Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 Mar 1950

Vol. 119 No. 10

In Committee on Finance. - Transport Bill, 1949—Fifth Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I do not think we should allow this Bill to pass from the House without having a last look at its provisions and at the changes which it proposes to make in the transport situation in this country. These changes are not of very great significance but they represent the sum total of the proposals which the Government has to make for dealing with that transport situation. There is a change in the ownership of Córas Iompair Éireann. The great majority of those who have stock in that concern are having their State guaranteed 3 per cent. debentures transformed into State guaranteed 3 per cent. transport stock. So far as they are concerned the change is purely verbal. The rest of the shareholders, the owners of the common stock of Córas Iompair Éireann, are also getting in replacement of that common stock State guaranteed transport stock, and they alone are securing an advantage because whereas in the past they were entitled to receive a dividend upon their stockholding only when the company made a profit sufficient to permit of dividend payments they are now being guaranteed by the taxpayers an annual return of 2½ per cent. on their holding, whether the company makes a profit or a loss.

At the cost of £90,000 per year to the undertaking, underwritten by the taxpayer, we have changed the method of electing directors to the concern. Heretofore these directors, other than the chairman, were elected by the common stockholders. Now all of them, including the chairman, will be nominated by the Government. One must admit the possibility that a better board of directors will be chosen by the Government than was elected by the shareholders but it is difficult to convince oneself that that change in the personnel of the board, following upon the change in the method of selecting the board, will in itself solve any transport problem.

Other changes in the transport situation which the Bill effects are also of no very great significance in relation to the situation. Córas Iompair Éireann is being released from all statutory control over the charges it may make for transport services. It has been released from all statutory control over the adequacy of the services it provides except to this extent, that it may not cease a service of trains over any branch lines upon which services are now run or abandon permanently a branch line on which services are not now run without the consent of a transport tribunal to be established.

A sum of £7,000,000 may be advanced to the undertaking or raised upon Government guaranteed stock to meet its future estimated capital needs. I doubt if there is any Deputy in this House who sat in during all the debate on the Bill who believes that it contains a solution of our transport problem. Despite the changes in the policy of the Government which were announced since the Bill was first circulated, it is difficult to feel convinced that the Government have given serious consideration to the transport problem. Córas Iompair Éireann's difficulties are, in the main, due to its railway services. Its road freight services, omnibus services and other supplementary services, such as its hotels, all earn profits, but its railway undertaking produces a substantial loss. The kernel of its railway problem is that the cost of operating the railway services far exceeds what, in our conditions, these railways are capable of earning in revenue. If there is to be any solution to the Córas Iompair Éireann problem, other than asking the taxpayers to subsidise it, it must be applied in relation to its railway undertaking. It must be a solution which will ensure either that its railway undertaking will be able to increase its revenue or reduce its cost. The prospects of increasing revenue are doubtful. Everybody who has examined the transport position here has recognised the difficulty of expanding the business available to railway undertakings sufficiently to enable them to operate without loss.

Various suggestions for forcing traffic back on to the railway have been adopted or recommended from time to time. The expert, whose report prompted the Government into action, Sir James Milne, also considered that difficulty and made his recommendation for the limitation of private lorry transport, a recommendation which apparently has not been adopted. Despite the optimism with which he, in his report, considered the future, he was not able to hold out the prospect of the Córas Iompair Éireann railway undertaking avoiding losses in the future, even on the various assumptions which he made as to future costs and other factors, assumptions which time has already proven to have been unjustified. If, therefore, there is to be any solution in the foreseeable future of the problem confronting the new Córas Iompair Éireann Board, it has to be found in re-equipment and reorganisation of the railway undertaking in such a way as to secure a reduction in operating costs and thereby permit of a reduction in freight charges which will attract a larger volume of traffic. I feel certain, however, that neither Sir James Milne. any officer of Córas Iompair Éireann nor any railway expert, whose mind is brought to bear on the problem, will assert that it is possible to effect the re-equipment and reorganisation necessary in the Córas Iompair Éireann railway undertaking within a limit of £7,000,000 additional capital expenditure. Even for the reconstruction of the permanent way so as to permit of higher speeds being run, without considering at all the reopening of closed branches, we know that half the total capital sum provided by this measure will be required.

The standardisation of rolling stock, the modernisation of carriages and wagons, the reconstruction of goods stations and the multitude of other changes which are recognised to be necessary will clearly involve over a period of time—five, ten or 15 years—a substantial capital outlay. The Minister, however, indicated in the opening words of his opening speech on this Bill that capital outlay on an adequate scale was the one solution which the Government was not prepared to try. He informed the House that the former chairman of Córas Iompair Éireann had outlined to him a programme for capital expenditure on the undertaking, mainly on the railways, but also upon other branches of the undertaking, amounting to some £17,500,000, and so enormous did the Minister consider that figure to be that he described it as madly extravagant.

If there is to be no fundamental reconstruction of our transport system, no getting down to the real cause of losses on railway operation, then we have to recognise that this Bill gives us at best a patched-up system which is bound to lose money, which is bound to involve as an offset of these losses a heavy annual subsidy from the Exchequer. That the Government have in mind a patched-up system has been evident, I think, during the whole of this discussion. It was evident in their attitude to the Store Street bus terminus and to other projects for the expansion of the railway organisation and productive capacity which were in train and which they killed. I do not think that even with the complete re-equipment of the railway and the introduction of improved organisation and methods of working, the railway can entirely earn by itself sufficient to cover operating costs, but I think the gap between revenue and cost can be brought well within the limit of the profit that can be earned on the other branches of the Córas Iompair Éireann system. If that is not so, if that does not prove to be so, then the solution must be found by permitting Córas Iompair Éireann to undertake other activities, even activities of a non-transport character, which would expand its total capacity to earn profits.

I do not know why there should be any hesitation to recognise the substantial capital needs of the Córas Iompair Éireann system in view of the many references which have been made by members of the Government from time to time about the desirability of repatriating external assets, the utilisation for investment here of funds held in this country but invested abroad. There is surely no field for investment as large as the transport organisation, or capable of yielding as substantial a return in the efficiency of national production and the lowering of trade costs, whether internal trade or export trade.

It was, in my view, no condemnation of the former chairman and board of Córas Iompair Éireann that they had intended to propose this substantial capital outlay. The decision as to whether that capital outlay was to be facilitated by legislation did not rest with them. They recognised the need for it and stated the need for it. They stated it to the present Minister and he decided against their recommendation. He has produced here a Bill which apparently involves only the minimum of capital expenditure necessary to keep the undertaking functioning, expenditure which is sub-divided under heads set out in the Milne Report to which the £7,000,000 figure in the Bill must be related.

If all this talk about the repatriation of external assets is anything more than a weak excuse for the continuance of a deficit on our external trade, then those who are speaking of them should turn their attention to the possibilities offered by Córas Iompair Éireann's needs and Córas Iompair Éireann's opportunities. We can, through capital investment in Córas Iompair Éireann's not merely increase the efficiency of our transport undertaking, not merely reduce the cost of public transport services to those who use them, not merely avoid a heavy annual drain upon the Exchequer through subsidy to Córas Iompair Éireann, but we can also build up important manufacturing activities which are not practicable in this country because of our limited market and size unless Córas Iompair Éireann is in some way associated with them.

The Bill, it is true, does give Córas Iompair Éireann the right to engage in manufacturing activities, but the action of the Government in closing down the various projects which were in train for the production here of motor chassis, steel wagons and other equipment required by Córas Iompair Éireann is an indication that the terms of the Bill which give it powers are not intended to be implemented and, if they are to be implemented, then clearly the capital provisions of the Bill are entirely inadequate.

If there is any reason in what you are saying, there will be nothing to prevent them doing it.

The Bill will prevent them, because the capital sum made available to them through the Bill was related to the sum mentioned in the Milne Report and that was appropriated by him in that report to specific purposes. It is inadequate even to enable those particular purposes to be fully met. There is no provision for capital expenditure in any other direction. Even that sum cannot be utilised by the company without the consent of the Minister for Finance and even the Minister for Finance could not increase the sum without fresh legislation. We have, therefore, to recognise that the matters to which I am referring are not within the discretion of the Córas Iompair Éireann Board. They are fundamentally matters of Government policy concerning which we may not have a clear statement, but we have a sufficient number of reliable indicators to enable us to reach conclusions. The House will pass the Bill now and it is in some respects a better Bill than when it was introduced.

But we cannot send it on its way with any confidence that it represents a solution of our transport problems. During the progress of the Bill through Committee we had remarkably few divisions of the House. In fact, the few divisions we had related to two matters, one the attitude of the Government to the branch railway lines and, secondly, the matter of remuneration for the directors of the Córas Iompair Éireann and the Grand Canal undertakings.

The directors who closed the branch lines were to be compensated.

Is Deputy Lemass really going back to the remuneration of the directors?

I have made the perfectly accurate remark that the only divisions we had on this Bill in Committee related to these two matters.

I thought you would be ashamed to mention it a second time.

It was to embarrass the Minister. In so far as the branch lines are concerned, I am sure I am speaking for the majority of Deputies in saying that the attitude of the Minister is completely unsatisfactory. It is true that Party loyalties and Party Whips prevented that being expressed in the Division Lobby. The Minister himself must be aware that, in relation to the branch lines, the attitude expressed by him has not been endorsed by any of the Deputies who participated in the debate.

The Deputy did a bit of heel tapping on that in the Irish Press this morning. That is an advantage that he has.

So far as these branch lines are concerned, I have never changed my attitude. I have always recognised that, with the development of road transport services, it would inevitably happen that some of these branch lines would be of questionable utility, that those who designed the Irish railway system were more concerned often with military necessity than economic development, in locating a number of our railway stations in relation to the areas and towns which they were intended to serve, and that, as soon as a proper road transport service developed, the public would cease to use some of these branch lines.

I have argued in the past that, when the finance of branch line operation was referred to, we should consider our railway system as a whole, that we should try to devise a policy and method of operation which would make the railway system as a whole pay its way, and that we should not necessarily require each individual section or branch to pay its way. If an economic need was served by some branch line it should not be closed merely because it was making a loss. If, however, the railway system as a whole is not paying its way, if the railway system as a whole is making a heavy annual loss and is likely to continue doing so, then the position of these uneconomic branch lines must necessarily arise for reconsideration.

I have argued, however, that it is unfair to the localities served by the branch lines which were closed during the war that they should remain closed under the authority of an Emergency Powers Order. Before the war, when any railway company proposed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to discontinue a service on a railway branch line, it was open to every interest in the area served by that branch line to argue against the proposal and to advance considerations or suggestions which might lead to the withdrawal of the proposal. It is not unknown in the history of Irish railways that branch lines which railway managements intended to close were kept open or were reopened because of assurances given by traders in the affected area, or because of additional information brought to notice of possible developments in these areas which might increase the volume of traffic.

That did not apply in the case of the Birr-Roscrea branch line.

It did apply. The traders of the area had a meeting with the company's representatives and as a result the company changed their mind.

But they closed the railway line first with your consent.

The point I am trying to make is that it is possible that policy may change as a result of representations from an area, but what happened in relation to these branch lines that are now closed under an Emergency Powers Order is that they were closed because there was no coal, or other supply difficulties. There was no consideration of the economic needs of the areas served by them and no opportunity was given to the persons affected by the closing to argue against that course. The only thing they had was an assurance that the lines would reopen when the emergency passed, and that if there was to be any subsequent question of closing them down again the normal procedure would be followed and an opportunity would be available to the interests concerned to make their case against that course, and that the decision would depend on the strength of their case as against the railway company's case.

But these branch lines are still closed, and they are going to remain closed. There is nothing in the Bill which ensures that a service of trains over them will be resumed now or at any time.

That is not so.

There is nothing in the Bill which ensures that.

The Bill ensures that no more branch lines can be closed under an Emergency Powers Order.

The Bill does not ensure that. The Deputy misunderstands. So long as the Emergency Powers Act is on the Statute Book the Minister can close the whole system now if he wants to do it.

After the established date.

After any date. The Minister can think about it, but that is so, so long as the Emergency Powers Act is on the Statute Book.

This is for the Irish Press.

It is not in the Bill— what the Deputy says.

That does not matter. Deputies can do now what they could not do before, and that is raise the matter in the Dáil.

They could always raise it in the Dáil.

It is true that the Minister slipped up in the framing of his amendment. As the Bill now stands he is liable to be requested by the Dáil to take the course of action open to him under the Bill in the matter of the adequacy of transport services. He tried his best to keep out of that position. I shall be watching the Minister who is going to take the Bill to the Seanad now. I warn him that if he comes with an amendment to that section——

You did enough of warning earlier to-day.

——I will do my best to expose the whole purpose of the Minister in relation to the Bill, which was to get rid of the transport problem off his shoulders and to pass it on to a board chosen by the Government and a tribunal chosen by the Government.

You passed everything over to one man.

The Minister remained responsible for policy. He was answerable to the House for policy. No branch line could be closed without his consent. No service of trains could be withdrawn without his consent. No charge for transport services could be increased without his consent, and everything he did as Minister he answered for here and could be questioned about here. That is the situation which has changed. Deputy Davin has side-tracked me successfully. I repeat that this Bill, in so far as it relates to branch lines, leaves the unsatisfactory situation which existed for the past two years to continue indefinitely in the future. It is unsatisfactory that these branch lines, closed during the emergency, have not been reopened before this. It is much more unsatisfactory that there is now no prospect that they will ever reopen.

That is untrue.

I have no claims to be a prophet.

How does the Deputy say that in the face of the assurance given by the Minister last night?

I do not claim to be a prophet, but I will stand up here in sack-cloth and ashes if any single one of these branch lines, closed under the Emergency Powers Order, ever sees a railway engine again.

The Deputy had better order his sack.

I will, and I will be able to lend it to the Minister if my prophecy comes true. That was one of the matters upon which we had divisions during the Committee Stage and, because there was inadequate support for the demand to get these branch lines reopened, they will not reopen.

How many deputations did you hear in connection with the demands for the opening of these branch lines?

Deputy Davin will have an opportunity of making a speech.

The Deputy is obviously mixing up the steps that had to be taken during the war and the steps that were taken under the authority of permanent transport legislation. I closed the branch lines in 1944 because there was insufficient coal to run even the main line services. Deputies know that, over a period of that year, there was one train per week on the main lines in the country and no prospect whatever of trains on the branch lines, but I gave them an undertaking that they would reopen as soon as there was sufficient coal to operate the services over them, and they were reopened in 1946 when the coal supply situation improved, with the exception of, I think, two or three from which railway tracks had to be removed in order to patch up the main lines during the war period. They remained open over 1946. They lost £300,000 in 1946. Then, when the coal crisis developed in 1947, they were closed again. They should have reopened in March, 1948, because in March, 1948, there were ample coal supplies for all purposes.

There were ample coal supplies in 1947.

In October, 1947, I crossed to London. I saw the British Minister of Fuel and Power, then Mr. Emmanuel Shinwell, and asked him for an assurance that we would get 20,000 tons of coal per week for the winter period. That was our estimate of the minimum quantity we required to keep our essential industries, our gas, our electricity and railway works in coal, and no one else. He told me that he could give no such assurance. We tried to make a trade bargain to secure even small additional supplies of coal and they said they could not undertake it, that there was no possibility of coal supplies to this country being improved in quantity or quality before 1st April, 1948. That appears in the departmental records. In January of 1948, quite unexpectedly, without any previous intimation from the British Ministry of Fuel and Power, without any reason to anticipate it, increased coal supplies arrived.

What coal was in the country in September, 1947? Does the Deputy forget that there was no berthage in the Port of Dublin for the American boats bringing in coal in September and October?

I remember it. You will find the statistics——

That takes the whole basis away of the Deputy's argument.

That was the coal on which we were running the trains and the gas and electricity works—260,000 tons of American coal.

Deputy Lemass should get a chance to make his statement.

All the coal in the Phoenix Park is less than one-tenth of our annual needs.

That is not so.

We use 2,500,000 tons per year.

There is more than 260,000 tons in the Park. There are 370,000 tons of American coal on hands.

The Chair is wondering what all this has to do with the Bill.

We could do with a lot less of the coal we got.

Certainly it was bad coal.

We should talk about what is in the Bill.

That is why the branch lines were not opened. When Deputies tell us that the coal was high in price and low in quality, let me remind them that there was established at that time a European Coal Committee, an international authority which controlled the shipment of coal to Europe. We had to fight every inch of the way with that committee to get permission to bring in that coal, dear and bad in quality as it was.

Will the Deputy come to the Bill?

The coal supply situation improved in January and February, 1948, and then the undertaking I gave that the Emergency Powers Order closing certain branch lines would be revoked could have been honoured. That is two years ago. It is not honoured yet. Here is the Bill and it will not be honoured under this Bill.

This is all for the Irish Press.

It is intended for the Dáil. I am an elected representative of the Irish people talking to the other representatives here present and fully entitled to talk and to express views——

I am not even raising the point that the Deputy is out of order.

If, through the Irish Press or any other newspaper, the public of this country get for the first time reliable facts about the transport situation——

I am glad you said the first time.

In the past the facts were slightly distorted because statements contrary to mine were made here and reported there just as accurately.

Will the Deputy now come to the Bill?

I am sorry if Deputies are disturbed by the prospect that these observations of mine may be reported somewhere. On the other matter on which we had a division, the compensation for the directors of Córas Iompair Éireann and the Grand Canal Company, I confess that I am somewhat disturbed in my mind. I think that; to some extent, we allowed a bad precedent to be established by reason of certain features of that proposal. I think that the principle that where an office of profit is abolished by an Act of the Legislature, compensation of some kind should be payable is a sound one. I think that departure from that principle might be quoted on some future occasion in support of a course of action which would be found unjust. We know that the stockholders' directors of Córas Iompair Éireann are not poor people, that they are not depending on the fees they get from that undertaking or from any compensation that may be payable to them. We know that the compensation which the Minister proposed to give them appeared rather generous. We know that the Minister made no attempt to justify that compensation and that in consequence the proposal was rejected by the Dáil.

Therefore, it is not in the Bill.

No, but its absence from the Bill is, I think, a topic to which reference might be made. I have no desire to press the Minister on any course of action. I feel that there may have been in relation to the Grand Canal Company some discussions or negotiations as to the terms of acquisition, which included the question of compensation for directors. The Minister knows that. I do not. If there was given by him in his official capacity as a Minister of State any undertaking, expressed or implied, as to the course of action he intended to follow in relation to these individuals, I think that he should be very slow to allow purely political considerations to divert him from his purpose.

May I say I resent that statement very much? If I gave any undertaking in my capacity as a Minister I do not want any reminder from Deputy Lemass as to honouring it.

That is all right. I do not care whether the Minister resents it or not. I am putting on record my view.

I certainly do resent it.

That was the other matter on which we had a division. I am quite satisfied with the way I voted on that division. I admit my course of action was largely influenced by the blatant political tactics which were adopted.

By the Fianna Fáil Party. Your Party was ordered to do it.

The Fianna Fáil Party on all occasions decides its course of action at a Party meeting.

It changes overnight, as you know.

There was no change of policy, but there was substantial comment by every Deputy upon two obvious facts. One was the Minister's reluctance to make any case for his proposal and the other was the hope of Government Deputies, as was very clearly expressed in Deputy Larkin's speech, to have the section passed by our votes without any political consequences to themselves. Deputy Larkin spoke for half an hour, pleading with Government Deputies to vote against the section and pleading with Opposition Deputies to vote for it. The section was the proposal of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I have nothing further to say about it.

As I said already, I do not care what the Minister does but I am concerned that the sound principle upon which previous legislation of this character was based should be preserved and, even if we depart from it on this occasion, we should declare that to be due to the special circumstances of this occasion and not in any sense a precedent.

I wish the Minister well with his Bill. I hope that he succeeds in getting for Córas Iompair Éireann a board of directors who can work it. I hope that as a result of their work the heavy losses which the undertaking has incurred in the last two years will be avoided in future and that the amount of subsidy which the taxpayer will be required to contribute to meet such losses will diminish to vanishing point in a very short period of time. I hope it will, but I do not believe it will.

This is the sixth time the Deputy has mentioned subsidies. I shall have something to say about subsidies too.

I never paid a subsidy.

Indeed, you did and we are still paying them.

My colleagues and I are gratified to find the Bill advanced to this particular stage. Deputy Lemass says it is a better Bill now than when first introduced. We certainly agree with that. That is largely due to the constructive suggestions put forward by both sides during the prolonged debates on this matter and to the reasonable attitude adopted by the Minister when an overwhelming case was made in favour of a change.

Some of us on these benches feel we have a special responsibility towards the staffs of the new national undertaking. In so far as it is humanly possible to envisage contingencies likely to arise as a result of the change over, I am bound to state that all reasonable precautions have been taken in this Bill to cover conditions of employment so far as the men are concerned in the new undertaking.

May I refer to something in this Bill which has never before appeared in legislation here or anywhere else? It has not even appeared in legislation on the other side where there is nationalised transport. I refer to the fact that recognition has been given for the first time to a group of men described as temporary employees. The group is rather extensive in number. The men have three years' service. They are now covered by ample compensation within the terms of this provision. I pay tribute to the Minister for that. He did try to make the period four years, but he eventually conceded what we felt was the correct period of three years. That concession will be widely appreciated throughout the new service.

There is another feature of the Bill to which it is worth while adverting. A most important change has taken place in the Bill since its introduction. In its initial stages it contained provisions to allow the board a certain measure of freedom in so far as the striking of their own rates of merchandise was concerned. To those of us who are associated with the transport industry that almost amounted to the liberation of the slaves. Since 1924 it has been impossible for any transport undertaking to succeed on its merits, having regard to unregulated and uncontrolled transport throughout the country and because of the fact that a statutory undertaking like Córas Iompair Éireann had the obligation imposed upon it of going before a tribunal in connection with certain rates and certain traffics. These traffics were bound to be lost to that institution because of the delays inevitable so far as the tribunal was concerned. The new Bill sweeps that aside. That is one real germ for hope that the new Bill gives. As a result of discussions in Committee, the Minister felt coerced, as he said himself, by the feelings of the House to alter that and depart from it to the extent of setting up the tribunal again. I am glad common sense has prevailed. In the early debates mistakes may have been made, but I am glad that Deputies have not been slow in setting them right. The Minister was good enough to respond readily when the right course was indicated and he promptly restored the original position. That is perhaps the most vital change that has been made in the Bill. That gives the new undertaking a breathing space for a period of 12 months during which it will not be frustrated or hampered by the operations of the tribunal in so far as rates of merchandise are concerned. This gives a breathing space during which the undertaking can deal with the flood of competitive traffic which will surround it and which will be calculated in its effect to undermine the structure financially. It gives that breathing space, but only for that period of 12 months.

The main and vital defect in this Bill —we pointed it out in the earlier stages and the Minister recognises it—is the fact that one cannot have a sound national transport system until the whole question of traffic is properly regulated and controlled and until the same obligations are imposed on all persons engaged in transport as distinct from the obligations imposed on certain units. Because of what I have said, this Bill is bound, in its effect, to cause losses over that period of 12 months. Those losses are inevitable. They will only diminish and can only be curtailed in so far as the House and the taxpayer are concerned when the further measure promised by the Minister is introduced. One of the gravest tasks confronting the new board will be to ensure that no time will be lost after its establishment in making a complete and comprehensive survey of the entire problem in relation to recommendations to the Minister for the preparation of the necessary supplementary legislation.

There is also another valuable change in this Bill, thanks again to the foresight of the Deputies who suggested it. Despite the original intention, the fact now remains that the new board will be associated with the voice of this House. I think that is a victory for this House and for the members who insisted that, since this was a national transport concern, there should be certain responsibility in this House for its control—that members should at least have, however limited, some opportunity of having a voice in its administration. That has been conceded. I think it is a valuable concession. The one omission I would regard as, perhaps, unfortunate, but nevertheless understandable in the circumstances, is the fact that the Minister was not in a position to announce what was to be the future of the Great Northern Railway or the cross-Border railway. I can only express the hope of a private member of this House, that whatever negotiations or talks may be going on in that respect are moving in the direction of a final and useful settlement and that it will be possible for the Minister at an early stage to indicate to this House the position.

I desire to refer to an aspect of this Bill in which I am interested and in regard to which I was precluded from doing so on the Committee Stage. I was unable to pierce the armour of the Ceann Comhairle on the Committee Stage to refer at length to it. However, it is in the Bill. This is the only opportunity I shall have as we are on the final stages and the matter has been referred to by Deputy Lemass— the question of the composition of the board. On the Committee Stage and because it was not intended that there should be a discussion on it on that stage, there were certain loose discussions on the question of what the board should be like. Some of us expressed the idea that because of past experiences there should be what is described as a whole-time board to operate this concern. Since then I have examined the position, as I felt I was bound to do so. This is the only opportunity we shall have of referring to it. The Minister will soon be engaged on the task of selecting his board. He may be guided by the views of this House as to how that will be done. That is his responsibility. I hope he does the right thing. I am satisfied from what I know now of the position inside Córas Iompair Éireann that, in so far as there is a chairman who will be a permanent chairman in session throughout the whole week and the 52 weeks of the year, the new concern is assured of continuity of policy. I want to suggest to the Minister that in his warrant there might be an indication that he would be the responsible officer, in addition, between meetings of the board. I think that is important and I do not think it operated in the case of the company heretofore. The individual in the position at the moment has given evidence that he is ideally equipped and suited for that particular position.

It will interest the House that for some time past the machinery in operation by the board is as follows. It will allay any fears that may operate in the minds of certain individuals that it will be a one-man show. The chairman calls together a staff conference, consisting of his chief officials, at regular intervals, I understand once a fortnight. It is open to each of these officials to initiate and develop major policy in so far as their respective departments are concerned. They are entitled to table previous notice of developments of that character, to have them sifted and examined and, at the staff conference, to have the voice of the staff conference as a whole. They will be either accepted, amended or rejected as the case may be, but in whatever form they appear at that conference they move to the board proper, and the board proper having the views of the officials before them, now decide policy. There is, therefore, the guarantee that in a matter of policy there is initiation and development from the points where they should operate, namely, from the officials of the company right up to the chairman of the board and on to the board itself—and, bear in mind, that in this case the chairman of the board is there in his capacity of one ordinary member with no special qualifications other than that he may have a casting vote. There is that security, therefore, in the new undertaking.

On the question as to whether there should be a board of part-time directors or whole-time directors, in the light of the machinery and procedure to which I have adverted, I would say that the ideal system would be a part-time board with a whole-time chairman. When I say a part-time board everybody knows that in a business of this character there will be committees and sub-committees. Inevitably members of the board will, in fact, be whole-time, whether they like it or not. It remains for the Minister to select his board.

I suggest that in so far as the main services will be to the agricultural community there should be on that board for preference a young farmer who has given indication of business ability. There are hundreds of them in the country. I would place him as one member of the board. Alongside him I would place a young business man, because this new institution will have tremendously wide powers so far as finance is concerned, who would have a flair, say, for finance. My fourth representative—do not forget that I put the chairman as number one— would be an official of the existing company, an officer of that company, preferably from the traffic side. Those who are experienced in railway work will readily understand why I say that the officer should come from the traffic side. He is in a position to assess in broader lines than perhaps any other officer the position of the company as a whole from one time to another. I suggest, with all respect, that there is such an individual available. Again, as on the Committee Stage, and so that there will be no misunderstanding about the position, let me say that I am speaking in a disinterested manner. It will be neither Deputy Davin nor myself.

The matter is really outside the Fifth Stage of the Bill.

I am referring to the constitution of the board.

There is nothing about the personnel in the Bill.

My final member of the board would be the individual known as the representative of labour Deputy Lemass asked a number of interesting questions about that individual, and the Minister will have a job, shall I say, in getting the right one.

The acceptable one.

The representative of labour, whoever he may be, will have to pull his weight in a very small, specialised team, and, above all, he will have to have, in so far as it may be, the confidence and respect of the workers of the industry as a whole. The Minister is, if not closely associated with the labour movement in this country, at least conversant with its workings and its individuals, and I shall leave him that particular job and wish him luck.

I join with Deputy Lemass in wishing the Minister God speed in his new enterprise and good luck to the board, whoever they may be.

There must be Deputies in this House who, on the Second Stage and the Committee Stage of the Bill, when they saw the number of amendments down and realised the lengthy road we had to travel, felt that we would not reach the Final Stage of the Bill as early as we have succeeded in doing. I think on the Second Stage I indicated the view of some of us that it is not from our point of view an ideal Bill. It is not a Bill in the form in which we would like to see it. It does not represent a perfect solution, but we feel that the Bill must be supported because it is an improvement on the existing position and provides better machinery for the operation of transport services in this country than exists at present.

We welcome the principle enshrined in the Bill, that the transport undertakings are now coming under public ownership and control. What a Deputy can say at this stage of the Bill can serve no very great purpose except in so far as he can hope to influence the Minister's mind, to the extent that the Minister will be concerned with the administration of the provisions embodied in this piece of legislation, but may I be permitted to say that the Minister would be very unwise if he considers that this Bill represents the last word that has to be said in transport legislation, or that it provides a final solution for all our transport problems. I think it would be well for the Minister, even at this early stage, to condition his mind to the fact that in all probability he will have to come back to the House with an amending measure or, at least, with some new piece of transport legislation to deal with some of the problems left untouched by the present Bill.

Deputy Martin O'Sullivan adverted to the fact that this is a better Bill now than when it first came before the House. I think that there is general agreement on that point. While it is true that the Minister got assistance from both sides of the House, I think that it is a pity that he did not get more assistance, because there were times, particularly on the Committee Stage, when the Minister did not receive all the help and assistance he is entitled to expect from the House. It is a pity that, on practically every stage of the Bill, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Lemass, utilised the debate for the purpose of justifying his own transport policy during the period he was Minister. That did not help the House and did not make for useful debate. It did not assist us in rounding off this Bill in the best manner possible.

Deputy Lemass referred to the fact that there had been divisions on only two major questions in the course of the passage of the Bill. He then went on to make his apologia pro vita mea for his policy on the branch lines. I do not know how Deputy Lemass could come to this House and attempt to pose as a protagonist of the railway transport system because, even in the course of his rather brief remarks to-day, he let slip inadvertently a phrase which really represents his mind when he referred to the question of the inutility of the branch lines. Deputy Lemass's attitude, when he spoke this evening, was one which I do not think any reasonable individual could expect this House to accept. Can he expect the House to accept that it became a crime for the present Administration not to reopen branch lines in March, 1948, whereas it was good policy to keep them closed in January, 1948?

Nonsense.

That was the case Deputy Lemass attempted to make.

He explained that there was no coal.

He explained that there was no coal, but he overlooked the fact that in the summer and autumn of 1947 we imported more coal than was ever imported within any similar period before. If Deputies will throw their minds back, they will remember the spectacle of American ships riding at anchor in Scotman's Bay because there was no room for them in the Port of Dublin.

He gave you the figures.

No figures he gave can disprove what I say. Let the Deputy controvert me if he will, but the figures will prove that between the summer and autumn of 1947 ample coal was imported, and Deputy Lemass was in a position to know that ample coal was coming in, but he did not want to reopen the branch lines. The case Deputy Lemass made here this evening was made purely in an effort to score a minor debating point at the expense of the Minister or at the expense of some of us at this side of the House who generally believe in the necessity of maintaining a branch line system.

The Chair had to remind Deputy Lemass that he was irrelevant in going back to the coal situation in 1947.

I hope the Chair will forgive me for following Deputy Lemass in his irrelevancies.

The Deputy has relieved his feelings.

I must confess that I am not completely satisfied with the attitude evinced by the Minister in respect to the policy to be pursued, so far as the reopening of branch lines shut during the emergency conditions is concerned.

Major de Valera

You are in the position to get satisfaction if you are serious.

I find myself in the position in which I have often been in this House before, and that is to balance one little evil against a greater evil. I would consider it infinitely more detrimental to the interests of the development of a better transport system and the interests of this country as a whole to give the Party opposite another opportunity of occupying those seats than let the Minister have his way for the time being in his attitude as indicated last night. Let Deputies opposite make no mistake about that. There are many points on which we differ fundamentally from the Deputies who sit in the benches opposite and we recognise that there is one evil to be avoided and that is that until such time as those Deputies have learned their lesson, there can be no question of ever letting them back to these benches.

I will pass from that. The Minister's attitude throughout the course of this measure was most co-operative. I should like to pay a tribute to him for the manner in which he met the representations made to him by Deputies on this side. Deputies O'Sullivan, Hickey and myself expressed rather vehemently a certain point of view to the Minister with respect to the rights of Deputies to have information made available in so far as major matters of transport administration and policy are concerned. I sympathise with the Minister's attitude in not wanting to give Deputies that right. I could quite sympathise with him in his desire to withdraw from the prospect of the day-to-day workings and details of administration of Córas Iompair Éireann being made the subject matter of question and answer in an adjournment debate. I could sympathise with his desire not to open the door even a little bit for fear that having once opened it he might not be able to keep out the flood. I know his apprehensions on that score were very real.

I would like to pay a sincere tribute to the Minister who, I would say, very much against his will but in deference to an attitude of mind that he knew was shared by many Deputies, agreed to the insertion of Section 15. I think the Minister is entitled to that tribute.

Deputy Lemass referred to the uneconomic sections of a transport system being possible of maintenance while the transport system as a whole was making money, but that when it was making a loss it became necessary to close such uneconomic sections. I think that remark displays the fundamental difference of approach on the part of Deputy Lemass on the one hand and many Deputies on this side of the House on the other. I make no apology for holding the view that the provision of a proper transport system, whether it can be done at a loss or at a profit from a purely commercial standpoint, is a national necessity, and it is in that light it must be regarded. I hold, and I think from what Deputy Lemass said he would not dissent violently from this point of view, that it should be considered not by itself as one would consider an ordinary money-making concern, but that it should be considered as an integral portion of the whole national economy.

This may sound repetitious, but I would like to warn the Minister that if he thinks that this Bill provides the last word on our transport problems he will find he is making a mistake. To my mind it is inevitable that he will have to come back to the House at some period, be it long or short, and ask for amending legislation, if not additional legislation.

I would like to endorse the statement made by Deputy Martin O'Sullivan, especially with reference to the formation of the board. Having endorsed his remarks, I will leave it at that.

I now want to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of some clerks about whom I had an amendment down that I was compelled to withdraw. I hope that when the board will be formed, should any superior officer recommend any of these clerks for promotion, no legal clause in the Bill will prevent them getting the promotion they richly deserve.

I must pay a compliment to the Minister for the co-operative way in which he has acted throughout the passage of the Bill in the Dáil and, like other Deputies, I wish him every success in the future.

I, too, would like to say that while the Bill was going through the House the Minister endeavoured to meet the view-points put forward from all sides of the House. As I said on earlier stages, I fear the Bill, having now gone through its main stages, will not put the transport of the country on a satisfactory basis. To some extent this Bill is only touching on the problems that confront us. Until the unlawful and illicit competition with which Córas Iompair Éireann has to deal is dealt with, I see no hope of this Bill bringing any satisfactory results or making the transport situation much better than it is.

Quite a good lot of discussion has taken place in regard to railway traffic and road traffic. The Minister must realise that all the equipment—for instance, the carriages on the railway —is, most of it, antiquated. The carriages are uncomfortable and unsuitable in modern conditions. So far as passengers are concerned, if the railways are going to be put in a position to increase their traffic they must be provided with up-to-date facilities.

Those up-to-date facilities will involve a capital expenditure of much more than the £7,000,000 that is permitted under the Bill. That is one of the fundamental defects that I can see in the Bill, that it does not face up to the capital expenditure that must be met if the rail section is to be in a position to attract passenger traffic. Not only have the railways to meet the competition of the bus section that has been mentioned, but they have the competition of the private motor car. If people find it more comfortable to travel to Galway or Cork in a private motor car than to travel by train, then they are going to travel by private motor car. I feel that the Bill is unsatisfactory in not making provision for adequate capital expenditure to modernise the railways and rail equipment.

Naturally, I think the Bill is unsatisfactory in so far as it has made no provision for the completion of the bus depot in Store Street. That matter was dealt with by amendment in Committee. The section which it was sought to put into the Bill to have the Store Street station completed was not inserted.

We are now discussing what is in the Bill and not what we would like to see in it.

I appreciate that.

And, having appreciated it, the Deputy will drop it.

I am satisfied that the Minister will have to face that issue in the Seanad as soon as we are finished with the Bill, and elsewhere. Some remarks were made here in regard to Section 15 in the Bill which obliges the Minister to give information to the House on certain matters. The line has been taken that the Minister's objection to that section could be understood, and that its insertion raises the possibility of all the day-to-day administrative details of the company being open in this House to question and to debates on the adjournment. May I say that I do not accept that position at all? Under the Defence Forces legislation everything that happens in the Army is done by order of the Minister for Defence. Therefore, everything that occurs in the Army could be raised in the Dáil and in debates on the adjournment, but it is not done. The same thing applies in the case of the Post Office and, to a large extent, to the Garda under the Department of Justice; but it is not done because Deputies have a sense of responsibility. Why then should the point be made that if the Minister is obliged to give information it would involve the possibility of answering innumerable questions on day-to-day administration and of debates on the adjournment? I think that is not the approach that should be made to the matter.

In the case of a concern like Córas Iompair Éireann to which we have recently given £4,000,000, and to which we will be giving for some years at least a sum of probably £1,000,000 a year in round figures—it is described in the Bill as a national transport undertaking—it is only right that this House should have substantial control over it. I think the House was right to insist on having that control and that there ought to be no apologies made by anybody for insisting on having Section 15 written into the Bill.

I am not going to follow the suggestion made by Deputy O'Sullivan in regard to what type of board the Minister will establish. I take it that what we require the Minister to set up is a board that will run this concern efficiently and in the national interest, as is laid down in the Bill. If the Minister were to limit himself and say: "I am going to get a young farmer; I am going to get a young business man; I am going to get an ex-official of the company, and I am going to get someone to represent Labour", he might, and he might not, be getting the most efficient board. The responsibility is on the Minister to get an efficient board. Every Deputy knows that that is a serious responsibility, and that in the selection of that board the Minister is going to have a good number of headaches. Every Deputy knows that, if the Minister makes an unwise choice, he will be subjected to severe criticism here, and that if he selects persons who are incompetent or inefficient, he will have to carry the burden of answering for that incompetency and inefficiency not only in this House but, perhaps, on the hustings through the country. That is a very serious responsibility. I think that, having placed it on the Minister, while we may, as Deputy O'Sullivan has done, make suggestions, we should not in any way endeavour to curb or to limit the Minister in the exercise of that responsibility. The Bill has done very good work in so far as it has afforded protection to the employees of Córas Iompair Éireann. I think the Minister's response to the case put up to him was most satisfactory and no employee of Córas Iompair Éireann can say that, while this Bill was going through the House, their interests were neglected by anybody, and certainly that their interests were neglected by the Minister.

Like other Deputies, I sincerely hope that this Bill in its operation will be more successful than I have reason to think it will. I hope it will be satisfactory and that the board the Minister will appoint will make a success of it. But the Minister must realise, as the board will soon realise, that the powers the board have obtained in this Bill, the powers the Minister himself has taken, are insufficient to enable the Bill to be entirely satisfactory. This Bill was intended to deal with a very serious problem. A transport undertaking is a national undertaking. It is an undertaking to provide for the conveyance of people and the carriage of goods from one part of the country to another at the cheapest rates and in the quickest time. At the moment, that is not happening in certain areas. I think, Sir, you would hardly permit me to make any reference to the bus stoppage.

The Deputy is quite right, the Chair would not.

But it is one of the problems——

The Deputy must not refer to it.

I am not referring to anything in particular, but I am referring to it in a general way.

To the fact that under this Bill citizens of the State are entitled to be conveyed from place to place and their goods conveyed from place to place in the most efficient and economical way, and that this Bill gives to the Minister and the board the power and the duty of providing transport for our citizens in all parts of the country. I hope that both the Minister and the new board will face up to that particular responsibility and that they will see that efficient and satisfactory transport is provided for all the citizens in all parts of the country.

Including Donnycarney.

Including Donnycarney and Dollymount, but I was prevented from saying that. I do not know whether, when the Seanad sees this Bill, we are going to have it back in the same form in which it leaves us. It may be that we will get it back in a much improved form. If we do, then all I can say is that we shall have a lot to be thankful for to the Seanad.

I should like to support Deputy Lemass, Deputy Cowan and Deputy Lehane in their remarks about the adequacy of the capital provided. I have one project in mind which I think might have been envisaged by the Minister, because it is a matter of which the railway administration have had practical experience. I refer to the singling of the main line between Clonsilla and Galway. It seems to me that that is a project that might have been provided for in the provision of capital, I believe the railway authorities satisfied themselves after a number of years that the singling of that railway line was in fact a mistake. It retarded traffic and it did not cut down overheads to a proportionate extent.

Is that not a matter of administration?

I shall pass from it, but I think it is the type of project which the Minister might have handed over for attention to the new railway authority. I think that the statement made by Deputy Lehane that Deputy Lemass's insistence on justifying his own transport policy prevented this Bill from being as good a measure as it might otherwise have been is a very unsubstantial argument. We all know that with the development of the internal combustion engine and the use of tar on the roads railway problems were created. I think that when the first amalgamation of the railways took place and the Great Southern Railway Company was established it was because of the problems which were then appearing for the reasons I have stated. That was not successful and we got Córas Iompair Éireann No. 1. I take it that it is because of the experience in operating Córas Iompair Éireann No. 1 we are now getting Córas Iompair Éireann No. 2. We all have as high hopes for the success of Córas Iompair Éireann No. 2 as we had for the success of Córas Iompair Éireann No. 1. The Minister, when he was not able to accept the suggestions of Deputy Cowan and some others that there should be still further restrictions on the private carrying of goods, had to introduce the principle into this Bill of fairly and squarely facing up to the loss made by the railways and coming to their aid annually, as we do in connection with other. Departments of State. There are two views on that. In the present circumstances I think the Minister has chosen the least troublesome solution. We all know that the question of still further monopolising the carrying of goods, particularly private goods, is one which would not be as easily accepted as this. As we are going in for a bigger dose of nationalisation, the thing to do is to let the public purse stand in, as has been done for the hospitals by the hospitals' sweepstakes money.

I would like on behalf of that very important part of our national territory to say that national policy in any event will not be prevented from being voiced in this House in relation to transport, even under this Bill. The West of Ireland has not got the largest or the wealthiest population and for that reason it has transport problems that do not exist in other parts of the country. We have now a further degree of nationalisation even though it is going to be perhaps more bureaucratically exercised by excluding more important matters. I make a plea to the Minister for that part of our national territory in the West of Ireland. I appeal to him to ensure that in formulating a transport Bill more attention is given to that area than has been given to it in the past, when it was seen fit to close down the main line to the West.

I want to raise one small point so that the Minister may consider it between this and the time the Bill comes before the Seanad. The Minister was good enough to include a particular section in this measure. I refer to Section 56. I hope that section will enable Kildare County Council to do some work that is badly needed on a canal bridge going out by Naas over which those travelling to the South must pass. For many years the Kildare County Council has been abused because of the condition of that bridge. The fault was not really ours. For a long time we had been urging the appropriate Departments to enable the canal company, in conjunction with the county council, to carry out the necessary work. In Section 56 the Minister has included a provision by virtue of which, where a canal has not been used for public navigation for three years, an application can be made to the tribunal for the closing of the canal for navigational purposes, while, at the same time, keeping it open for water-supply purposes. For years the Grand Canal Company has been quite prepared to agree that that part of the canal which runs out more or less towards the Curragh and Athgarvan should be closed. Under Section 45 of the Canal Traffic Act, 1888, they were not empowered to close it.

The Minister has been good enough to include this section at the request of the Kildare County Council, conveyed to him by me. Unfortunately the words "public navigation" are not quite clear in their meaning. No barge or boat for the transportation of goods as such, whether belonging to the canal company or to any by-trader, has passed over that canal for about 15 years as far as I can ascertain. But a boat has regularly passed down that canal purely for cleansing purposes and I understand it is a matter of some doubt as to whether, once the canal company dredging boat has gone down, that fulfils the provisions of the section or whether it does not. Presumably, it is a matter for the parliamentary draftsman. I am quite sure the Minister knows what is intended, but I would ask him between now and the time the Bill is considered in Committee in the Seanad to make quite certain that the term "public navigation" will not include a mere dredger going through for cleansing purposes. If it were to include that, then the section as it stands would not achieve the very proper purpose the Minister has in mind of enabling the road authority to take away that extremely dangerous bridge and thereby provide better facilities on one of the main arterial highways in the country.

I should like to express my appreciation to the House for the manner in which this Bill has been debated here during all its stages and, with some reservations, I extend that appreciation even to Deputy Lemass. I would like to say, again with one or two reservations, that I agree that the Bill is now emerging from the Dáil a better Bill than when it was introduced. For that I am indebted to many members, including Deputy Lemass. It might be an even better Bill if I had got a little more assistance and if it had been approached solely from the point of view of a transport concern.

I rather regret the line that Deputy Lemass took to-day. Again, he was back on the hustings. Again, he was making a further vain attempt to whitewash himself. I can assure the Deputy that it was a very vain attempt and no matter how often—perhaps I should say the more often—he makes the effort the less effective it will be. The Deputy to-day belittled the Bill. He said it contained nothing beyond a change in the method of election to the board of directors and a guarantee to the stockholders. How the Deputy could talk so much about what was supposed to contain so little amazes me. He said the Bill provided only for the stockholders and for a new method of electing the directors; he said that was the sum total of the Government's contribution to the solution of the transport problem. Nobody but Deputy Lemass believes that. Not even Deputy Lemass believes it.

Deputy Con Lehane warned me that I should not make the mistake of thinking this was the last step in transport and that he was not prepared to accept this as the ideal solution of the problem. Deputy Cowan travelled along the same line. There is no need to warn me about that. I never pretended at any time that this Bill would provide an ideal solution for our problems. In that I differ from Deputy Lemass in his approach to transport legislation in this House because Deputy Lemass every time he came to the House with a transport measure always said it was the ideal solution and the solution that would enable us to put behind us all our transport problems.

Fortunately, what I did say is on record.

It is. I never, during any stage of the progress of this Bill, claimed that it was much more than a machinery Bill. Deputies ought to realise that we are talking about and dealing with an organisation or concern that is up to the present moment the property of private individuals. I did not understand Deputy Lemass's references to the stockholders' being guaranteed 2½ per cent. and repayment at the end of the appropriate period whereas, heretofore, they were only entitled to dividends when profits were made. The money they are going to be paid and the interest which they will be paid pending 1985 is the sum which was assessed as being the fair compensation that was due to them for the property we are now proposing to take over. The Deputy did not challenge that it should not be paid. He would not suggest that we should give them less than the fair value. He would not suggest that we should confiscate them. He would not suggest that we should not pay interest on the money. Therefore, as I say, I did not understand the reference. We are told that we have given no serious consideration to this problem. This Government was the first Government that faced up to this problem in a real way and in an intelligent way.

The Deputy made a lot of play about the £7,000,000 in the Bill and my rejection of the £17,500,000 project which the previous chairman and board of directors had submitted. Will Deputy Lemass tell me by whom that programme was assembled? Who were the experts who advised as to the £6,000,000 worth of railway replacements? Who were the experts who, under that £17,500,000 project, decided in favour of diesels as against other locomotives? Will the Deputy tell me who was the expert who purchased the diesels and who actually went across to make the purchases? What confidence, what faith could I or anybody in my position have in a programme of purchases likely to run into the region of £20,000,000 submitted to me by a board—including the chairman— particularly on the railway side, who had no chief mechanical engineer; who, so far as I know, did not seek the advice outside of any expert and in so far as expert advice was available within their own organisation, it was not consulted.

I was not frightened by the £17,500,000 expenditure or the £20,000,000 expenditure. But even in these days it is an enormous sum of money for this country. Personally, I should have to be very well satisfied and I should have to get very clear documentary proof as to the soundness of that investment of £17,500,000 before I would come to this House and ask for it.

There is one matter with which I must deal. Right through this Bill and from the first day of the first debate we had on it—down to and including his final speech to-day, in which he repeated it no fewer than six times—Deputy Lemass has thought fit, as he was perfectly entitled to, to stress and to restress and to repeat over and over again the fact that the losses of this company would have to be made good by the taxpayer, that subsidy would have to be provided. I have challenged the Deputy on more than one occasion to tell me or to tell the House how the losses are to be met otherwise than through the taxpayer paying for them. The Deputy has never attempted to do that. Why should the Deputy be so indignant at the idea of a subsidy for this company? Is this the first State company that was ever subsidised? The Deputy knows that it is not. The Deputy knows that there is another transport concern, another transport project, that has been subsidised very substantially.

The air services?

The air services, and the Deputy knows the extent to which those have been subsidised. He knows that we are, up to the present moment, heavily subsidising not an Irish transport service such as Córas Iompair Éireann but foreign transport services which are using out airport at Shannon. The Deputy knows that that subsidy is costing the taxpayers of this country close on £1,000 per day in addition to the other millions of pounds that were put into its construction.

Is the Minister referring to Shannon Airport?

Certainly.

We had 3,000 people employed there.

We have 22,000 employed in Córas Iompair Éireann and the service is for their own Irish community. Now I come to Store Street. All I have to say about Store Street is that Store Street and particularly its five storeys of offices is not required by Córas Iompair Éireann. That is the first point. The second point is that they have not the money to pay for it.

Who has? Has the Department of Social Welfare the money to pay for it?

That is the problem of the Department of Social Welfare. That is like the Deputy's suggestion that all this is to pay for the losses incurred in the last two years. The Deputy knows that that is not so yet he goes on repeating it. I know the reason. It is because it will be published in one newspaper. It is because the people who will read that will not read anything else and they will accept that as gospel. It is because no contradiction of that statement will be published. Deputy Lemass has a peculiar outlook on all this business. He has no faith whatever in the future of railways. He cannot see a railway system under any circumstances paying its way in this country. No matter what the reorganisation, no matter how modernised the methods, no matter to what extent the obsolete rolling stock is replaced—even under those conditions—he has no faith whatever in its paying. That being the Deputy's opinion, I am not one bit surprised that he allowed the railway side of Córas Iompair Éireann to get into the extraordinary position in which it was when we had to take it over.

What is the Minister's opinion?

I think it can be made payable and I believe it will be made payable. However, I am not— like the Deputy—suggesting that that is going to happen overnight. I do know that what I may call the road side of its operations are not in future going to be subsidised at the expense of the railway side as happened in the past.

It has been the other way round surely.

Not at all.

One was robbing the other.

The road services were carrying the railway.

Yes, but the Deputy is not prepared to make a full admission or he is not fully informed.

There were parallel services running to the same town.

There was more than that. There were goods which went out and were paid for on the road side and the empties were sent back by rail unpaid for.

Deputy Davin is not prepared to accept the implication of his own remarks. If the two were there side by side, why did the public use one and not the other?

I am not going to follow Deputy Lemass through all the by-ways he thought fit to traverse on the Fifth Stage. There is not a point the Deputy made that I could not meet, not one. The Deputy—with, shall I say, his usual courage?— thought fit to hold forth on branch lines. He talked about branch lines that had to be closed from 1944 onwards. How many branch lines were closed down prior to the war?

A good number.

Twenty—more than 20.

Some of them were closed before my time.

Not so very long— just a couple in 1931, but from 1932 up to and including 1939 there were several.

He is talking about the Lartigue railway.

There was the Galway to Clifden line.

The Deputy wanted to give the House the impression that they were closed because of the coal situation, but what was the reason they were not opened in 1947 when there were ample supplies of coal?

They were opened in 1946.

I am talking about 1947 when, apparently, they could not be opened. The Deputy had 500,000 tons of American coal at that time.

An iron ration.

Mind you, I think it is going to be an iron ration.

It would not have been enough.

The Deputy, apparently, was quite prepared to give himself all the credit to which he was entitled.

Will the Minister read his own speech before 1947 urging me to bring in that coal?

I am not saying anything about that. Perhaps if the Deputy had used it on the branch lines, I would not have the headache I have had ever since in trying to dispose of it. The Deputy succeeded far better than he knew when he went to London. He had, apparently, one of those bombs that during the war were called delayed action bombs. The Deputy went over there in October and put up quite a good fight but they told him that they could not give him even 20,000 tons but, lo and behold! in the following January, they were able to give him coal at the rate of 1,600,000 tons a year.

Election coal.

It was more than election coal and it created more than a transport problem. That 1,600,000 tons plus the 500,000 tons of American and African coal, if it did not start the railways, sounded the death-knell of the hand-won turf scheme about which I get so much abuse.

It would be as well to close that chapter and get on with the job for the future.

If all the members of the House were as relevant as the Minister, I would have the Bill, not merely through the Dáil by now but through the Seanad as well. Deputies will have to reconcile themselves to the fact that while the Minister has to sit down and listen to all sorts of speeches, and offer himself as a cock-shot, the Minister, strange as it may seem, still has the right to report occasionally and hit back.

Having said that, I do want to say again sincerely that I appreciate the manner in which this measure was debated in the House. I believe, notwithstanding some of the things that have been said, that Deputies on all sides are anxious, if for no other reason than that it is a national matter, that it should be a success. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not holding this out as an ideal solution for all our transport problems but we are going to acquire this property, and we are going to appoint, first of all, a national board to operate this concern on behalf of the Irish people. In so far as it is humanly possible, it will be my function and the function of the Government to select the best board we can get. I know quite well that is not going to be an easy matter. I know quite well in advance that no matter what board ultimately emerges, it will be open to criticism. It will be criticised and the Minister will be criticised but that does not worry me.

We are going to see that as far as possible the board will have at its service, both on the railway side and the road side, the most expert technical assistance that it is possible for us or the board to secure. That board, with its advisers, will be charged with the responsibility of operating this national transport system. It will be charged with the responsibility of examining the whole transport system, road and rail, of this country, and making whatever recommendations it thinks proper to the Government to decide whether to accept or reject these recommendations. It will be for the Government to decide if it requires legislation to implement any of the recommendations made by this board. If it comes to the point when such legislation is introduced it will be for the Oireachtas as a whole to decide whether or not it is acceptable.

I have endeavoured during the passage of this Bill through the House to secure that it would emerge on the Fifth Stage from the Dáil, not a Government measure but a Dáil measure. I think I can say we have achieved that. I think I can say further that the Dáil has approached the consideration of it as a deliberative Assembly and not just purely to record decisions already taken. There were certain points put up and certain amendments put forward which I felt I had to resist and I did resist but, wherever I could meet Deputies from any part of the House without imposing an unfair burden on the new board or on the Córas Iompair Éireann organisation, I certainly went as far as I possibly could go to meet them. We have tried in this measure to be fair to the people primarily concerned and most closely concerned. We have tried to be, and, I think, have been, fair to the stockholders whose property we are acquiring and we have tried in, I think, a fuller measure than was ever attempted before, to safeguard the interests and the future of the various grades of employees in this very big employing concern.

I do not think there is anything else I can say at this stage, except to emphasise that to make a success of it requires more than the mere passing of a Bill. Having met the House to the fullest possible extent and having provided in the fullest possible measure for security of employment, for fair conditions, for fair wages and for fair superannuation or pension when retirement comes, I think it might not be out of place for me to make an appeal to the 22,000 persons employed in this great concern, from the top to the bottom, that they ought to give us their fullest possible co-operation in making this a success. That is necessary not merely from a national point of view, but even from the consideration of their own future welfare and the security of their own livelihoods. I believe that if we got that enthusiastic whole-hearted interest in Córas Iompair Éireann from the 22,000 employees which I think we have a right to expect, they could themselves do a considerable amount to attract to that service much more traffic than it is carrying at the moment. On the management side, all I have to say is that it will be the desire of the new board, I am sure, to see that any cause of friction that may exist will be removed and also to see that there is that harmony right from the top to the bottom which is so essential for the successful working of a very big undertaking such as this.

Mr. Byrne

Will that appeal go to the bus workers in Clontarf?

To the 22,000 employees—every one of them.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share