable interpretation of that portion of the section but as far as it goes, taking the amendment on its face value. I think the House will welcome it.

It would be a clarification to my mind if I put the question which I addressed to the Minister in a somewhat different way. Possibly it should be answered by the Ceann Comhairle rather than by the Minister. If the company increases its costs for the haulage of beet, can a Deputy or Deputies put down a motion expressing disapproval of that decision and asking for its revision and have that motion accepted as in order by the Ceann Comhairle on the grounds that the Minister has responsibility or will the Ceann Comhairle say that the Minister has no responsibility and that the motion is out of order even though the Minister is prepared to defend or explain the board's action? Will he answer questions in the House in regard to decisions of the company that might affect the general interests of the community or the specific interests of particular parts of the country?

If a decision affects the general interests of the community, or even a considerable section of the community, then I think it could be held that it was one affecting the national interest, and after all that is the governing factor in this amendment. It would apply, say, in the case of an industry of such very great importance as the beet industry if some action were taken that was likely to damage or discourage in any way that industry. This amendment is the best we are able to do from the point of view of getting words to meet Deputies to the fullest extent short of having questions raised here day after day in regard to the ordinary actions of the board or its officers. I think Deputies can take it from me that I have approached this with the intention of meeting them to the fullest possible extent. The wording set out in the amendment is the best that we could find.

I take it that the Minister's only difficulty in connection with the amendment was to get suitable language in which he could give an assurance to Deputies that they will have access to information from the new board of Córas Iompair Éireann on matters other than those relating to day to day administration?

Yes. I should like to say, in that connection, that I would hope advantage would be taken of this amended section only to the barest minimum. If action were taken by the board of Córas Iompair Éireann on matters which Deputies felt were of importance to the community, then Deputies in my opinion should be entitled to raise them, again subject to the Ceann Comhairle, either by way of question or by way of motion. I want, however, to make it clear that it would not be fair to the company and would be an abuse of what I am now proposing, if Deputies were to be asking questions every other day.

As one who is interested in this amendment, I want to say now what I said before, that we should not be afraid of giving Deputies the right of asking questions in the case of a board of this character. If the wording of the amendment means that if something is done by the board about which a Deputy will have the right to put down a question, the whole matter may be raised here. Then I am satisfied.

There was one point raised by Deputy Lemass which I would like to be clear on. Take it that the amendment is accepted and that a question is put down by a Deputy, is the propriety of that question to be decided by the Minister—it may appear to him to affect the national interest under the terms of the amendment—or is it to be decided by the Ceann Comhairle in accordance with Standing Orders and Procedure? I do not want to be disrespectful to the Ceann Comhairle, but we know he is bound by Procedure and Standing Orders, whereas the Minister is subject, if you like, to pressure both inside and outside the House. I, personally, would prefer to have to depend on the Minister's interpretation than on what would probably be the more strict interpretation that the Ceann Comhairle would be bound to apply.

If you get past the Minister you will have a better chance with the Ceann Comhairle.

The intention here is to deal with a particular situation. Whether it does that fully or not I am not just in a position to say. I take it that it will be possible to move an amendment on the Report Stage dealing with this if that should be considered necessary. I am not altogether clear with regard to the amendment, but I take it that the Minister's view is that if this new section were not there the board could ignore the request of the Minister for information.

And Ministers could ignore questions put to them by Deputies.

I suppose they could at their peril.

This is an amendment which obliges the board to furnish to the Minister information about everything except matters relating to day-to-day administration, if the Minister considers that the information he requires affects the national interest. I take it that the Minister and his advisers and the drafters of this new amendment were of opinion that without it the board was under no obligation to furnish to the Minister information of the type indicated in the amendment. That is a different thing entirely from giving this House the right to require information from the Minister, and that is why I am anxious to have more time to consider it.

Deputy Lehane suggests that, once the Minister can get the information from the board, the Dáil can then oblige the Minister to give the information to the House. That may be so. But if it is not, does it mean that the Minister cannot require the board to give him information? If the board is bound to give the Minister information, then I think this amendment should not be in the form in which it is because it will create some confusion. I should like to have an opportunity of considering this more fully when I see a print of the Bill after it leaves Committee.

If this amendment was not inserted, and if any questions were raised here, the Minister could say that it was a matter for the board and not for him, and that he had no power to get the information sought.

I welcome the insertion of this amendment. It represents a considerable improvement, from the point of view of Deputies, on the powers enshrined in the 1944 Act. Those who have been members of the House since the 1944 Act was passed know that there were many occasions when Deputies wanted to get information and could not. There were occasions when they tried to persuade the Minister to use his good offices to get the company to change some objectionable practice—for example, the closing of branch lines or the reopening of branch lines that had been closed. On such occasions Deputies were generally told by the Minister that he had no power to intervene.

I never told them that.

This amendment represents an improvement on the present position, and to that extent the Minister's amendment is to be welcomed.

As regards the 1944 Act the practice was to give information, even though the Minister had no responsibility. I will admit, however, that that was largely due to the abnormal circumstances of the war years where the adequacy of the services was the result of the activities of the Minister for Supplies.

That was not the position in regard to the Electricity Supply Board.

I was merely carrying on the tradition of my predecessor there.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:—

In sub-section (1), page 11, lines 41 and 42, to delete "purposes of its undertaking" and substitute "purpose of the exercise of its powers and duties".

I am advised by the company that they consider it necessary to have this amendment. They feel that the original wording in the Bill might possibly restrict the board in one way or another in the future. They think it desirable that this change should be made.

The section relates to the compulsory acquisition of land. Does the Minister consider it desirable to widen the powers of the board in relation to compulsory acquisition?

You will not be giving the board any more power than the Electricity Supply Board, Bord na Móna and some other boards have at the moment.

I am quite prepared to give the board of Córas Iompair Éireann power for the acquisition of land for the construction of railways and canals or for approaches to railways and canals. Whether you will allow them, say, to acquire compulsorily a hotel at Glengarriff is another question.

May I give the Deputy an assurance on that?

The transport undertaking is one thing, but the powers and duties of the board extend beyond the provision of a transport undertaking. Consequently, the alteration of the wording here means that you are giving them power to acquire lands and property compulsorily in connection with the exercise of duties or functions which extend beyond the operation of the transport undertaking. I have no very great objection to it, but it is widening the powers of the board.

I appreciate that. I think this is a provision we should make. There are possibilities that we can foresee even now where they may very legitimately engage in a certain operation or operations which would not come within the definition as it is there at the moment and which it would be quite legitimate and perhaps very desirable for a national transport company to undertake. As a matter of fact it might be a sort of activity that could more properly and more efficiently be undertaken by a national transport company than by any other organisation.

The power of compulsory acquisition of land is given to these public service undertakings operating under statute in circumstances where it is obvious that their activities require the purchase of a particular piece of land. If the Electricity Supply Board has a power-station on a particular site that it wants to enlarge it has to purchase the field immediately beside it. Similarly, a railway is so fixed to the land that any extension of it means the acquisition of a particular piece of land. In such circumstances, the price of the land would be abnormally enhanced against them if they had to rely upon voluntary purchase. In the case of activities which could be carried on on alternate sites, where an undertaking can acquire land in one place or, if they cannot get it upon reasonable terms, acquire it somewhere else, the powers of compulsory acquisition should not be used. It is only where purveyors of property can, as it were, gang up against the national undertaking that this power of compulsory acquisition is needed. Where a national undertaking has an alternative to acquiring a piece of property the price of which is enhanced against it, the ordinary process is by agreement. However, that is a theoretical point.

I take it the Minister will not use these powers to take over the site in Smithfield.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:—

In sub-section (2), page 11, to delete lines 51 and 52 and substitute "and, for this purpose, the board shall be deemed to be a public authority within the meaning of the said Act".

This is to bring them into line with local authorities and existing State companies. I am advised that it is thought very desirable that they should have the power or authority which I am proposing in this amendment.

Other boards have the same authority and I do not suppose the House will have any objection to it.

The only question that arises is whether the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, was amended by any Act of 1925. I did not look up the Acts but it proposes to delete the reference.

I am moving the deletion of these lines which refer to the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, as amended by the Act of 1925.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 22:—

To insert before sub-section (5) a new sub-section as follows:—

( ) (a) Where an acquisition order is made in relation to any land, the board may, subject to the subsequent provisions of this sub-section and before conveyance or ascertainment of compensation, enter on and take possession of the land.

(b) The board shall not enter on or take possession of any land under paragraph (a) of this sub-section without giving to the occupier thereof at least one month's or, in the case of an occupied dwelling house, three month's previous notice in writing of its intention.

(c) A notice under paragraph (b) of this sub-section may be given to any person by sending it by prepaid post in an envelope addressed to that person at his usual or last known address.

(d) Where the board in exercise of its powers under paragraph (a) of this sub-section enters on and takes possession of any land any compensation payable in respect of that land to the person who would, from time to time be entitled to occupy it, if the board had not exercised those powers, shall bear interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum from the date of entry until payment of the compensation.

I am advised that this new sub-section is necessary and desirable. I am informed that it is a common provision in legislation relating to local authorities and that, as I said in respect of the previous amendment, it is applicable in the case of acquisition of lands by the Electricity Supply Board and Bord na Móna. It provides that after the acquisition order is made the board may take possession of the site. The House may remember that we did the same thing last year when the Electricity Supply Board Bill was going through.

I cannot object, as I established the precedent against considerable opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:—

In sub-section (5), page 12, to delete all words from "which is" in line 15 to "Irish Land Commission" in lines 17 and 18.

This is a drafting amendment and is put in at the request of the Land Commission.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 24:—

In sub-section (1), page 12, line 24, to insert "a reclamation annuity and" before "an".

This is to include the reclamation annuity as well as the land annuity.

Amendment agreed to
Section 16, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 17.

Amendment No. 25 will raise the whole question of Ministerial responsibility. I wonder whether the Deputy will consider its effect on Part VIII.

Very much.

Will it be discussed then or now?

What I am proposing is an alternative to what the Minister proposes in his Bill or in his amendment.

Perhaps the Deputy will allow me to say that I do not propose to move Sections 17 and 18. I am proposing to cover these by amendments Nos. 77 to 84. As I am not moving Sections 17 and 18, Deputy Lemass's amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 would fall for the moment. So far as amendment No. 25 is concerned, that stands on its own legs.

What about amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31?

I do not know.

The Minister cannot kill my amendments by not moving the sections. I am only protecting a right. I am not saying what I am going to do.

I move amendment No. 25:—

Before Section 17 to insert a new section as follows:—

The provisions of Sections 70 to 87 inclusive and of Sections 92 and 93 and of Sections 94 to 101 inclusive of the Transport Act, 1944 (No. 21 of 1944) shall apply to the board as to a dissolved undertaker.

On the whole, I think it is better to discuss this general question on this amendment. This is one of the main issues which arise in connection with the Bill. It concerns the point of responsibility for increasing transport charges, curtailing transport services, or making other changes in transport arrangements of a similar kind.

Deputies will remember that, under the provisions of the 1944 Act, such changes were made by a procedure which terminated with a decision of the Minister. In the case of alteration of maximum charges, classifications of merchandise, standard conditions of carriage and so forth, the company made its proposals, published details of them, and ultimately the Minister, having considered the issue in the light of the Government's proposals and any public representations directed to him, came to a decision for which he was responsible to the Dáil. Similarly, in the matter of the curtailment of services, the closing of branch lines and of stations and other alterations in the scope of the transport undertaking, the company decided upon its policy; it published in the Press details of its decision, made application to the Minister for sanction and the Minister gave or withheld that sanction, it being open to him to refer the matter to the Transport Tribunal established under the Act for an inquiry.

The whole procedure was designed to remove certain obstacles to the alteration of charges and conditions of operation which had existed previously and at the same time keep in the hands of the Minister, as representing the public interest, the ultimate decision, a device which ensured that the Dáil could, and frequently did, express its view on the matter in question.

The Bill before the House, as it stands at present, is designed to give the company power to deal with these matters on its own responsibility, both in regard to the alteration of charges, the variation of services, and maintenance of branch lines and stations. The new board can act on its own responsibility, taking the course it considered best, without being responsible to anybody, except in a very general way to the Minister. The Minister is not required, however, to sanction any specific act and consequently cannot be challenged by the Dáil in relation to it.

Following the Second Reading debate, the Minister decided to change his proposals in that regard and he now proposes to move amendments designed to establish a transport tribunal to which the company will apply whenever it desires to raise charges or alter railway services, and whose consent must be secured by the company before the changes are effected.

Now, these are three alternative methods of dealing with what is the kernel of our transport problem and, having considered the two alternatives which the Minister has given us in the Bill and in the amendments, I am strongly of opinion that the procedure laid down in the 1944 Act is still the best. It is obviously desirable to release transport undertakings from the onerous restrictions on their freedom of action which were imposed by old time legislation, in the days when public transport services were almost entirely confined to railways and canals, which, because of their nature, had an effective and complete monopoly, each in its own area. The legislators of various countries were naturally concerned to protect the public against exploitation by these monopolies. Transport legislation for the past 50, 60 or 100 years was all based upon the assumption that public transport was operated on a monopoly basis and that legislators had not merely the duty but a considerable responsibility in protecting the public against these monopolies.

That situation changed fundamentally when the monopolies of the railways and canals disappeared with the emergence of the motor car and, even though subsequent legislation passed here was designed to re-create in part the monopolies of the transport undertakings by giving them certain exclusive rights in the matter of the operation of transport services by motor vehicles, nevertheless we know that the old situation has passed, that the monopoly which formerly existed is permanently broken and, so long as we permit private lorries and cars to operate freely, it can never be fully restored.

The change in the transport situation was not immediately followed, however, by changes in the law or even in the outlook of those responsible for making the law and it was reluctantly, and only in a piecemeal fashion, that we released the transport undertakings from the restrictions which were formerly imposed upon them, which it was necessary to maintain in the old situation but which were merely a handicap to their survival in the new. The easy course to take at any time was that which the Minister favoured when framing the Bill—release them from all these restrictions, let them charge what they can and let them run whatever services it pays them to run. That, of course, has a great deal to recommend it.

I heard Deputies argue here yesterday in favour of differential freight charges for the purpose of encouraging national economic development, for the purpose of facilitating specific forms of production or the cheap distribution of particular goods throughout the country. I do not think these Deputies have fully appreciated the problem of our transport undertaking. In the days of railway monopolies, railway charges were fixed upon the principle of charging what the traffic could bear. Every schedule of charges was prepared upon the basis of ascertaining the highest rate which the traffic would bear and still be available. If the traffic ceased, the rate was too high and the task of the railway managers was to find the point at which the traffic would still be available while yielding the highest revenue to the company.

Frequently in the past I discussed with transport managers here the possibility of framing charges on another system, on a cost plus system, on a differential system intended to encourage export trade in particular goods, and to discourage import trade of other goods, to facilitate the decentralisation of industry and so forth. Always I came up against practical difficulties which made the adoption of any other system of freight fixation impossible. Once you examine the position logically you must find that that is inevitably so, because if every charge is based on what the traffic can bear, then any alteration must tend to involve a loss of revenue to the company. You cannot cut one charge to encourage some form of trade and hope to recover the lost revenue somewhere else if the charges elsewhere are fixed at the highest rate which the traffic could bear. Therefore, we could take a chance so far as the railways are concerned in releasing the companies from official control in relation to maximum charges. But still it seems to me that it would be desirable, so long as we give a legal monopoly, to have some authority with power to ensure that there was no discrimination between one citizen and another; that whatever charge the railway company considered necessary or thought possible to maintain for the transport of a particular type of merchandise would be available under equal conditions to all using their services. Clearly the introduction of an element of discrimination would be regarded as publicly undesirable even though on many occasions in the past the railway operators here asked for a change in the law which would permit of that, not so much as it involved discrimination between one individual and another but in particular as it involved discrimination between one town and another, or one port and another, where they were losing trade to seaborne carriers, or in other special circumstances.

In the case of road services, however, somewhat different principles apply. If we take the course of compulsorily acquiring public road transport operators and handing them over to a nationalised transport operator, while prohibiting anyone else without a licence engaging in the haulage of goods for hire on the road, then I think we still have and cannot avoid responsibility for ensuring that there will be some body whose sole concern is with the public interest who will be empowered to regulate the rates charged, the conditions under which the transport is provided and other matters affecting the economy of transport, such as the classification of merchandise carried.

The procedure under the 1944 Act, therefore, was as I described. So far as the law was concerned a great number of statutory restrictions were removed and the company were virtually put into the position that they could charge what they liked, run what services they liked, alter charges and conditions as they liked, provided always that they got the Minister for Industry and Commerce to agree. The Minister for Industry and Commerce exercised his function as custodian of the public interest vis-a-vis the Dáil. The Minister for Industry and Commerce as the public authority who sanctioned alteration in charges or methods of working was in the position that the Dáil could query his actions and could express approval or disapproval whenever individual Deputies had it brought to their attention that the operations of the transport company were having adverse economic effects on their constituencies. It was not a completely satisfactory system. How satisfactorily it might have worked in what might be described as normal conditions we do not know.

The 1944 Act was, as Deputies know, passed before the end of the war. It was passed merely with the intention of creating an organisation which would have the task of transport reorganisation after the war, even though we recognised then that some years would elapse before it could function normally. During the war the exercise of Ministerial control over services or charges was far more directly related to the day-to-day problems of supply rather than any consideration of transport policy. Time and time again I had to give the House assurances that when rail services were curtailed, branch lines closed down, or public road transport operated in some new manner, it was the result of supply difficulties and not because of any attempt to prepare the ground in advance to implement a transport policy upon which the Dáil had not been consulted. Because of the fact that the 1944 device has never been tried out in normal circumstances and because, on the face of it, it appears to be the best device to handle the problems which inevitably arise in the operation of transport services on a monopoly basis, I am in favour of retaining it.

I think that the Minister in his original proposal to leave the company free, not subject to him or any other authority, went too far in one direction. I think that in his amendments which involve the creation of a transport tribunal he is going too far in the other direction. I do not know how he contemplates the tribunal will work. The old transport tribunal established under the 1924 Act was a most cumbersome instrument. Granted that its functions were somewhat different and granted that it was charged under that Act primarily with the duty of arranging a schedule of charges which would enable the Great Southern Railway Company to earn a standard revenue which it had itself determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act, nevertheless it is sufficiently similar to the tribunal which the Minister intends to propose here to enable us to come to some conclusions as to how the new tribunal will work by reviving our recollections of how the old tribunal worked.

The new tribunal will exercise its functions with regard to the provisions of Section 14. Section 14 of the Bill will be amended in a way which will give that tribunal the duty of having regard to other things than the financial result of its decisions. It will be enabled to have regard to their effect upon national economic development and on the conditions of employment of the company's staffs. I must confess that I am rather appalled at the prospect of anything like the old tribunal reappearing again. When the Minister's amendments are submitted to the House, as presumably they will be, and when we have an opportunity of considering them as a whole in the framework of the Bill, I think we shall have to examine then the possibility of amending them in order to eliminate some of the abuses, at any rate, which arose in connection with the operations of the old tribunal. The principal abuse in my view was the practice of having counsel employed whenever any proposal to modify the standard charges, or permit the establishment of special charges, or other alterations, was under consideration. The railway company decided on the tactic of filling the courtroom of the tribunal with a number of high-powered barristers and everybody who was offering opposition to the proposal of the company was either foredoomed to failure or forced to incur the expenditure involved in employing a similar array of legal luminaries to offset the company's counsel.

And neither of them knew anything about rates and charges.

The net result was that people did not go to the tribunal, that, if anybody had objection to make to the charges of the company on the ground that they were detrimental to business interests or that they worked contrary to economic development, or desired to get some special charge in the circumstances of those days below the standard charges in order to continue in business, that person came to the Department of Industry and Commerce and asked the Minister to argue his case with the company; and, in the course of time, that is what the Minister for Industry and Commerce did.

Long before the tribunal was abolished the situation existed in which, in the great majority of cases, the representations of business interests were conveyed to the company and supported in argument with the company by the officers of the Department of Industry and Commerce and not in the way contemplated in 1924, before the tribunal. Eventually, when the tribunal reported that there was no system of charges that it could devise which would enable the company to earn the standard revenue contemplated by the Act, it came to an end and its legal existence was terminated by legislation in 1933. If there is going to be a new tribunal it has got to work informally. If it is going to mean that the company will come before it, whenever it wants to close a station or a branch line or to increase its charges, with a great number of lawyers and that anybody who wants to oppose it will have to oppose it by employing lawyers to argue their case, then I think it will be a failure, and not merely a failure but it will do the one thing which, I think, it is important we should avoid—it will occasion unconscionable delays in bringing into effect changes which the company regard as not merely necessary but urgent.

Hear, hear!

Does Deputy Lemass think it should be left to the board?

I am in favour of restoring the procedure of the 1944 Act, which means that the board can effect these decisions subject to the sanction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is, in effect, what this amendment means. Its purpose is to incorporate in this Act the appropriate sections of the 1944 Act—the sections which deal with railway charges and conditions of carriage by rail and those which deal with alterations in charges and conditions and with canal charges.

I am not putting forward this suggestion because I was the author of the 1944 Act and have any sentimental regard for the provisions I devised then. I had given a great deal of thought to the preparation of that legislation and I had, at least, the benefit of having introduced here at least four other Transport Bills in previous years, some of which temporarily benefited the transport operators or overcame temporarily some of their difficulties but none of which solved the transport problem. In the 1944 Act, which was introduced at a time when the problems were of a special and of an abnormal character—and looking far ahead towards circumstances which we could not entirely visualise—we had time to proceed with deliberation in the preparation of the measure. These provisions of the 1944 Act represent the conclusions I arrived at after a great deal of consideration and consultation with officials of the Department and of the company and of others interested. Coming to consider them again in relation to the problem of 1950, and seeing the alternative proposals in the Bill, I still think my suggestions are the best method of handling this problem.

It is necessary to give the company the power to alter charges or to curtail services or to amend its system of working as circumstances change but it is also necessary that that power should be subject to supervision and approval by a representative of the public interest. I am convinced that, in the long run, there is no representative of the public interest who can work as expeditiously and as impartially as the individual holding, for the time being, the post of Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Government. That Department has in it a great number of people who are thoroughly familiar with all these transport problems and who have accumulated a great deal of information relating to transport. The Minister, therefore, can be confident of getting competent advice in the exercise of his function under the Act. In any circumstances that it is possible to conceive, I believe that will work more expeditiously both from the point of view of the Dáil and of the public and more expeditiously—which is important from the point of view of the company—than any form of tribunal which it is possible to devise. Therefore, I would press on the Minister and on the Dáil the desirability of reconsidering again this part of the Bill and the desirability of deciding to adopt the provisions of the 1944 Act which have no relationship to the particular scheme of transport organisation contemplated by that Act and which are just as applicable to the nationalised undertaking to be operated by the board as to the other undertaking operated by the Córas Iompair Éireann company, and to decide that they are still the best that can be devised and to give them a further opportunity of showing their utility.

I would be far more impressed by Deputy Lemass's activity in connection with this particular matter if I had found him on what I would regard to be the logical line in connection with this matter and to which he adverted on a number of occasions, that is, an endeavour on his part to restore the original intention as disclosed in the Bill when it was first published. Deputy Lemass says there were a good many features of that proposal that appealed to him. I would remind the House that in this particular amendment we are asked to perpetuate a state of affairs that may be regarded as having been responsible for the downfall of the railways, during the last quarter of a century, in this country. When the Transport Bill was first published a number of members of the transport industry examined the Bill. To my personal knowledge they were unanimously of the opinion that the outstanding feature in the Bill and the one calculated to make it a complete success was the provision being made by the Minister to permit the board to fix its own charges without reference to a tribunal. What we are doing here in Deputy Lemass's amendment is a repeat of the powers that were conferred under the 1924 Railways Act. That means that the board and all concerned will have to go through the same tortuous and irritating and almost ineffective procedure in connection with that tribunal. I could understand Deputy Lemass's proposals if we were dealing with a private company——

Hear, hear.

——but this is a nationalised concern. We have already devoted a considerable time here to describing the objectives of that particular concern. It is clearly set out that they should produce an efficient and economic system of transport. Now, in the name of all that is fair and square, how can we expect to get an efficient system of transport if we revert to this archaic system of tribunal? Why have a series of competitors, a flood of them, let loose on the country—not now, but if we continue to operate the system, against the national concern?

I am not proposing that.

I am coming back to the point that when this matter was under discussion on the last occasion the main divergence of opinion on the Bill on the Second Reading, and I think from the Opposition side of the House, was in respect of branch lines. I have not read the speeches on the Committee Stage but my impression is that the main line of coercion on the Minister from all sections of the House was in respect of branch lines. I am speaking subject to correction but I do not think any great stress was laid on the desirability of adverting to the tribunal so far as maximum charges or classification of merchandise are concerned. I do not know why the Minister has gone whole hog, so to say, in reintroducing what is to our point of view here an objectionable course, namely, the setting up of this tribunal again for a purpose which we feel will undermine the activities and the operations of the new concern.

I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share