Committee on Finance. - Vote 51 — Transport and Marine Services. – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Thursday, 19 Feb 1953

Committee on Finance. - Vote 51 — Transport and Marine Services.

Captain Cowan

I was pointing out last night some of the difficulties facing the State in regard to this problem of C.I.E. and I think that Deputies will realise now, as the public realises, that it is not by any means a simple problem. It is complicated; it is complex; it is difficult. It is not a problem which has arisen to-day or yesterday. It is a problem of long standing, a problem that has existed over a long number of years.

The basis of C.I.E. has been the railways and for a long time the railways had a complete monopoly of transport not only in this country but in other countries, but once there was competition with the railways from the new challenge on the roads, the directors of the railway companies,particularly in this country, failed to face up to their responsibilities. They allowed their property to get into disrepair and their equipment to deteriorate, with the result that the position became very serious indeed.

Every Government in this State since 1922 has had as its continual headache this problem of the railways and public transport. We had legislative proposals in connection with amalgamation and the establishment of the G.S.R. We had the new legislation which the present Minister sponsored and then we had the legislation passed by the inter-Party Government.

At the end of all that, we are still in the position that things are not satisfactory so far as public transport is concerned. It is obvious that they cannot be satisfactory while the present position continues. We have railways and they are expensive. Their equipment and machinery are expensive. They are expensive to maintain but they do give a good volume of employment and the general desire has been to save the railways for the purpose of saving the people who are employed on the railways. The railways have had as I said this new competition from the roads—buses, lorries and private cars—and then under the comparatively recent arrangement the railways, or their new organisation of C.I.E., have entered into this competition themselves by the establishment of bus services and road transport services, As was said here last night there are places where these two systems, both owned by the one company, are in competition. We have branch lines in competition with bus services and road transport services and when the Board of C.I.E. desire to end that competition by lopping off an uneconomic branch line which is not being used by the public, there is objection to it in this House.

There is a more serious problem developing day after day and that is the competition that this public service is getting from the private motorist and private lorry owners. I do not want to elaborate on this too much because I think it must be clear to every Deputy that, while thisposition remains, it will be impossible for C.I.E. to become a paying concern. The more persons become owners of private motor-cars, the fewer passengers will travel either on the buses or on the railways. Similarly the more private lorries there are for the haulage of merchandise, the more difficult it becomes for the railways to make ends meet. We are, therefore, faced with this position if the State wants to do so, it can make the railways a paying proposition but to do that, it has got to eliminate all other competition. That is the problem.

This House apparently and the public generally would not welcome any proposals that would eliminate competition from private motorists and private lorry owners. That being so, I think we have got to face up to the fact that if we are to maintain the railways and to maintain C.I.E., we shall have to pay a subsidy of perhaps £2,000,000 per year. The Minister had the idea that is should not be more than £1,300,000. That was the figure that was considered proper when the Estimates were being prepared but because of the increases in wages given to railway workers—and the fact that railway services are losing money is no reason why railway workers should have to work at lower rates of wages than other persons—we have to provide more money than was originally estimated. I think as things go on, we shall be lucky if we are able to break clear on our railway and transport services by the payment of a subsidy of approximately £2,000,000. That is how the House must face up to the situation.

It is the easiest thing in the world to criticise. It is the easiest thing in the world to say that it is nonsense to pay a subsidy of £2,000,000. It is the easiest thing in the world to say that the railways and the road services should be more efficient but the difficulty is to make them more efficient and to make them pay their way. I heard some criticism of the board of directors. I have, myself, on occasion criticised the Board of C.I.E. but the more one thinks of the problem, the more one realises the difficult situation that faces those persons. I thinkthat if the public generally and Deputies would realise that we have got to subsidise C.I.E. when we will not give them the monopoly that they think they should have, then we shall be able to have a sounder and saner outlook on this problem.

Having said that in a general way, we must agree that it is the duty of C.I.E. to get the best equipment they can, the best engines for their railways, the best buses for the roads, and to see that their stations, whether they be railway stations or bus stations, are up-to-date and fit to serve in a decent, reasonable way the requirements of the travelling public. I do not think that there will be any problem about the provision of capital moneys for such projects. There is not much sense in a Deputy interjecting something about Store Street when we are discussing the difficulties of the C.I.E. The travelling public are entitled to decent waiting-rooms, particularly in the capital city of the country. I think it should be the desire of every Deputy that the waiting-rooms and facilities for our travelling public everywhere would be as near ideal as possible.

As legislation stands at the moment, the Minister can do very little except to pay up or to come into the House and inform the House that it has to pay up. It is deprived by legislation of the right to examine into the administration of C.I.E. This House was deliberately prevented from examining or inquiring into the administration of C.I.E. by legislation passed a couple of years ago. When that legislation was being passed, a few Deputies—and I am glad to say I was one of them— opposed that proposal. I felt at the time, and other Deputies also felt, that when we were paying so much towards C.I.E., we should have the right to examine into its administration and to see whether it was successful or not. I am quite sure that the Minister and his predecessor, or any Minister for Industry and Commerce, would be glad to be finished with this whole problem of public transport, but it is there and all the Minister and the Government can do is get the best board they can for the undertaking and leave it to thatboard to do the best they can for the public.

While I realise our limitations in regard to an examination of the general administration of C.I.E., I do feel that some flexibility is required in the undertaking. The problems that confront us in Dublin are entirely different from the problems that confront the people in different parts of the country. The problems of rail transport and road transport for goods are entirely different and the problems in relation to road transport and rail transport for passengers are also different.

I feel that if the board were to make provisions whereby we could have in Dublin an official—a high official—of C.I.E. charged with the responsibility of looking after the city bus services it would be a good thing and that it would lead to efficiency of service and that if anybody had any complaint or suggestion to make he could make it to a person who is directly charged with responsibility for the administration of that part of the service. If anyone makes an objection or a suggestion at the moment it has to go to the board as a whole and by the time it has come through all the machinery of that particular board it becomes a completely different thing in the end.

Similarly, I think that road freight deserves some type of administration of its own if it is to be maintained at all by C.I.E Similarly, the long distance bus services and the bus services that operate outside C.I.E. should have some director or chief director in control and similarly in regard to the passenger section of the railway.

These are the only suggestions that have struck me in regard to the problem thinking over it from time to time. They may not be sound. There may appear to be certain defects in them but, nevertheless, I do feel that they are worth consideration. When the last board was appointed by the inter-Party Government, the inter-Party Government did not, in my view, deal with the difficult problem in the way they should have dealt with it. They tried to balance here and balance there and no one will agree that they were concerned only with obtaining theboard that would be most likely to bring efficiency to the C.I.E. undertaking.

We have in our transport undertaking, in our roads and in our railways young, efficient men. I think it is one of these organisations in which youth should have a chance, where imagination would have an opportunity of playing its part. I do not want to be unduly critical of the men that were appointed but I do say they were not appointed on the right lines.

The Minister is tied up and the Government is tied up for the statutory period and, when that statutory period is up, the Minister will have the difficulty of deciding what he should do in regard to it. I think everyone would like to see the Minister ensuring that youth, efficiency and ability would get an opportunity of playing its part on the new board. But even with youth, ability and efficiency on the board there are difficulties from a public point of view. The main difficulty is that C.I.E., as it is at present constituted, cannot possibly, in my view, pay its way. I suppose from the public point of view that the less the subsidy is the better it will be for the State but we have got to realise that there must be a subsidy. There must be a subsidy for many years.

Some people may say that you can eliminate the road transport section— the section of C.I.E. which deals with merchandise on the roads and hand it over to private enterprise. I do not think that that is a solution of the problem. I think that there must be State organisation in regard to our public transport. That organisation may hurt a little here and a little there but that cannot be avoided.

Public transport is for the service of the community and not for the service of particular persons who want to exploit conditions in their own interests. This whole problem has been discussed for many years in this House. As I have said already, it is a headache for every Minister who is in the position of Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do think that if we approached the problem, having givenit some thought and consideration, we could at least see what we intend, and we could see to some extent where we are going in regard to it but the sort of intervention we had here last night in regard to this Estimate and in regard to this whole problem was in no way helpful.

Mr. Hickey

Politics was all that was discussed.

Captain Cowan

I agree. It is too serious for that type of approach and the livelihood of too many men and their families are at stake in this. I would ask the House to give the Minister every encouragement to do the best thing in the national interest in regard to this undertaking.

Mr. Norton

For as long as I have been a member of this House—and that is a long time now—we have been discussing perennially the question of our transport problem and the position of our railways. I suppose it will be many years before our efforts in that respect can be less intense than they have been in the past. Almost every year in one form or another we discuss our transport problems and the common feature of all these discussions is one—the unsatisfactory transport service that is provided and the cost of the service to the community and, in more recent years, to the State.

I do not want to look at this thing from a Party angle because I think the matter transcends all political Parties. The situation to-day is something that requires a pooling of the best ideas in order to see what is the best solution to our transport problems and on what lines we can best effect that solution without serious repercussions to those employed in the transport industry. The difficulties with C.I.E. did not develop this year, last year or five years ago. The problems which are now with us so far as transport is concerned are problems which arose a considerable number of years ago and what we have to-day is, in the main, a legacy of want of enterprise and initiative by railways under private ownership.

In other days, the railway companies of this country had a virtual and factual monopoly of transport in their respective areas. That situation continued in pretty large measure even after the amalgamation of all the railways but constituting one main company in this area of jurisdiction. Even though they had a monopoly, and even though they could see the very rapid inroads made by the private lorry and the private motor-car in other countries, the railway directors of the private monopoly sat back and took no steps whatsoever by enterprise and initiative to meet the obviously growing and intense competition of the lorry on the road with the train on the tracks. Thus, almost before the directors of a privately-operated railway system could realise it, they were overwhelmed by a competitor which had virtually come to manhood overnight. The railways found themselves confronted with the very keen competition of the octopus of private road transport and haulage. Therefore, from time to time, this House has had to write cheques from the nation's cheque-book in order to bolster up the private enterprise which took no steps to guard itself against a competitor which was obviously becoming a very serious rival. The railway directors took virtually no notice of the existence of that growing competition.

If there is to be a monopoly in this country, then there is a justification for it on only one ground and that is that it is a public monopoly. I am opposed to any kind of private monopoly in the interests of private shareholders or any private group. A private monopoly which can run itself independent of State advances is bad enough, but what can be said of a virtual monopoly so far as rail transport is concerned—which is also a big provider of road transport —which requires State advances? No case can be made for continuing the special powers and privileges which it had in respect of railway transport if, from year to year, it had to be voted cheques from the nation's cheque-book. I should far sooner see—as, subsequently, we did see—a scheme to bring the privately-operated railway system under national ownership. Whateveryou can do with transport under national ownership, you can do nothing with it under the discreditable private enterprise we have seen operating for years in this country.

No case can be made for permitting our transport services to operate as our railway system operated—an inefficient private undertaking exercising in some respects monopoly powers but unable to give the public an efficient transport service and unable to pay its way. Some few years ago we reached the situation in which we decided to bring our railway service under public ownership. We brought under public ownership, too, the road freight services and road passenger carrying services of the railway company and we brought under public ownership the canals as well. I think that nobody ever claimed that within a short time that step would prove a solution of our transport difficulties. To-day we are face to face with a position which is difficult and which will remain difficult for some time to come no matter what Government may be in power.

I do not want to be petulantly critical of the Board of C.I.E. nor do I want to say—as it is so easy and, perhaps, fashionable to say — that public ownership has not given us the results we expected when we nationalised C.I.E. The present board of C.I.E. took over a thoroughly bankrupt undertaking which was losing approximately £1,000,000 per year It took it over at a time when wages and salaries went up substantially on the one hand and when fuel prices went up substantially on the other hand. As a result of a combination of these two factors, the legacy of a deficit of £1,000,000 in the privately-owned C.I.E. has now jumped to a figure which, the Minister says, is running at the rate of £2,000,000 per year. We must recognise frankly that no directors—not even heaven-sent directors—could have avoided the payment of additional prices for fuel which went up for every member of this House and for every member of the community. Neither could they avoid, in a situation of rising prices, paying substantially higher wages and salaries.These were the outcome of increased prices and of a natural striving for a higher standard of living. Let us recognise also that no set of Deputies in this House which might be made directors of C.I.E. would have avoided the impact of the higher prices for fuel and higher wages and salaries on an economy already paralysed by a deficit of £1,000,000 under private ownership. That does not, however, afford us any great grounds for complacency.

If I have one complaint against the Board of C.I.E. at present it is that I cannot see any evidence of any railway or transport policy. I do not know what the board's policy is; I do not know whether the Minister knows the board's policy. Some time ago we had a declaration by the board that people should be allowed to use lorries only within a certain small distance of where they live. It seemed to me that that was only tinkering with the problem, which goes much deeper. The way in which the proposal was put up almost constituted an appeal to the people either to walk or to get into a bus or a train. I do not think the problem is as easy of solution as all that and I think that such a solution will only beget considerable public hostility to a transport undertaking which, if it is to survive, must inherit not public enmity but public goodwill.

I cannot see any clear line of transport policy in the present C.I.E. undertaking. It was natural that they would take time to evolve a transport policy in the light of existing circumstances and in the light of the difficulties confronting them. Many people with whom I discussed the matter share my view that, so far, no clear line of policy has been indicated by C.I.E. Some of the earlier policies— in so far as they might be described as policies at all—seemed to be based on a belief in the possibility of wiping out the deficit by increasing passenger and freight charges. That outlook runs up against the law of diminishing returns.

Then there was the question of a limitation on private road transport— with all the difficulties inherent in a policy of that kind. Presumably the directors have abandoned both of thesesuggestions as constituting any permanent feature of transport policy. The third line of attack is a dieselisation policy—the abandonment of the old steam-engine and the adoption of the diesel engine in its stead. Now, that is the third guess at policy. One wonders whether this is anything more than a guess, or is to be regarded as a clear line of transport policy.

Though we have got C.I.E. embracing road, rail and canal services, I do not think we have got any co-ordinated control so far in C.I.E. in regard to these three services. A case was brought to my notice recently of a person who wanted to transport a certain quantity of goods from Dublin to a provincial centre. He wrote to C.I.E. canal section, to C.I.E. rail section and to C.I.E. road section, and got back from each three sections a letter handled by three different persons, each of them quoting a separate rate for rail, a separate rate for road and a separate rate for canal. Having looked at the three estimates, he decided that he would send the goods because there was no great hurry with them, by canal, which offered the cheapest rate. But much to his astonishment, he found that the goods were collected by lorry and were delivered by road, although the C.I.E. road estimate was highest. The canal estimate was cheaper which meant, presumably, that the goods could have been conveyed cheaper by canal. There, surely, is something wrong with a system in which you have got three sections—road, rail and canal—competing with one another for business at varying rates, the rates not mattering much, as happened in this instance once they collar the goods for transport.

I think that is only one example of the absence of co-ordination. Anybody who wants to can get other examples. He will have abundant opportunity of perceiving that if he travels on the Naas Road or on the West road any day. It is not an uncommon sight on the West road to see railway lorries laden with heavy goods with trailers behind them followed by private lorries of similar weight and similarly laden, and with barges on the canal which isfour yards from the road. On the far side of the canal, another four yards away, you see a goods train going in the same direction. You have there a situation in which you have a goods train going west, barges going west, C.I.E. lorries going west and private lorries going west, and all that 20 miles out from Dublin at a time when we ought to have a national transport authority doing some co-ordination in the matter of the transport of goods.

You have a similar situation in regard to the railway. On the road running beside it, and probably at the same time, you have passengers going west to Galway in C.I.E. buses, with railway carriages practically empty of passengers. No one pretends that is co-ordination or that it is even sanity in transport arrangements or that it is anything but the worst form of competitive spirit without any advantages whatever to the nation. C.I.E. as a unified enterprise, is losing money. How could it be otherwise when you have its railways, canals, lorries and buses all running the one way, and none of them carrying a full complement of goods or passengers? As Deputy Hickey reminds me, one of them not knowing why the other is there, because they are all dealt with by separate departments.

If anyone goes out on the Naas Road, he will observe, firstly, that considerable sums of money are being spent trying to maintain that road for the volume of traffic which it has to take. A considerable amount of the traffic is taken on very heavy lorries with two or three trailers behind them, some of the lorries being C.I.E. heavy lorries, while, close to that road, you have the railway running with trucks half empty and with engines pulling an inadequate number of trucks. At the same time, C.I.E. sends out heavy trucks fully laden with goods which could be taken in railway trucks if only there was some attempt at co-ordination between the road and rail services. As a matter of fact, the situation on the Naas Road has now become such that, between the very heavy private lorries with trailers and the C.I.E. lorries with trailers, it is only a brave man who would try to pass one of these trailers at noon-day.He would be taking his life in his hands if he were to attempt to pass them in the dark. That is the situation we have at a time when the iron track, from one end of the country to the other, is being starved of traffic. I think that the directors of C.I.E. ought to be asked to apply themselves to that problem. It should try to ensure some co-ordination in what clearly is a tangled scheme of transport so far as the ordinary person is concerned.

I think, too, that there is far too much central control as regards the activities of C.I.E., and that there ought to be some persons in particular zones who would have some executive authority to deal in a commercial way with propositions which are put to C.I.E. rather than that these propositions should have to be referred constantly to headquarters. At present, while the local officials are awaiting decisions from headquarters, an inquirer may find some private individual to do the work that he wants done quickly and cannot wait for a decision from the central organisation of C.I.E. I think there is need for elasticity in local control and for flexibility in local control. There is also the need of permitting the man on the spot to decide as speedily as possible the conditions under which he will take traffic and the charge that he will make, because C.I.E. is so closely flanked now by private enterprise that many possible customers of C.I.E. will take alternative tenders from private enterprise to the detriment of C.I.E.

My basic difficulty with C.I.E. at the moment, from the point of view of ascertaining what is the best policy to adopt and what is the best road to travel in facing the problem, is that, so far, we cannot see what C.I.E. transport policy is. I was prepared to give them time to evolve a policy. I think it is not unreasonable to ask— I say this in no critical way but rather with a desire to be helpful—that we should get now from C.I.E. a transport policy, that it should be communicated to the House and that some line of policy, generally acceptable to the House, should be followed so that transport will not occupy in the future the enormous amount of time which it has profitlessly occupied in thisHouse in the past. If we could get a policy fixed then we could regulate the speed at which it should be adopted.

It is easy, of course, to throw into the arena—as, apparently, C.I.E. have done with the Minister—a policy of dieselisation, that is to substitute diesel engines for steam engines. If that is going to mean that one or two diesel engines will do the work that nine or ten steam engines are doing, that all the staff employed servicing the steam engines will be laid off, and that two or three people will run the diesel engines with trains, it will have catastrophic consequences for those employed in the railway service. We have to remember when we are viewing this whole business that there are human lives as well as money invested in the railway services. Whatever policy we adopt ought to be tempered with a deep regard for the needs of those who depend on the railways for a livelihood and who, having served the railways so long, might find it impossible to secure employment in any other activity or industry in this country.

I want to conclude by making one suggestion. It is likely that we will be faced with the proposition of having to provide anything from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 for C.I.E. for some years to come, certainly until such time as we can formulate a definite transport policy and work progressively towards its implementation. I think there is a feeling on all sides in the House that we are not getting as much as we ought to get from C.I.E., that we are not getting the co-ordination, comprehension and understanding of the problem that we are entitled to expect from C.I.E. So long as that situation continues, there is bound to be an unhappy feeling about our transport problem on all sides of the House. If we are going to pay C.I.E. £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 a year for some years to come, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the House should appoint some kind of select committee to discuss with the directors of C.I.E. many of the defects which they believe to be still inherent in our railway and transport system, and many of the defects which come tothe eyes and the minds of Deputies on even a cursory examination of the activities of C.I.E.

I would suggest that if C.I.E. is to be given £1,500,000 or £2,000,000 a year, the directors of C.I.E. ought to be asked to meet a select committee of the House; that the committee ought to have an opportunity of examining the directors on their activities and on their transport policy so that they could feel assured that everything that possibly could be done was being done to give C.I.E. a satisfactory transport policy and at the same time to stabilise employment for those who have dedicated their lives to the transport industry in this country.

I do not think it is an unreasonable proposition. If money is being voted in this way, it is not unfair to suggest that the directors of C.I.E. should be brought to this House to meet an all-Party committee, selected, if you like, by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges or the Committee of Selection, and that the committee should be given the responsibility of doing in the case of C.I.E. what the Public Accounts Committee do in the case of Government Departments, in other words, they should see if the money is well and prudently spent and whether the line of policy being pursued by C.I.E. is the best that can be devised, having regard to the circumstances of this country.

I would suggest that the Minister might give consideration to that suggestion. It would tend to keep C.I.E. on its toes; it would tend at the same time to bring home to C.I.E. the keen interest which the House has in the evolution of a satisfactory transport policy. That could best be done by permitting the members of the House to interrogate the directors of C.I.E. on any matter of transport policy that the House felt keenly about or which particular sections of the House felt was a matter of importance in regard to public transport.

Mr. Dillon

What are we discussing to-day? Is not this a Supplementary Estimate for £600,000 for C.I.E. and from what does the necessity for that £600,000 arise? Is it not from the increasedwages which became payable, and rightly payable, consequent on the increased cost of living precipitated by the Budget of 1952? Did not everybody in this House tell the Minister for Finance: "If you start by your financial policy a savage internal price inflation, the net result will be that you must allow wages to rise to meet the increased costs that you are putting on people who are not already by any standard of calculation, affluent." Nobody would say that at any time the railway and transport employees in this country were living in luxury. Was it not manifest to everyone in this House that if you increased the price of tea, the price of sugar, the price of bread, butter and everything else, that those workers would go through their trade union to the Labour Court and make an unanswerable case, that the Labour Court would make an equitable award and that C.I.E. would have to pay it? They had two sources from which to pay it. One was to raise rates and the other was to raid the Exchequer.

I think the Board of C.I.E. very probably were right in advising the Minister for Industry and Commerce that if they raised rates to a level calculated in theory to draw in this extra revenue to meet the increased wages which had been awarded by the Labour Court, they would have reached the point of diminishing return and would have lost revenue instead of getting more revenue. So they have sent the bill to us. It seems to me to be idle folly to be debating the merits of the Board of C.I.E. in the context of this Supplementary Estimate because they have no more to do with it than the birds of the air.

What puzzles me, what astonishes me, is that Deputies have such short memories. This consequence and all the other consequences that will flow from the Budget of 1952 were foretold to the Government dozens and dozens of times before they put their hand to the fatal policy which is now coming home to us on every wind. We are getting it in the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputyexplain why they lost £2,500,000 the previous year?

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about the £600,000 that I am asked to vote now and I ask the simple question: "What is it for?" and the Minister says: "It is for wages." I say: "Why was it necessary to meet this additional award for wages?" and the Minister says to me: "Because the Labour Court made this award on the application of the men," and I say: "Why did the Labour Court do it?" and the answer was: "Because the cost of living had gone from 103 to 122." Then I asked myself: "Why did it go from 103 to 122?" and I recalled that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his colleague, the Minister for Finance, declared it was their avowed policy to drive it up.

Any increase in wagessince the Budget has been offset since the increase in fares.

I think the Minister agrees that we have increased the freight rates as high as it is possible to increase them without running into serious danger of invoking a diminishing return. That means that we have to increase the freight on every beast brought from a fair to a port of export, on every ton of feeding-stuffs, on every ton of fertiliserto the very utmost limit to which it is possible to go.

Mr. Lemass

The increase in freight is much less than the increase in the cost in fertilisers.

Mr. Dillon

The only comment I can make on that is that I am delighted to hear it. The fact is that we have increased the freights as far as we dared to do it without running the danger of a diminishing return. But all these increases mount up to one burden of increased costs on the industry from which everybody in this country derives a livelihood and which must trade in a free trade market in competition with merchandise from other countries which have not to meet the kind of charges we are piling up on our agricultural industry. That burden has developed a tendency to grow at immensely augmented speed since we shattered the whole basis of economic stability established by the inter-Party Government in the Budget of 1952.

I agree with Deputy Norton that when you come to face the question of effecting economies in the transport system, even under a programme of dieselisation, if that were decided to be the most effective way, you have to reckon in terms of human values. When we were in office, I understood that a proposal was made to the railway company and to the trade unions that they should sit down together in joint consultation to work out a scheme for the elimination of redundancy without dismissing anybody; that we wanted the trade unions and the company, even if it cost the community a substantial sum, to work out a fair and equitable plan to stop recruitment of labour; and if a category of persons were mutually agreed between the management and the unions to be redundant, that vacancies would be chosen as they arose from the retirement of staff on pension into which these redundant personnel could be transferred from their redundant posts. That would involve a departure from the customary trade union practice.

I do not know if that plan has been pursued or is in operation. I do not think, however, that any rationalperson observing the transport system here can now doubt that the operation of such a scheme would at least relieve the present extreme redundancy of staff on the railway system, and that it ought to be examined and pursued in so far as it does not involve throwing middle-aged men into unemployment. I accept the doctrine which I first heard enunciated here by Deputy McGilligan, that you cannot put middle-aged men into unemployment and give them a lump sum compensation and believe you have done justice. When a man passes a certain time of life there is no use giving him a lump sum and telling him to get another job. He is not able to get another job, or certainly not able to do justice to himself if his career is completely shattered.

I therefore think it well worth while facing the temporary extravagance of retaining such men in the service of the company and finding alternative employment for them. That cannot be done without the collaboration of the trade unions, and I understand that the trade unions expressed themselves ready and willing to give that collaboration.

I listened to Deputy Cowan exploring every avenue, turning every stone and examining every possibility. It is the age-old technique of any hard-shell politician to say: "Let me say something nice about the railway men and about the other vested interests and say it decently, speaking from my heart; but I have to be plain and blunt and honest and say that something will have to be done." Then he sits down and a benevolent member of his audience says: "Hear, hear; that is a very effective speech," but it is really so much hogwash when it is examined and it produces no result at all.

I do not believe that any rational Deputy believes that he is himself competent to make very useful or constructive suggestions to the management of the transport business of this country in regard to matters of detailed administration. I confess that when I got on a bus at the top of Kildare Street and asked for aticket to Haddington Road and had to pay 3d. for it it caused me consternation. I had that disagreeable experience this morning. I felt inclined to step off the bus and buy a bicycle instead of meeting such charges. Prima facie,you can deliver an eloquent speech about how unreasonable it is to charge 3d. for that journey, but there may be technical reasons for it which I do not understand. Certainly there is very little of value that I can say to the management of the company in regard to a detail of that kind, distressing as I may find it.

Not speaking for my Party but for myself, I throw my mind back to the first time the present Minister for Industry and Commerce arrived in here in his salad days with eyes flashing to announce that he was going to put his master hand on the transport system of this country and provide a master plan. That was 15 years ago. In those days he made speeches redolent of optimism, courage and fortitude, and I think he was right. I have sympathy with the attitude displayed in those days. He came in several times since and on every occasion he was equally hopeful and optimistic that this time he was going to turn the trick, and he is still turning the trick most energetically, and I do not think we are getting much nearer a solution of this problem.

When my mind turns back to those days I remember that I took the view, and I must say the strength of it has grown on me ever since, that with our conditions the day of the railways has gone. But if we want to have a clearly constructive transport policy here we do not want to tear up the railways overnight and throw the rails, the engines and the carriages on the scrap heap; we want to make up our minds, in my view, to the fact that over the next half-century the railways must disappear and we should, therefore, set our hands to the task of building for our children and our grand-children a system of roads adequate to carry the traffic of this country, passenger and goods, in due time.

We should, therefore, face the fact that adequate and economic transport will ultimately be supplied only bysuitably designed road transport travelling on a system of roads designed to carry the particular methods of transport we employ. Our transport at the present time is so ludicrously primitive compared with the methods employed in Great Britain, in the United States of America or in Australia as to constitute a joke. I do not suppose there is in America now such a thing as a fixed lorry used for the long distance transportation of any commodity. So far as I am aware the uniform practice is the pantechnicon type of conveyance which is held at the sender's premises, there packed and loaded by him, or packed and loaded at a packing centre, with separate mobile units taking this pantechnicon either halfway or the whole way across the Continent of America and there picking up a packed pantechnicon conveyance of a similar character and hauling it back again.

I do not want to hold myself out as an expert on pantechnicon or transport, but I think it is true to say that the bulk of this traffic travels by night on roads which are not under the normal heavy day user. There is not a single journey that could be made in this country that could not be readily encompassed in one night whereas in the United States one of these vehicles may be three days out in order to avoid day travel. All that is, of course, on the assumption that one has a system of roads in existence fit to carry traffic of that kind.

It is no use turning our national transport system over to a system of vehicles which will not fit our roads. There is no use putting on the road vehicles of a character that will not pass one another when travelling in opposite directions. Deputy Norton rightly said that we do not need at the present time Deputies getting up and telling the technical men of the transport system how they ought to run their railways or their buses. What we really have to do is to make up our minds as to the policy upon which the national transport undertaking should resolve in the opinion of this House, giving the implementation of that policy to the best board we can find,and checking from time to time the progress made in order to ensure that the end we have determined as policy is the desirable end at which they should aim.

I do not think any Deputy, including the Minister, has made up his mind as to what our transport policy should be. When people turn their minds to the possibility of eliminating the railways, with their stations and their tracks and all the rest of it, and when they find the vast number of men who are dependent for their livelihood on that system they recoil from the thought of abandoning it and making up their minds that it ought to be done away with. They therefore allow their minds and their thinking to be restricted by the fact that this is something they must not contemplate. Some day we shall have to contemplate it. Some day we shall have to determine that it must be done. When we do that we will also have quite deliberately to take the decision that, although we know the public must pay substantially for it, we accept the proposition that we cannot throw men who have been long in the service of the community on the scrap heap simply because we have decided to change our transport policy. We will have to make up our minds that part of the cost of changing our transport policy must consist in carrying these men in some alternative employment until they reach pensionable age, at which stage we will allow them to pass out on pension as they would normally do, thereby correcting the present situation not at the point of discharge but at the point of intake.

Until such time as we take a decision of that kind I think that no matter what board of directors we have we will be faced annually with substantial deficits. I want to sound a note of warning here. I agree with Deputy Norton that if there are to be monopolies here, and I hate all monopolies, they should be run by the community for the community. I think there are very few activities of the human kind that cannot better be carried on by private enterprise, giving a better net result, better value to the consumer and better conditions to those employed in it. If, however, circumstancestranspire in which an essential service ultimately becomes operated by a monopoly, the only monopoly this democratic community can contemplate is a monopoly run by the people for the people. Such a monopoly will insist itself on a rate of wages being fixed for its employees by independent arbitration. I think that is as it should be.

I think it is deplorable that this procedure of returning annual losses and having the appearance of floundering about should continue in relation to our transport services. I want to warn against a particular danger. If, as our country develops, we require bodies like the E.S.B., C.I.E. and other monopolistic bodies to discharge public functions we will require at the same time the best men we can get to operate them. I do not think men of that character have any objection to their employers saying to them, should they feel so disposed: "We wish to make an end of your contract." But if every time a body of men accepts the duty of running a public service at the request of the Government they are subsequently made the cockshot of irresponsible abuse in the Parliament of the country the time will ultimately arrive when we will get nobody but corner boys to accept responsibility for the operation of nationalised industries or enterprises. I think Deputies ought to be mighty careful before they arraign men who are doing their level best in a difficult situation.

Not for one moment do I say we should not be free to discuss policy and so forth, but we ought to proceed on the assumption that the men into whose hands we have committed the carrying out of a particular enterprise are doing their best, honourably and well, so long as we retain their services; and the only legitimate method whereby they should be arraigned here is for a Deputy to get up and say: "I propose that Mr. X.Y. be removed on the ground of manifest incompetence which I now allege" and let that be put to the test. The general procedure of blaming all our trials and tribulations on the personnel in charge of such bodies is not fair because it provides akind of challenge which cannot be answered either inside or outside the House, since the exact nature of the complaint is never formulated. If that is to go on indefinitely we will not get anybody to work as administrators of the enterprises which we wish to see operated for the community in this country.

Mr. Lemass

This reformation is rather sudden.

Mr. Dillon

What reformation?

Mr. Lemass

I would remind the Deputy of the attacks made against a former chairman of C.I.E.

Mr. Dillon

I have said deliberately, and I want to repeat it, that the proper method, if you wish to call an individual charged with responsibility to account for his stewardship, is to let him be called to account by name and for reasons stated. If he wishes to defend himself he can do so. It would be idle and ridiculous to pretend that if a man accepts employment in the public service he becomes immune to criticism. What I object to is vague general allegations that are made against the concern when it is in difficulties, that there must be a reason for it, and that the reason must be the general incompetence of the board and "let them get to Hell out of that," without any allegation as to what is wrong, whether it is the board that is at fault or whose fault it is.

I do not say for a moment that if Deputies in this House feel it their duty to say: "We feel the chairman of the board is failing in his job and we feel he is failing for the following reason" that they are trespassing against propriety or equity by bringing that forward by way of motion, making their case, making the Minister answer it and letting the House decide. What I am demurring against is vague general allegations. "If things are going wrong it must be the fault of the board charged with responsibility for operating the enterprise and we had better change it"—that assumption is frequently, almost always, untrue, but it is the kind of allegation which is extremely difficult to rebut.

I am in agreement with the proposal made by Deputy Norton. If this Houseis going to supply money every 12 months for C.I.E. there ought to be a duty on the House to discuss and generally to review the broad question of transport policy with the board responsible for its operations. I would like to conclude on this note. In getting an account of their stewardship from some public companies most Ministers responsible have recoiled from a suggestion that these companies' activities should become the subject of debate in Dáil Éireann. Yet it is manifestly unsatisfactory that when Oireachtas Éireann provides money they should have no means at all of querying the conduct of the enterprises analogous to those available to an ordinary shareholder in a commercial company.

The proposal Deputy Norton makes in respect of a transport committee of this House for the purpose of functioning as the ordinary shareholders at the annual general meeting of the company questioning the board of directors has much to commend it. If it worked in respect of transport we could consider it as a suitable mechanism for controlling the activities of bodies like the E.S.B., the Industrial Development Authority and other bodies which are not directly responsible to the Minister himself.

I know—and most other Deputies of the House who are interested in the matter know—that this question has been the subject of inquiry by the British House of Commons and by the United States Congress and neither of those bodies seems to have been able to find a wholly satisfactory means of dealing with it. This gives us an opportunity of trying out—there is no certainty of success—a scheme which might be expanded to deal with other quasi-state monopolies which we have set up in this country. I know this was debated in our Government as I am sure it has been debated in the Government of which the Tánaiste is a member. We found the difficulties that he probably finds now in resolving it, but I commend to him the proposal of Deputy Norton not only for the purpose of helping to clarify the transport position as between Oireachtas Éireann and the Board of C.I.E. but with a view to using it as an experimentalpilot scheme to determine whether similar procedure might not with advantage be used with regard to other quasi-state monopolies we have set up over the last 20 years.

Mr. McGrath

Deputy Dillon starting off criticised us on account of the Budget of 1952 and referred to the rise in wages consequent on that Budget. Would he care to explain why when they went out of office they left C.I.E. with a deficit of a couple of million pounds and that when they brought in their Budget they made no proviso at all for the deficit? Would he also tell us why C.I.E. incurred that deficit? They had to pay no increase in wages. Is that the boast he is making, that the inter-Party Government paid no increase in wages during that period and notwithstanding that that there was a deficit of £1,800,000?

Deputy Norton was talking about the diesel oil engines and the reduction of employment that may take place by the introduction of that economy. Both himself and Deputy Dillon are very worried in regard to any dismissal of men on account of economies that may be introduced by C.I.E., but they went to the country with a fake Budget without making any provision to keep the men of C.I.E. employed. What did they care about the number of men that were dismissed that time when they left no money at all to pay them, when the then Minister for Industry and Commerce refused to allow C.I.E. to increase their fares? I suppose he knew a general election was about to take place. As the then Taoiseach told us of the long months of difficulty he had gone through with his Cabinet, he must have known for a very long time that they could never carry on after their Budget. They introduced the Budget and made no provision for C.I.E., for civil servants or anybody else.

If this Government wanted to adopt the same attitude it would be quite easy for them. When you have people standing up here and talking about the losses of C.I.E. and at the same time saying that if diesel engines are brought in men will have to be laid off, one realises the inconsistency oftheir arguments. I agree that all these things should be done at the entrance point, if possible. I agree with Deputy Dillon there, but I am sure Deputy Dillon and Deputy Norton are well aware that the introduction of diesel engines must take place very gradually. I was told here in Dublin last week by a railway man that a train went from Dublin to Killarney and back at a cost of £8 worth of fuel oil, as he said, the price of a ton of coal. Does anybody suggest that if that is so, C.I.E. should not be allowed to adopt that method in order to save the railways of the country? Surely you cannot blow hot and cold.

I am all in favour of keeping on the present staff of railway men. Some of them have rendered much better service to this country than some of the people on the opposite side, and this Government, or any other Irish Government, should not forget them.

Mr. O'Leary

They are forgotten long ago. The civil servants are forgotten.

Mr. McGrath

You did not forget the British army deserters as quickly.

Mr. O'Leary

I fought for them which is more than you did.

Mr. McGrath

You kept it up long enough.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy McGrath is in a very genial mood.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This does not arise on the Estimate.

Mr. McGrath

I am not in favour of restricting the area in which a lorry should travel or work. The private hauliers should be allowed to carry on but I think here should be something done to make the private haulier pay the same rate of wages as C.I.E. and work under the same conditions as C.I.E., which is not happening throughout the country. You have co-operative societies and private hauliers with drivers working at £3 or £4 per week less than C.I.E. drivers. I think that is very unfair competition and should not be allowed in any country. We had enough of that before when we hadlorry drivers falling asleep in lorries after working about 16 hours a day. Only for the introduction of the Conditions of Employment and other legislative Acts that state of affairs would continue. It is unfair to allow these people to carry on in that way while C.I.E. uphold a decent standard of living. Those people should be forced to compete on equal terms with C.I.E. and not otherwise.

I suggest that C.I.E. should be made compete on equal terms with the private lorry owners. C.I.E. has to maintain a permanent way also, at a lot of expense, and it is only right that those in opposition to them should be made maintain their permanent way as well, that is, the roads. It is making pure politics of this when men like Deputy Dillon tell us that this is a result of the 1952 Budget—when we remember what this Government had to face when the inter-Party Government went out, a far bigger deficit than this, without any provision or any regard as to whether C.I.E. employees would have to be dismissed or not. Now that they are out of office, they are worried over C.I.E. employees, worried to the extent that they object to an economy like the diesel engine, in case it would displace men. They do not want C.I.E. to effect economies but they wantC.I.E. to pay its way. Those who have any knowledge of business know that that kind of humbug must be seen through by the common people.

Dr. Browne

In this particular debate, I want merely to give a few important considerations on national transport, a few reflections on the whole question of transport policy, rather than make any specific suggestions. As practically always when listening to Deputy Dillon, I was fascinated by the flashes of policy which the Fine Gael Party now appear to have regarding transport. There is the possibility that they are in favour of the elimination of the railway system as such. I hope there is complete agreement in the Fine Gael Party on that point.

Mr. Morrissey

Deputy Dillon emphasised that he was expressing his personal opinion on that. He said that, and Deputy Browne was listening to him.

Dr. Browne

Yes. At the same time, as a possible shadow Minister of a Cabinet, he may find himself subject to collective responsibility, and we can anticipate that that is not an idle wheel of Fine Gael policy—the ending of the railways. It may be a good idea: I am not suggesting it is an unthinkable proposition. I suppose that anyone who suggested retaining the Dalkey tram because of sentimental reasons would be laughed out of place at once. Deputy Dillon may have reasons for his suggestion. The Fine Gael Party Árd Fheis may have discussed this and we may not know about it, so he may be in a position to put this forward as a new idea on transport policy.

The whole question is an extremely difficult one. It was very consoling to notice the extreme diffidence with which Deputies on all sides of the House put forward their views—with notable exceptions. Most of them seemed to believe that there is no clear-cut or ready solution to our transport difficulties.

A lot of money is asked for in this Supplementary Estimate, apparently for running costs solely. Before weallow the bloodhounds to go off in full cry after this State monopoly—one Deputy last night seemed to feel that this is a reasonable opportunity to damn the whole effort at State control, a particular aspect of the social and economic life of the country—we ought to throw our minds back to the condition of affairs which existed when this transport system was operated by private enterprise. The State took over from the G.S.R., an incompetent, inefficient and nearly bankrupt organisation. They had many years in which to bring about the efficiency which many people thought would flow from a private enterprise control of the transport system, or a reversion to such control, but they did not do it and nobody has given us good reason to feel that they might do it, if they were given another opportunity.

Again, we have begging at our doors the G.N.R. in a state of abject bankruptcy, with the shareholders anxious to part with their shares at practically any price. Neither of these two concrete examples are good examples, though they are fair enough, of the effect that private enterprise had upon the running of these undertakings. Private enterprise failed completely to run an efficient transport service, but private enterprise did not fail through lack of attempt or lack of anxiety. Their money was involved and they wanted to make money out of it, but it is very doubtful if it is possible to run such a thing as a national transport system and not lose money. The question is how little money one can lose, and that, I think, is what is exercising the minds of most Deputies.

The debate has been carried on so far on a completely non-political level, with most Deputies making contributions in an effort to help the Minister, or any other Minister, in guiding transport policy. There is no use in damning this independent corporation, the Board of C.I.E., and saying that power was given to these people and that they failed to make the most of it. We cannot overlook the fact that there exist such concerns as Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, Aer Lingus, Bord na Móna—not completely efficient, but pretty efficient, and I do not know whether private enterprise would havedone better—as well as Irish Shipping and Irish Steel Holdings. All these companies were established by the community and are doing pretty well. Some of them are making a lot of money and some are possibly breaking even, but most of them are doing a fairly efficient job. Consequently, there is no doubt about the principle being sound and reasonable, and I do not think we should allow the wild men of the Fine Gael Party to fasten on this State company or organisation and to tear it to pieces for their own private ends. The problem is there of providing the community as a whole with a service which will give them efficient transport, and, at the same time, reduce to a minimum extravagance or maladministration of the funds to be made available.

Deputy Cowan discussed the question of the degree of control by Parliament of these companies. This is a particularly involved and complicated problem, and a problem with which they are having great trouble in Great Britain at the moment, in relation to many of the companies set up under the Labour Government. I do not think anybody is completely happy about the correct solution. Again, there is the point that the private enterprise group had many years in which to solve the problem and they did not do it. There is no question of recrimination or anything like that— that phase is finished. The problem before us is how we are to resolve the present situation. Might I say that I believe that one of the reasons why the private enterprise group, in relation to this and many other of the businesses which they are attempting to operate in this country and which were attempted to be operated in other countries, failed, revolves largely around the question of personnel?

Deputy Dillon, and I think Deputy Norton, touched on that problem—the question of personnel. In the sphere of private enterprise here in Ireland at the moment we have the benefit of the services of men of tremendous drive, energy, and courage who have made many of our industries going concerns and have made a success of them. Weare, I believe, now facing the problem in our industries—and the question is relevant here in relation to the transport industry conducted by C.I.E.— that it will be difficult to find men who will take over from the men of initiative, ability and courage who founded these industries. I believe that the reason why private enterprise in many instances failed to handle these problems successfully was that the successors of the initiators of the enterprises concerned did not possess anything like the drive, control, initiative or ability of the men who started these projects.

I believe that that is where failure will become manifest in many of our industries, that the present managers will not be anything like as successful as those who started the industries. I believe we shall find that out in time and that we shall have to revert to the expedient of the managerial system and the employment of experts to control industry. I believe that is one of the reasons why there is a misconception concerning the capabilities of private enterprise in these matters, the fact that we at the beginning had private enterprise industries and that the success of these industries flowed from the ability of a particular man in control. I think that some day Nemesis must arise in relation to a system of that kind.

Again, to come back to the question of the control of C.I.E., which is the real problem here, I think that Deputy Dillon is correct in saying that we can do nothing except lay down general lines of policy and then leave the running of the concern to the experts. I know that my own experience in a Department was such that all I could do was to lay down general policy, call in the experts, let them operate that policy and if they did not do the job properly, fire them. That, perhaps, sounds somewhat blunt but it is the only way in which you can get the work done properly—payment by results in relation to management as well as in relation to everything else. This question of the management of industry in general and of C.I.E. in particular, largely depends on the ability of the men who are placed incontrol. It is very likely that C.I.E. must incur a loss for many years to come and it is a question of reducing that loss to the very minimum.

Deputy Norton made a good case in regard to the multiplicity of services. That appears to be a question of internal organisation and should be possible of solution by proper management. Again I suggest that it would be terribly wrong to form a judgment of private enterprise by this one experiment and to blame underlying policies for the failings that are there at the moment. Other instances of State controlled industries and enterprises have shown that they can work extremely competently and if competent people are got to handle the job they will bring about success.

In regard to political appointments, I have no affection for any of the Parties, but I think it is a terrible weakness and a terribly short-sighted policy that those who believe in State-controlled enterprise, should allow their personal feelings or associations to overcome their judgment in the appointments of staffs to an enterprise of this nature because they must in the end pay the penalty in having to face criticism for the failings of the men whom they have appointed. Consequently in the long run it is a very bad system.

Again, Deputy McGrath touched very lightly, I think, on a vitally important consideration. It is that if we had a complete investigation into the terms of employment of men working in, say, C.I.E. as compared with men working a private lorry, it would be of help and would provide a certain amount of consolation for the money we are paying out here in the form of a subsidy. I think such an investigation must be made before we take any decision in regard to the extension of control over private lorries or changes in the conditions of employment of the average lorry driver and helper. Can the private lorry owner—possibly he cannot afford it and there may be good reasons for his not giving the same conditions; I do not know—offer his employees anything like the security of employment which is there for C.I.E. employees?

Mr. McGrath

The co-operative societies do not do it and they would be able to afford it.

Dr. Browne

There may be some reasons which can be urged in mitigation of the absence of these conditions but do they give the same security of employment, the same holidays or the same pension rights? Do they give the same medical and hospital services, the same sickness benefits or out-of-work benefits? Do they insist on the same standards for their vehicles, the same standard of maintenance, or do their men have to drive with the same degree of safety to themselves? Could C.I.E., if they so desired, not cut costs by reducing the number of times vehicles had to be taken in and fitted with safety devices? Again, in relation to questions of appointment, do men in the employment of a private lorry owner have a right to appeal against arbitrary dismissal? Then there is the question of the many other benefits which C.I.E. provide for their employees and their families. I do not know if you would find many of these employees who would be willing to swop places with men hired by a private lorry owner.

I think the extra advantages which are enjoyed by C.I.E. employees as compared with the employees of private lorry owners, are probably responsible for a lot of the money that we are paying out to C.I.E., expenses which you, as the community's representatives, are paying out on the provision of what you consider minimum standards and minimum conditions of employment for the men who are hired in your name. You decide that such an employee shall not take risks with the type of lorry he drives. You will not allow him to take risks with himself or the passengers he carries. If he gets sick you treat him as would a humane employer. If his family is ill you feel you have certain responsibilities. He should have proper off-duty hours and he should get proper remuneration for overtime. I believe that has added tremendously to the expense of running C.I.E. You can cut all that money considerably but if you do you will reduce the standard of livingand the conditions of employment of many of these men. That may be the decision of the House. It may be anxious to do that but I think it would be a very retrograde step indeed, one which would seriously inconvenience many families and impose grave hardships on them. That is the natural sequence of events arising out of the decision to take over a particular enterprise. We must pay to provide proper conditions of employment for men who have been exploited and to a large extent often sweated in regard to their labour in years gone by.

A reasonable comparison is possibly that in relation to the extension of the health services in Great Britain where £100,000,000 was provided, but it worked out at £400,000,000. A lot of people said that money was wasted but I do not think so. In order to provide a proper and good service, a fair and just service, a lot of money is required. One has got to face up to the necessity for these things rather than panic and ditch the whole thing because of the agitation of a few wild men who are fairly well off and who are not really concerned with what happens when a man down the line is affected by adverse legislation.

There is one other point I want to make and that is in relation to dieselisation. I think dieselisation holds out very serious prospects indeed. I think dieselisation has largely taken place in relation to the passenger transport service and possibly in relation to the all-in service also. I believe that the introduction of diesel trains on our railways is a perfectly reasonable proposition in certain circumstances. From what I can see of the G.N.R. it seems to be a very efficient unit and appears to do its job very well. It seems to be a very clean and efficient job indeed. My general view of transport was always that we should have frequent small units of transport running rather than have large trains running up and down between Dublin, Cork, Killarney and other places— small trains running frequently in which you would try to keep the maximum passenger complement. By virtue of the size of the unit that would be possible.

On the face of it, the introduction ofdiesel units seems a fairly sound idea but I suggest to the Minister that there are weaknessess. In the first place, if there is another emergency—and, unfortunately, one must budget for that these days—there will be a radical reduction in the supplies of diesel oil which will become available for our transport system. That is not panic-mongering. Nobody knews better than the Minister the tremendous dilemma he had to face during the last emergency trying to make do with a transport system which had to burn sleepers and other things for fuel. I had experience of that on a trip to Galway. That is a very important consideration. The transport system could be brought to a halt as a result of the curtailment of supplies of diesel oil. When countries go to war, the diesel oil is put in tanks and these countries take no notice of us nor could you blame them.

I think it would be very wrong, indeed, on that point alone to introduce diesel trains even though, as I say, superficially it appears to be a terribly practical proposition. When I was in the Government myself, one of the things I regretted and which I still regret, although no one in the House will agree with this view, is the fact that we burn coal at all in Ireland. I know that statement will meet with considerable opposition from practically everybody. I believe myself that the turf industry could be one of our biggest industries. I believe it should be even though it might create inconvenience in the homes in the cities and towns.

The development of our turf industry would create employment in the country particularly in Connacht. Turf is a raw material of which we are not making use. We are not providing the employment we could easily provide in rural areas by the burning of turf. To advocate the burning of turf is a courageous and extremely unpopular policy, but I can see nothing against it. The British people have over the years gone on short rations in order to build up their economy at tremendous inconvenience. I believe we could do with less luxuries and a little less soft living. We should have more regard forthe real problems of unemployment and the unemployed.

I believe that anything that ensures employment for one extra Irishman in Ireland is well worthy of consideration no matter what it may entail to the soft livers in the cities and in the country. I had to consider this problem as a general principle in my own Department when I was in government. The general line was that you had to burn coal in the hospitals and other places because proper generators could not be got for steam heating. I insisted that there must be proper generators, and asked that inquiries should be made to find out where they were and see that they were designed so that they could burn turf. It was found that turf generators could be provided for our people. It was found possible to provide turf generators in different areas for the provision of steam, heat and power for average hospitals in small villages. I think that can and should be done.

In that regard I think that going over to diesel oil is a terribly retrograde step, indeed. It will put men out of employment. Men could be put into employment and families could be kept as one unit if we insisted on the use of turf. What matter if it takes you six hours to get to Athlone instead of two or three hours? I think it is worth it if a sufficient number can be put into employment. A number of people will put up with a lot of inconvenience if the State is so organised as to get as good a bargain for as many people as it possibly can.

I would like the Minister to give very serious consideration to the question of the extension of the use of diesel oil in our transport services. I think C.I.E. will continue to run at a loss for many years to come. I hope the Minister will be very slow to extend the control of the private haulier. C.I.E. is running at a great disadvantage compared with the private haulier. He has not anything like the commitments which the State company has: he has not anything like the overheads, the responsibilities to his employees, and so forth, which C.I.E. has. No wonder he can undercut us. He can choose his business: we cannot.We must serve the public to the best of our ability. My feeling would be to take away the degree of independence which exists in the private control of haulage. That is a serious proposition which could have serious repercussions throughout the country but, nevertheless, I think it must be considered.

Deputy Cowan suggested that we should continue to pay the subsidy and to accept the unfair competition between the private haulier and the company—that we must run an inefficient service because of these private hauliers and that we should continue to pay a subsidy. Why should we? I think the private haulier should either run his service on exactly the same conditions as we run ours or else be put out of business. Deputy Cowan's point is perfectly good. There are plenty of vociferous and articulate people who will argue the case for these men. I know a good case can be made for them but the fact of the matter is that you are taking money from the taxpayer in order to pay for these men's privilege to run in competition with the State company. These are considerations which must be taken into account in the making of decisions in regard to the future of Irish transport. I do not say, any more than anybody else in the House, that these propositions are essentially correct.

I have no doubt that a case could me made against them but I feel that they should be considered seriously by the Minister before the private haulier should continue to be subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer, for that is what it amounts to. We want to preserve the status, good security and employment of the C.I.E. employee. We are being subjected to unfair competition by the private haulier. You must decide whether you will allow the private haulier to vitiate the effect of your policy or whether you will limit him or absorb him into the transport service.

The only question to be decided by us is that of policy. It is wrong to be half-hearted about this matter. If you believe in a monopoly for the people and by the people—which, apparently, is what Fine Gael want, judging by Deputy Dillon's speech—then let us agree with Fine Gael policy and let us have a monopoly for the people and by the people in relation to C.I.E. and no longer allow our community's organised services to be vitiated, made inefficient, overexpensive and maladministered—for one reason, at any rate—by reason of the unfair competition of the private haulier.

Mr. Morrissey

Notwithstanding a certain temptation, I propose to try, as far as I can, to discuss this matter, as I think it ought to be discussed, in a non-Party way, so far as that is possible. I think I would be right in saying that hardly any subject is discussed in this House which brings forth in the House and outside the House in the newspapers more ill-informed criticism. Very few in this House and very few people outside the House—this applies in particular to those who speak and write most frequently—know anything about it, and still fewer of them take any trouble to make themselves acquainted with the facts. I respectfully suggest that if members of the House had taken the trouble to read and study the annual C.I.E. reports published, say, for the last year and the year before, we could have a much more intelligent and helpful discussion here.

I am going to say what I feel about the various aspects of this matter, and I am not going to be deterred from saying it even if it means that Deputy McGrath or Deputy Dr. Browne or anybody else should say that I am differing from what some of my colleagues have said. I do not know who exactly Deputy Dr. Browne had in mind when he was talking of the "wild men in Fine Gael". Perhaps on another more suitable occasion I may have some fun talking about wild men also—but I will leave that matter now. Let us get down to some facts.

We hear a lot of talk about "when the State decided to take over the transport system of this country". That is not the correct way of putting it. The State never wanted to take over the transport system of this country. The State was forced to do it in order to maintain a transport system for the community. I think Iwould not be far wrong if I were to say that in the past 40 years the only two periods during which the railway system in this country made any profit was during the two wars. We are sometimes told in the newspapers and sometimes by Deputies in this House— I remember Deputy Cogan blathering last year about "handing it over to private enterprise"—that we should hand it back to private enterprise. Private enterprise did not succeed 30 years ago in making a success of it.

It is almost 30 years ago—I think about 1924 or 1925—that the State had first to step in with a railways measure: at that time I think it was mainly for the purpose of dealing with the baronially-guaranteed lines. I am perfectly satisfied that it was not because he wanted to get his arms around the transport system that the Minister, in 1943 or 1944, came in here and gave us what came to be known as C.I.E. If a railway system in this country could not be run at a profit under private enterprise, at a time when competition was almost nonexistent as compared with to-day, what is the use in trying to compare what is now happening with what happened five, ten, 15, 20 or 30 years ago?

We are told over and over again of the very excellent and very cheap transport system which the citizens of Dublin enjoyed from the D.U.T.C. That is undoubtedly true. Would it, however, be right or fair to assume that the D.U.T.C. could have continued to give that same excellent service, at the same excellent fares, in the conditions that obtain, say, in 1953?

Deputies ought to ask themselves how many commercial vehicles, which are the chief competitors of C.I.E., were registered here 30 years ago, 20 years ago or in 1939, and how many were registered this year or last year? Deputies can make their minds up to this, that private enterprise could not possibly operate the national transport of this country at a profit. If it could, it would still be in the hands of private enterprise. Deputies can also make their minds up to this, that if this House—and I am not referring to any one side of it: I am referring to all sides of it—made up its mind to-day,and if the members of the various Parties in the House had the moral courage to instruct the Minister to take the steps that he could take to turn C.I.E. into a profit-making concern, then, in that event, C.I.E. could be turned into a profit-making concern. That could be done, but the House is not prepared to do it and is not prepared to give the Minister the necessary powers and instructions to do it.

Whether the House is wise or unwise in taking up that line I do not know, but it is an extraordinary thing, it is notorious, that the people who are the most vocal and the most aggressive when writing or speaking about the amount of money which has to be found by the taxpayer to keep C.I.E. going are also the most vocal and aggressive when any steps are proposed to be taken to enable C.I.E. to run without a subsidy.

Let us get a few facts right. I think I am right in saying that, for the year ending March, 1948, the losses for that year were somewhere between £900,000 and £1,000,000. Will Deputies, and those outside who want to criticise C.I.E., take this into account, that since 1948 or 1947, if you like, the increase in wages and salaries, and the increase in the cost of the material which had to be purchased to operate C.I.E., was far in excess of the company's total losses. I think the Minister will confirm me in that. What I mean is that the annual increase in the cost of materials—in that I include everything, wages and salaries— was greater than the company's annual total loss.

Deputies want C.I.E. to run without losing a penny. They want "hands off completely private transport, licensed hauliers and all the competitors of C.I.E." They want economies in C.I.E., but they do not want to see one man dismissed or his salary or wages reduced by a penny per week, or any increase that he applies for refused to him by the board.

Now, these things do not just add up. I have heard most of the speeches made here to-day and I have read some others. I want to say that Deputies cannot just have all these things thatI have mentioned. They have been just trying to balance themselves on the wire all the time and getting safely to the far side. Deputies know well that the amount of money which the State has to find to keep C.I.E. going—it has to be got from the taxpayer—is very substantial. Nobody is more anxious than I am to see C.I.E. at the earliest possible moment put in a position in which it can pay its way, but do not let us get a distorted view of the amount of the subsidy that we are paying to it, or assume that we are getting nothing in return for it. C.I.E. is the biggest employer in this State. It has, approximately, 22,000 persons employed. Its annual wage and salary bill is now somewhere in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000.

I ask Deputies to think of the number of dependents of those 22,000 employed persons in C.I.E., whether they are on a wage or a salary. I want to put this to the House. I am not trying to defend or suggest that we should not try to make C.I.E. pay. What I am trying to do is to put before the House its losses in a light in which they are not often looked at in this House.

Supposing the Minister came in here to-morrow with a proposal to set up 40 factories in this State, each giving employment to 500 persons, and that in order to bring about that very desirable position he had to impose a tariff—let it be 15 per cent., 20, 25, 45 or even 50 per cent.—is there anybody in the House who would refuse to give it to him? Does anybody suggest that the tariff which would be put on to give employment to these 20,000 persons in the 40 factories would not cost the community far in excess of the particular subsidy that we are now talking about here? Would anybody suggest that, looking at it from the national point of view and taking a long-term view of it, that even if it cost £3,000,000 per year to get the 40 factories established, working and producing and giving employment to 20,000 of our people, that it would not be £3,000,000 well spent?

In my opinion, there is a lot of criticism directed against C.I.E. which is not fair and which is ill-informed. Iread occasionally letters in the news papers, particularly in the evening papers, about the Dublin City bus services. The writers of these letters are nearly always complaining about the bus services. During my lifetime I have done very little travelling outside this country, but I have been in a few cities in Britain and in not very many on the Continent. In my opinion, we have a bus service here which both as regards frequency, the quality of the buses themselves and the fares charged compares very favourably indeed with the service provided in many cities in Britain and much more than favourably with the services which are available in some of the principal cities on the Continent.

There are people from the City of Dublin who went to Rome during the Holy Year and they ought to remember the city services and the charges there. I am not for a moment suggesting that every effort should not be made to give better frequency, more extended services and services at the lowest possible rate. Let us face the facts. The bus service in this city, good as it is, and it is comparatively good, would be better if it were not for the fact—I am not going into the merits; I am just trying to keep to facts—that there was a strike which affected the provision of new buses and the maintenance of buses to a very great extent and in a very grave way for a period of nearly one and a half years. Without in any way trying to score or even to reply to what Deputy Norton spoke about, that the Board of C.I.E., before now, should have been in a position to present a definite policy to the Minister and to this House, it is only right and fair to say that, since the present Board of C.I.E. was set up, a great deal of the time of the principal members of the board and of the chief officials of the organisation has been taken up in dealing with strikes and negotiations. Again, I am not talking about the merits. I am talking about the facts and I am trying to keep to the facts.

I differ from both Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon when they suggest that it would be useful to have a committee of the House set up whichwould have the right, as Deputy Norton put it, to interrogate the members of the Board of C.I.E. when they would be called upon to give an account of their stewardship at the end of every year. I would be absolutely against that. I do not think it would do any good. In my opinion it would be calculated to do harm. Certainly, if I were unfortunate enough to find myself a member of that particular board, I would not be long a member of the board if I had to submit myself to the sort of interrogation which I know would come from a committee appointed by this House.

Deputy Dillon said that one might try to visualise the complete disappearance of railways from this country over the next 50 years. I do not. I hope that will not happen. On one occasion, shortly after I entered the Department of Industry and Commerce, a very sweeping suggestion was put before me regarding the closing down of railways and branch lines— which has a very much wider application than is realised when we refer to branch lines in this House. I said to the man who put the suggestion to me, "I do not presume to be a transport expert. I know very little about it but I do know something about the country." I said: "If you close down that particular line on which there are three or four average-sized provincial towns, how do you propose to deal with the fair in any one of these towns?" Of course the closing down was not confined to this particular line and I am only taking it as an illustration. He said: "Quite easily. We would remove the cattle by lorry." I said: "Have you any idea of the number of lorriesyou would require to clear, say, the October or November fair?" He said: "Probably about 15 or 20."

I said: "I know from my own personal knowledge that it has often taken as many as 160 railway wagons to clear that fair and you must remember the number of fairs that will be held in towns all over the country on the same day." He said: "That means that we will have to provide a sufficient number of lorries." I said: "If you provide on the fair day all the lorries that would be required to clear the cattle from that fair the roads may stand up to your traffic but I doubt if anybody else will be able to use these roads on that day except yourself. There would not be room for any other traffic."

I will not go into how essential it is for this country to have a railway system from other points of view. There are Deputies who are businessmen and who are farmers and have a more practical knowledge of this side of it than I have. A number of firms can operate their own lorries to carry certain classes of goods. Of course they will pick the cream of the goods and the best paying goods. They are able to carry on their business because for the type of merchandise which is either too large or too unwieldy for lorries they have the railways to take it for them. The railways must take it for them and very often it is the bulkiest and most awkward to handle and requires special crane equipment and pays least.

I want to put this to the House. Supposing this House said to the Minister this evening: "We will not give you this Estimate. We will provide no more money for C.I.E. Let them close down." Suppose the railways were closed down, how long could the business or the farming life of the country go on without them? It just could not be done. If you doubled or trebled or quadrupled the number of lorries in the country they could not do it because there are classes of goods they could not carry.

I know that during the war, when there were one or two particularly bad years, we could have lost 20 to 25per cent. of our entire wheat crop because we had not sufficient local drying facilities to dry the green wheat and, unless it could be rushed into the centres where it could be dried, either kiln dried or artificially dried, after 48 hours you would not be able to pick it out of a bag with a fork. Even as it was, with the railway and the lorries to the extent to which they were available, to my own personal knowledge, very considerable quantities of wheat, which was particularly precious at that time, were lost. There are Deputies who know infinitely better than I do the important and vital part which the railway system plays during the beet season and how much more essential it will be if we get to the point, as I hope we will, where we can produce sufficient beet to provide for our entire requirements of sugar.

I do not want to weary the House talking about matters about which most Deputies are better informed than I am. I said I would try to be a little more realistic than some people are. To sum up, here is the position. I think the Minister will agree that it was not a question of taking over the railways, but a question of the railways having to be taken over from private enterprise because they could not continue to be operated by private enterprise. Although I can go some of the road with Deputy Dr. Browne, and although there may be very excellent reasons for not doing it, I think that if there is any group of wealthy businessmen or men who could attract sufficient capital, the Minister will be prepared on behalf of the Government to hand them over the entire transport system and let them operate it on a private enterprise basis. Of course we would have to have some guarantees. One of the guarantees is that they would not sack the 22,000 employees within 12 months.

Mr. Hickey

Or double the fares in order to make a profit.

Mr. Morrissey

That, of course, might bring its own answer. You can double fares and taxation but it does not always mean that you will make more money. Let us keep in mind that this is an essential national requirement. Let us by all means do all thatwe can to make it a paying proposition. Let us do all we possibly can to see that, from the board down to the lowest paid employee of C.I.E., we get efficient service. Do not let us, however, get back to the mentality displayed by Deputy McGrath when he picked out as something to be ashamed of the fact that C.I.E. had advertised in the last couple of weeks for a mechanical engineer and a public relations officer at commencing salaries of not less than £1,500. If to-morrow C.I.E. were to get a mechanical engineer who is prepared to work for them he would have to be of some standing and have some experience to be paid a salary of £1,500. If they were to select a man who was not worth at least £1,500 a year, then in my opinion they would be open to severe criticism. If they hope to get a really first-class public relations officer they cannot hope to get him at less than £1,500 per year. They can admittedly get men at £250, at £500 and at £750 per year, but it is almost a certainty that those men will, in the long run, cost them infinitely more than they would have to pay a really good man.

It has taken us a long time in this State—it was perhaps understandable in the beginning—to realise that if one wants first-class men attracted into one's service one will not get them unless one is prepared to pay them. The Minister knows as well as I do that the greatest obstacle to our commercial and industrial progress, and this is true whether we are dealing with ordinary commercial life, industry or transport, and the greatest difficulty we have to face is that the number of what I describe, for want of a better term, as top-level men with the capacity and the equipment are few and far between. If one wants to put men in charge of an organisation dealing with millions of money one will not get the right men unless one offers them decent salaries. If a man has the capacity and the training required for a particular post in a State or semi-State service the probability is that he is already making in commercial life outside twice or three times the salary offered by the State.

The argument can be reduced to a verysimple proposition: one labouring man may be very dear at 15/- a week while another may be very cheap at £4. We all know that. I will not allow myself to be tempted into bringing that argument down in relation to the Deputies here. In dealing with this big national organisation we should approach the matter from a non-Party point of view. We are not helping anybody—certainly we are not helping the Minister or the transport company—by uttering one soft sentence about C.I.E., another soft sentence about their employees and a hard sentence about the amount of money the Minister is now looking for.

All of us would like to see this particular concern paying its way. I am satisfied that the board and its officers are doing their best in very difficult circumstances to make the system pay as far as they possibly can. Remember that this House imposed upon them some restrictions which, to say the least of it, do not make it easier for them to run our public transport as a paying concern. I do not think very much will be gained by arguing as to whether the present Minister or myself is responsible for C.I.E. and its present position. That is beside the point. All of us could argue one way or the other and all our argument would bring us no nearer to finding a solution.

The fact is that we have this very big national service employing 22,000 persons with decent conditions of employment and at decent wages. The salary and wages bill is no less than £8,000,000 per annum. I know, as does everybody else, that there must be a lot of waste. On the surface, the running of buses and trains parallel and to almost the same schedule, appears to be wrong. It is hard to blame the ordinary man for coming to that conclusion but surely we ought to give the board and its officers credit for some common sense and some intelligence and credit for knowing the transport requirements and how to draw up schedules for both rail and road services. If there was not a very good reason for the present road and rail schedules, they would have beenchanged long before now for no other reason than the amount of criticism that has been made of that aspect of their operations both inside and outside this House. Therefore, there must be some very good reason for the existing schedules. Even though the bus and train may leave the same town in or about the same time, headed for the same destination, it must be remembered that the bus covers parts of the country that never have been and never will be served by our railways and to those who are remote from towns with railway stations the bus is a great help and a great benefit.

Mr. Burke

Deputy Morrissey has put the transport position before us in a reasonably fair speech. Any Minister for Industry and Commerce has a tough job in trying to please everybody. Though there may be certain monopolies in the State it cannot be said that C.I.E. has a monopoly or that it would be in the interests of the country that they should have one. Every bus, every train and every lorry on the road is an enemy of the public transport system because it takes goods and passengers away from it. The bulk of the people want a public transport service. How can we give them that service without asking the Dáil to vote the money necessary for it? That is the question. C.I.E. wants a complete monopoly in order to keep their undertaking going. Personally, I would be opposed to that because I think we have gone reasonably far and giving a complete monopoly to C.I.E. would not be in the public interest, since if anything happened to the transport system the country would be crippled.

There is another aspect of C.I.E. with which I would like to deal. From time to time during the summer of 1952 I met a number of the workers of C.I.E. The electricians who were on strike made a number of criticisms and a number of suggestions. The board has, as far as possible, ensured that overlapping will be eliminated so that greater efficiency can be gained. I do not like to say anything harsh about a person who is not here to defendhimself, but there are certain people in C.I.E. who think they are all-important. They think there is nobody like them in the country. They think they have never to approach the public for anything. They think they know all the answers to all the questions.

They think that neither public men nor anybody else knows anything except themselves. That was the impression I received on certain occasions when I went before C.I.E. I want to say a special word about the labour relations officer in C.I.E.

Acting-Chairman (Mr. O'Higgins)

I do not think that is in order, Deputy.

Mr. Burke

It is in the public interest that I should say this.

Acting-Chairman

I have ruled it is not in order to continue on those lines.

Mr. Burke

May I put it to the Chair that I would be failing in my duty as a public man if I did not express myself in this connection?

Acting-Chairman

The Chair is only responsible for order. The Deputy is out of order if he continues along that line.

Mr. MacBride

Might I suggest that possibly the Deputy might be allowed to criticise the way certain relations are handled, without adverting to the actual individual?

Mr. Burke

May I put it this way? I believe we would get a good deal out of the workers in C.I.E. if certain people who are responsible for dealing with these workers would at least go to school for a little while and learn something about human relations——

Acting-Chairman

That might be more proper on the Department of Education Estimate.

Mr. Burke

——because I was rather shocked to find certain things were not as I expected they should be. Nobody can ever accuse me of being uncharitable towards anybody, even a political opponent; at least I would not attack him personally, but on this occasion I would be completely failing in my duty, in the interests of a numberof workers on whose behalf I had the honour to try to bring about a settlement of the dispute, if I did not draw attention to this matter. I was shocked on one occasion to find that people who are in a responsible position and should be able to give a lead to workers in a national undertaking had failed to fulfil their responsibility in this regard. I am a great believer in the official conciliation officer or manager who is able to inculcate into people a spirit of loyalty and goodwill and ask those people, whether they are workers or colleagues, to follow his lead. But I am strongly opposed to this mechanical machine attitude: "I am right, you are wrong, and nothing else matters; I am here and I am the supreme being." I would like to see people of that kind who are connected with public undertakings relegated to a position in which they would not be able to create trouble and cause annoyance in the country generally.

I am very sorry to have to say that. I meant to say it for quite a long time and I have taken this opportunity of doing it. There is a good deal to be said for the way people are handled, for the way people are spoken to and about the way people are led. The sooner we realise that in this country the sooner will we be able to bring about industrial peace here. If we want to build up this country and to see it as an ideal Christian State, the people who are responsible for giving a lead to others have a big part to play. People who are not prepared to fulfil that duty of leadership as it should be fulfilled should not hold positions of trust which would enable them to cause turmoil throughout the country.

The great old spirit of give and take in industrial undertakings and in all walks of life has been responsible all through the ages for allowing something worth while to be done. I am going to end on this note. I do not intend to withdraw anything I have said. I have said it after serious and deliberate consideration in the national interest and in the interest of this public concern which has to come to this House to be subsidised by the taxpayers of this country. I want to speak in the highest possible way ofthe people in every capacity of the public service in C.I.E. whom I had the honour of meeting, but I cannot say it of one of them. I am not going to refer to him any more, and I thank you, Sir, for the latitude you have given.

We have heard a lot of complaints, condemning C.I.E., and also requests, on the other hand, that branch lines should not be closed down. There was a story a couple of years ago about a number of traders who were shocked at the idea of a branch line being closed down, but it turned out that the four who started the agitation had lorries themselves and were not using the railways at all. What is the board or the Minister to do to protect the railways? Deputy Morrissey and others have reviewed the question, and I am not going to hold up the House now. It is a national problem and one that this board, the previous board and the present Minister did their best to rectify. The previous Minister brought in the 1950 Act, and thought he had a cure for all ills. The only thing I would say about the previous administration is that they blamed one man for all the ills. When they got rid of that poor chairman, they thought they had everything right. One man was blamed for the way things were when we were in office before; now it is completely different; everyone is doing his best.

Mr. Blowick

It seems that there is a bad boy left there yet.

Mr. Burke

Yes, that is true.

Mr. Blowick

You are not allowed even to name him.

Mr. MacBride

I do not want to follow in detail what Deputy Burke has said, but in fairness to him I would like to say this. I happen to be familiar with the chain of events to which he was referring and I think that he is justified in criticising the attitude of certain officials of the company in their labour relations. If a little more tolerance and a little more human understanding had been shown in the handling of labour relations inC.I.E., a great many difficulties and some long and bitter strikes could have been avoided, or could have been ended more rapidly. I happen to know the circumstances which prompted Deputy Burke to make this reference, and in fairness to him I would like to say that I think he is justified in criticising the handling of those relations in that particular strike. I may also say, in fairness to Deputy Burke, that I think he served a useful purpose in helping to bring that particular conflict to an end.

Possibly the fact that Deputy Burke and I are able to agree on some matter, even though we are on opposite sides of the House, may be an indication of the general attitude there has been in this debate. The discussion seems to have been objective and the whole problem has been approached in a reasonable atmosphere, somewhat removed from the acrimonious Party debates that we have here so often.

It seems to me that the Kernel of the whole transport problem here is this— are the railways an essential service or not? It seems to me that the answer to that can be given only by this House and by the Government. I thought it was assumed on all sides of the House that railways were a vitally essential service, just as essential as is the provision of electricity or running water. In the course of his very able speech, Deputy Morrissey enumerated some reasons which render railways essential as against road transport. He pointed out that they are essential for fairs and for the carriage of beet and agricultural produce generally.

He made a very coercive argument on that basis, but there is another argument which is still more coercive, that is, that in the event of a war or any national emergency railway transport is the only transport left to us. Road transport depends upon all the materials that become unobtainable within a week of the start of any war. Rubber, petrol, oil—they are the sinews of modern warfare. It would be the height of madness to let our railways close down and leave ourselves entirely dependent for transport upon commodities that are bound to be unobtainable in the event of war.

If we—this House and the Government—decide that railways are essential, not merely to provide transport in peacetime but as an essential service just as the Army is an essential service, then we must be prepared to finance the railways and maintain them. Let us try by all means to make them as efficient as we can, let us try to limit the amount of loss; but let us face the problem on the basis that we have to maintain them, whether we like it or not. I do not suppose that any of us like to maintain an army for the fun of it, but we maintain an army because we think it is essential in the event of war. In my view, the maintenance of railways is even more essential than the maintenance of an army in peacetime. Do not take me as suggesting that we should not maintain an army— yet if this House had to choose between the maintenance of a regular army in peacetime and the maintenance of railways, I would opt in favour of maintaining the railways, because an army can always be raised in a hurry, but you cannot build railways in a hurry. An army is absolutely useless to you, unless you have the means of transport to feed your population and distribute the supplies required.

It seems to me, therefore, that the approach we should have to the whole problem of C.I.E., the whole problem of transport, is to face the situation that railways are essential. I do not share the view of Deputy Dillon that, in 50 years' time railways will have disappeared completely. In many countries, new railway lines are still being built. I am not sufficient of an expert in transport matters to be able to voice any view as to whether, per ton mile, a cheaper transport can be provided by rail than by road, but the difference does not seem to be very big. In some countries, it is possible to run the railways on a cheaper basis than road transport.

If we admit that railways are essential, and I do not see how we can avoid making that admission, we must be prepared to subsidise railways. Possibly it was a mistake to join road transport with C.I.E. and possibly it would have been better if we had faced the problem initially on the basis thatrailways are an essential service, that they have to be maintained in any event and that therefore the State will take over the railways and subsidise them to whatever extent may be necessary to make them as efficient as possible. I have no very strong views on whether it was wise or unwise to take over road transport, but it was possibly unwise to take it over in one undertaking, because apparently the bigger the undertaking grows, the more room there is for inefficiency and waste, and I think that probably happens in every large undertaking, certainly until it gets on a proper running basis.

Likewise, in relation to branch lines, I think we have to approach the problem not purely and simply from the book-keeping angle, but from the point of view of maintaining them in existence, in use and in service to deal with the possibility of an emergency situation. I am sorry the Tánaiste is not here at the moment, because if I am not mistaken, he made a speech in the last few days, I think, in Cavan, in which he talked about the dangers of the international situation. The more he talks about the dangers of the international situation, the more it becomes necessary to maintain our railway system intact. The cutting off of branch lines here and there will only render the main system more inefficient and more uneconomic. It is quite easy to produce the account books of a particular branch line and point out that the line is uneconomic, that it results in a certain loss by itself, but, on the other hand, while there may be a loss on that branch line, it is one of the feeder lines that helps to make the main line more economic and the more branch lines are cut off, the more the main line will, in turn, become uneconomic. It is obvious that once merchants, farmers, cattle-buyers and so on load up goods in lorries, they are not going to transship them again into railways at a later stage. The goods will remain on the lorry once they are loaded.

I am sorry the Minister did not tell the House anything about the work undertaken in regard to the designing and construction of turf-burning locomotives. That work was undertakensome two and a half years ago by C.I.E. As members of the House will remember, during the war most of the goods trains of C.I.E. ran on turf. The engines used then were ordinary coal-burning engines which were highly inefficient for burning turf. Some slight conversions were made and the engines ran more efficiently, but no specially-designed engine had been made to use turf exclusively. Some two and a half or three years ago, C.I.E. undertook the designing and production of a specially constructed turf-burning engine and I know that up to a year ago they had made considerable progress with it. Through the courtesy of C.I.E., I had an opportunity of seeing the work done and of seeing the engine they have built and the experiments they were carrying out. It was a rather revolutionary design and was intended to operate economically on turf and turf alone. The results obtained up to a year ago were, I understood, satisfactory. To my mind, that would change the whole complexion of our transport problem—if it were possible to have efficiently designed turf-burning engines, because then the argument in favour of the maintenance of railways would become overwhelming if we could use our own fuel for transport.

I am alarmed by the proposal to switch over completely to diesel engines, because again diesel fuel oil is one of the commodities which will become impossible to obtain in the event of war. I should much prefer to see large sums of money, if necessary, spent on the designing and production of turf-burning railway engines. Wood-burning and turf-burning engines have been operating for years efficiently in other countries and I do not see why we should not be able to produce an efficient and economic turf-burning engine. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture will mention the matter to the Minister because I think it is an important question. I am sure the Minister realises the importance of this development and will press C.I.E. for details of the progress made. The House, I am sure, would willingly vote large sums, if needs be,to provide for the construction of turf-burning engines.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer is the position as regards canals. Transport by inland waterways, canals or by the Shannon, still remains the cheapest form of transport. That is an acknowledged fact, but there is a tendency to play down the canal end of C.I.E. and also the navigation on the Shannon itself. I think it is a pity, because undoubtedly all statistics show that canal charges and water transport charges compare very favourably with both road and rail transport. In so far as it is possible to use either, the canals or the Shannon, for the transport of goods, I urge the Minister to press C.I.E. to do so.

Deputy Dillon and other Deputies adverted to the need for some way whereby the operations of State-sponsored or State-owned corporations could be supervised, and I think that both Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon suggested the possibility of a Special Committee of the House being set up to investigate the affairs of C.I.E. and to advise it. I do not think I agree with these proposals. I cannot conceive any more incompetent and inefficient body of people to investigate a question of that kind than a Committee of this House. None of us is an expert in transport, and we were elected to discharge other duties here. Indeed, one of the problems of modern Government now is that it has become too complex and requires more and more expert knowledge to offer really constructive proposals with regard to many of the matters which have to be discussed in this House or by the Government. A Committee of that nature would be highly unsatisfactory. There would be a tendency to bother too much about Party politics and to approach the whole question from that point of view rather than from a business point of view.

I believe the time has arrived when it has become imperative that we should face up to the necessity of providing some form of machinery to deal with the affairs of State-owned or State-sponsored companies. It is a problem which is quite a serious one,and a problem which has been examined in many other countries. In some countries, solutions have been found by the creation of what are known as administrative tribunals, whose function it is to examine the workings of State undertakings annually. We might well evolve a system of tribunals of this nature, whose function it would be to examine the workings annually of, say, C.I.E., the E.S.B., Bord na Móna and all the other many State-owned or State-sponsored companies we now have.

I suggest that a tribunal of this kind should be more of a judicial nature, but that it should be open to anyone to appear before it to lodge complaints. There would have to be some preliminary sifting system to ensure that purely frivolous complaints did not clutter up the time of the tribunal, but a tribunal of that kind should be in a position to investigate complaints made by the public of inefficient service, uneconomic charges and so on, in the same way as the chairman replies at the annual shareholders' meeting of the company. Every matter which is open for discussion at a shareholders' meeting should be capable of being thrashed out at this investigation.

Without noticing it, gradually over a period of time, we have been drifting more and more into the use of State corporations. They now extend over a very wide field, and it is essential that some machinery should be devised for the purpose of ensuring their efficiency. We cannot do it; none of us has the time, the application or the aptitude to investigate the highly involved business organisation of the numerous State corporations to whom we now vote moneys regularly. I think we must, as a safeguard to the public, set up some machinery that will supervise their operation and that will give the public an opportunity of voicing their complaints and grievances. If the transport system in a particular quarter of Dublin or the country is inefficient or inadequate to meet the requirements of the public, there should be some body to whom the local inhabitants can go, lodge a complaint and have that complaint investigatedimpartially. At the moment, the only remedy is to make a complaint to C.I.E., and the investigation, if any, is carried out by the body that is accused of being inefficient. This is a question which I think should be approached if possible on a non-Party basis, and it is one which requires to be dealt with urgently.

The problem is growing in magnitude from year to year. So far we have failed to take any steps to protect the public or the taxpayers or to protect ourselves from the possible inefficiencies that are bound to develop in any monopolies, particularly in any monopolies that are not subject to investigation or to the control which is normally exercised by the shareholders of a company or in other cases by the public themselves. I think that the Minister would do well to examine this question, not merely in relation to C.I.E. but in regard to the different State companies that we have.

Mr. A. Byrne

I rise to draw attention to the fact that since we last discussed transport matters in this House, C.I.E. bus fares were increased without notice to anybody. The Dáil was not in session at the time and I think it most unfair that bus fares in the city should have been increased to the extent indicated. These increases have given some food for thought to the housing department of the Dublin Corporation which is now erecting houses on the outskirts of the city. The increased charges, taken in conjunction with the new rents and the increase in the cost of living brought about by the vicious Budget introduced last year have added considerably to the burdens imposed on the working classes. I have been made aware recently that some young men and young women, whose houses are situated four or five miles away from the centre of the city where they are employed, have decided that they cannot go home to lunch because of the increased bus fares. The weekly outlay on fares amounts to a sum that these people never budgeted for when they accepted houses on the Finglas, Milltown, Ballyfermot and other schemes. The latest information available is to the effect that there are no sites in the centre of the city availableto the municipality for the erection of cottages and the corporation will have to seek sites in the added areas, four or five miles away from the centre of the city. I think the next site on which houses are to be erected is five miles away from the city. The fare for that distance according to the new rates will be very considerable and represents a big addition to the rents which these people will have to pay.

I would ask the Minister to request C.I.E. to give the House occasionally a separate report on the working of the bus services within the city. This Vote, I understand, is necessary to meet the extra demands that are being made on C.I.E., but the necessity to provide this amount cannot be attributed to any loss in the working of the bus services in the City of Dublin. I would further ask the Minister, when a question is put to him in this House about the inadequacy of bus shelters or increased bus fares, not to stand up, as he did recently, and say: "I have no function in the matter." I hold that when money is voted from public funds in this way the representatives of the public should have a right to ask any questions they wish in regard to the services on which this money is being expended, and it is not proper that the Minister should say that he has no function in the matter. I hold that he has a function in the matter due to the fact that we are here called upon, as we are here to-day, to vote these sums of money as a subsidy to this undertaking.

My principal purpose in intervening in the debate is to draw attention to the hardship caused by the increased fares, especially to those people who purchased homes, in many cases through building societies, three and four miles away from the centre of the city. They did not reckon on these increases in bus fares when going to live in outlying districts. I would again urge on the Minister to give us a separate balance sheet for the working of the buses in the city. Whilst we are all satisfied so far as the comfort of the buses is concerned—they are splendid buses made at home—there is not enough of them.

At certain hours of the day the buses are put off, and we have only a skeleton service. I hold that Dublin City, county and the country are entitled to an improved and a more regular bus service. I think the company is failing in its duty because, under the old railway laws, there was a provision that, wherever there was a station, there must be a waiting-room and shelters, but in respect of the long-distance buses for the Dublin and county bus services there are no bus shelters at all. We have seen during a busy season people standing in the rain for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour in some cases waiting for a bus. I think there ought to be some recommendation from the Department and the Minister that the bus company should be compelled to erect bus shelters and so protect the people. My principal reason for standing up is to protest against the increases in the bus fares in the City of Dublin.

Captain Giles

We generally have an annual debate in connection with C.I.E., and I am satisfied it is time the matter was brought to a head so that we may know where we stand and whether we are going to make progress. I know this money is needed and that it should be made available. The House should face up to its responsibilities. We have a rail service and a road service. The road service provides a most convenient and easy way of life for the people, and hence it is that people are abandoning the rail service and making use of the road service.

We have reached the stage where our highways are a menace. Farmers with their carts are put off the roads. There are all types of heavily laden vehicles making use of the roads. The roads have become a death-trap. Hardly a day passes without an account of deaths and accidents in the newspapers. Yet we are making no effort to cope with the situation. The high roads are overcrowded and something must be done about it.

Let us face the situation. Are we going to do something for the railways or close them down? The railway system is most essential. It can be modernised and made to fit the people'sneeds. That can only be done by a sacrifice on the part of all our people. This is a time when people are seeking the easy way out and they do not want to make sacrifices. I am satisfied that a gigantic sacrifice should be made by all the people, farmers, workers, etc., to give the railways their rightful place in the life of the country. After all, the railways can be of immense benefit and they should be put in a position to pay for themselves.

This House is not facing up to its responsibilities. It was the same with previous Governments who came to the Dáil asking for a few million pounds to keep the railways going. Why does not the House face the situation? There is a serious problem to be tackled and we must tackle it in a non-political way. In doing so it may be that we will cut right across politicians but politicians should be big and manly enough to stand up to their responsibilities.

We ought not to waste the rate-payers' money but we should give them a service which will content them and give them satisfaction. The heavy transport should be diverted to the railways. How can that be done? It can be done by a strong, vigorous and manly Government doing its duty. It is a disgraceful thing to think that we who are members of county councils should find ourselves up to our necks in trouble with high rates which are increasing year after year. The people say they cannot pay any more, that the rates are high enough but they will go higher and higher so long as we allow vehicles from five tons to 30 tons to tear up the highways leaving no room for anybody and sweeping the small cars off the road. The road is not the place for that type of vehicle. Heavy traffic should be carried by the railways. The Government are not facing up to the situation and they should start immediately to pass legislation to deal with the matter. They will get a united Dáil to give them support in pursuing such a policy.

The people down the country say they are getting a very good service— a service to their backyards and front doors. "Why go back to the railways?"they ask. At the same time they are crying out that they cannot pay their rates. Something must be done about it. Some of the directors of the railways over a long number of years were good men. I am satisfied that the first director, Mr. Reynolds, was a capable, competent and honest man who made every effort to put the railway on a proper working basis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should discuss that matter.

Captain Giles

At least at that time they made every effort to put the railways on a working basis. They were working against huge odds and the present directors are in the same position. They are men of competence and have great knowledge. They are people every man would trust. They are getting no help because they are hamstrung and tied up because the public want the easy way out and the high roads give them that easy way out.

To my mind all the heavy transport should be taken off the roads. Men with trade plates—and there are a fair number of them—should be the feeding links to the railways. I think it could be worked out that way. By doing this you would not interfere with the trade plates. Vehicles of five tons upwards should be taken off the roads whether or not they are the property of C.I.E. I do not believe that C.I.E. transport should be on the road. By doing what I am suggesting I believe you would bring the railways back to the position they held in the past. We know what they were 25 or 30 years ago. They were one of the most important industries in this country. They were working night and day. There was a shine on the rails with train passing train. They gave good service and a huge amount of employment and there was very little friction.

Then we allowed the roads to be modernised. They were tarmacadamed or made of concrete. We made the roads like skating rinks. That was all our own doing. The people want the free and easy way out and they availed of the road service. Whatever Government was in power 20 years agohad a grave responsibility when they allowed road transport to develop then. They should not have done so. They made some little attempt to put lorries off the roads a few years ago but there was a flaw in the Act. After spending thousands of pounds on compensating lorry owners they spent thousands on getting a fleet of lorries and monopolised the roads. That was a huge blunder, and it should have been rectified.

We are now in a serious position. Millions of pounds have to be given every year to keep the railways alive. I think we will have to face up to the problem in a big way. As one who drives myself and uses the roads, I say it is a dangerous thing to leave Dáil Éireann to go home—I have to do that —because there are road hogs who do not care two hoots for any man. They do not dim their lights nor make room for a person, and one has to stop three or four times——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the C.I.E. Estimate.

Captain Giles

These lorries do that because they have powerful lights. They blind the people and keep tearing along the roads. The Minister has a difficult task ahead of him and he has our sympathy. He is a brainy and a courageous man and he should be able to handle this matter of which we have been talking in this House for the past seven or eight years. We have heard the Minister lambaste the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce and, in turn, we have heard the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce lambaste the Minister. We have heard Deputies lambast the Deputies sitting opposite them. That type of thing has been going on from both sides of the House for years. Both of these men cannot be wrong.

The task is difficult but it will have to be faced. Having put a fleet of lorries of all kinds on our roads, they are now afraid to take them off the roads. A huge number of votes and political prestige is involved in this matter. I believe that the man who faces it openly and honestly will beappreciated by the majority of the people. We have allowed this problem to grow up over the past 20 years. It must now be faced and the present Minister is the man who should face it. He was Minister for Industry and Commerce 20 years ago at a time when he could have nipped the whole thing in the bud. It is his job now to settle the problem. I should like to give the House just one example of what I mean. Two, three and four times a week I see the heaviest types of lorries that travel the Midlands loaded with gypsum pass along the road where I live.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has no responsibility for that.

Captain Giles

These heavy lorries are tearing the roads to pieces. The ratepayers are crying out that they cannot afford the upkeep and maintenance of these roads. After a frosty night these roads are destroyed from as far, perhaps, as the middle of County Meath to Dublin. We have to pump money into the fixing of these roads only to find that, once more, they are ripped up again. From that point of view alone, we must save money. I submit that if these huge lorry loads of gypsum were sent by rail we should be saved an enormous amount of expenditure on road maintenance and repair, we should be helping the railways enormously and the ordinary people would have a chance of carrying on, in a small way, their own little service. If I buy an iron gate in Dublin it is brought down and delivered in my backyard. Undoubtedly that is grand service but, meantime, we are allowing the railways to become almost bankrupt. The railways are the means of carrying all heavy loads to and from Dublin whether they be iron gates, gypsum or what you will. Suitable arrangements can then be made to deliver the goods to the different houses.

We shall have to ask the farmers and the business people to co-operate with us in helping to save the railways. I am sure every Deputy in this House has been asked to attend protest meetings against the closing of one branch railway line or another. What can therailways do when there is no business on the line? I wonder if there is a farmer who would send his beasts by rail rather than by road. They are unwilling to send their cattle, sheep or pigs by rail because they can arrange to have them called for at 4 o'clock in the morning and transported by lorry to the cattle market where they will arrive hale and fresh by 7 o'clock the same morning and be sold within the half hour. The vital question is: Do the farmers and the business people want the branch lines? If they want the branch lines then they must be prepared to make some sacrifice in order to keep them. Each man must say: "I must do my bit." It may mean a certain amount of inconvenience but, after all, are they not helping dear old Ireland and creating employment for many of our people who would otherwise have to seek it abroad?

The Minister, the ex-Minister, members of the Government and of the Opposition will have to go down the country and try to get the people there to realise the seriousness of the situation. We cannot allow it to develop further. We are told that we cannot put the clock back but my belief is that we are paying dearly for rushing too quickly. We are going too fast altogether; we are imitating big empires when we should live in a simple way within our means, each man helping his neighbour. I believe that if the position were properly explained to the farmers and the business people they would fall into line and do what is needed. We all realise the vast importance of the railways of this country. If a European war broke out in the morning and if this island were completely cut off from the point of view of supplies, then all motor driven vehicles on our roads would overnight become nothing but tin, iron and junk. We cannot afford to allow the iron highway of this country to be neglected because it is too important. I welcome the proposal about the new diesel engines. I believe they will help to keep costs down.

We have heard the same types of speeches on this subject in this House for years past and we are not making any progress in the way of remedying the matter. If the Minister is afraidto face the problem he should take the House into his confidence when he will receive every help and encouragement in an endeavour to settle this question once and for all. Too much money is being lost. We are pampering the people too much. I feel that the people should make some sacrifice. We see the national decay that is taking place. We see the country being stripped of our young people. We see our railways rusting. We must all make some sacrifice, and the farmers should make their sacrifice just as well as everybody else. Undoubtedly it is grand to be able to get a lorry to come into your backyard and to load your cattle there: it is grand and easy and cheap. They will even load the cattle for you while you are in your bed. We should, however, consider the other aspect of the matter. We see emigration and unemployment. These two evils can be arrested—arrested by a manly effort. If that is done we shall get the blessing, not alone of the people of the country but of the Almighty. We are too cowardly about the whole matter. We wave flags and talk about marching to freedom but we are letting the freedom of the country slip. It is a dreadful state of affairs but it can be remedied by legislation and by manliness.

There is no use in lambasting the directors of the railways and saying that they are doing nothing but robbing the people while, at the same time, the people down the country will send anything, whether it be an iron gate or a bullock, by rail. The railways need not be modernised. They are a bit obsolete but, at the same time, many a country would be damn glad to have them. They are a tangible asset.

Side by side with the railways we have the canals and they, too, are not being made use of. They are choked with reeds, rushes and dirt. These canals were built over 100 years ago by Irish people who were paid the low wage of 1/- a day and who sweated at that work. The canals should be used for the transportation of manures, fertilisers, and so forth. They are a very useful asset. Men sweated and diedbuilding these canals, and they are left there now high and dry as white elephants. I say they are not white elephants, but are something which we could utilise and get service from. My belief is that if we face up to our responsibilities we can solve the railway problem.

Mr. Blowick

I am afraid I cannot throw bouquets at the Minister as the last speaker did. It occurred to me what a nice thing it would be if we had a House in which those in opposition could throw bouquets at every Minister. I am afraid, however, that if it so happened that the civil servants were the Opposition and if the Minister for Finance were to come into the House, it is not bouquets that would be thrown across at him.

To come, however, to the Estimate. I think that the Minister should have made a more frank approach to this question when asking the House for this sum of money. It must be pretty clear to him that all Deputies are in agreement that the railways must be maintained. The Minister must face up to one of the principal factors which is reacting against C.I.E., and that is the sparsity of the population in rural Ireland. That, in my opinion, is one of the biggest single contributing factors in the company's loss each year. I think it is correct to say that, taking the whole network of C.I.E., the only portion of it which shows a profit is that operating in the County Dublin, where the traffic is heavy, due to the big population. All its services within that area are showing a profit. That is because of the big population in Dublin.

We must, however, maintain the steel rails. In that connection, I want to say to the Minister that he should not allow any branch line to be closed down simply because it is running at a loss. If we were to proceed on that basis, why not close down the post offices which are not paying in the thinly populated parts of the country, or the national schools, or why should not local authorities close down a number of roads four and five miles long, which may be serving only halfa dozen houses? We cannot proceed on the basis of closing down a branch line simply because it is not paying.

I think that, since the Transport Act of 1944 was passed, the House has pretty well faced up to the position that C.I.E. must be maintained, or perhaps I should say retained. I do not think it is in the back of the mind of any Deputy, no matter how radical his views may be, that we should scrap any portion of the railway system. I think the proper attitude for the Minister to adopt is that C.I.E. is going to be run at a loss each year, and that in the foreseeable future there is no hope that it will show a profit. Is that not the case? I see that the Minister shakes his head. I hope he is correct. We must remember that passenger traffic is going on to the roads more and more day by day. The mileage of tarred roads is becoming greater. We have more motor-cars than ever on the roads, with the result that passenger traffic on the railways, which used to be one of the most profitable sources of revenue of the company, is declining each year.

I am sorry to see that, but we cannot help it. That is the trend that is there and, I suppose, we must move with the times or else the times will leave us behind. I do not see any prospect of goods traffic on the railways becoming so heavy or so profitable as to offset the losses in passenger traffic. The point I want to stress is that since we have got to maintain the railways we must vote money for the purpose. That should not appear as unpleasant as, say, the extraction of a tooth. It is just one of our commitments, one of the things we have to face up to in this House.

There is no Deputy, it does not matter what Party he belongs to, who would urge the scrapping of the railways. No Deputy has suggested that in the debate on this Estimate. I would go further and say that even the branch lines should not be scrapped. Deputy MacBride, when speaking a short time ago, emphasised the same point. We do not know what the future holds for us. It may be that, if a certain situation arose, we would have to get some ofthe lines which we have scrapped relaid. Therefore, I urge that we should not isolate any town or number of towns which heretofore were served by branch lines by removing those lines simply because they happen to be operated at a loss at the moment. There are many public services which are being run at a loss—schools, roads, post offices, telephone lines and a hundred other things.

Some Deputies seemed to be horrorstricken at the idea that C.I.E. was moving towards dieselisation. I am in agreement with that, first, because it will provide a more economical form of motive power for the running of trains, and, secondly, because I hope that some day our bogs will be utilised for the production of diesel oil. The Germans did that successfully during the war. The diesel oil produced from our bogs might not be able to compete, in quality, with the mineral diesel oil which we get from the United States and other countries where they have an abundance of oil wells and have very little to do except tap underground in order to get the oil. The diesel oil which the Germans used during the war was found to be very successful in the operation of heavy aircraft. It certainly filled a useful gap for them in their war economy. I am not without hope that some day scientists will discover a way of using the vast reserves of turf or peat that we have, and of producing from it a good diesel or fuel oil.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter that might be discussed on another day.

Mr. Blowick

I mention it because of the fact that C.I.E. now propose to use a number of diesel engines. Frankly, I am glad of that, because their consumption of coal seems to be enormous as compared, say, with the quantity consumed by Cement, Limited, and the E.S.B.

While I do not pose as an expert, I have often wondered whether, if a lighter form of rolling stock were adopted for passenger and goods traffic on the railways, it would not help to reduce maintenance costs. Thecost of maintenance, where heavy goods wagons, weighing 10 tons, are employed, must be very heavy, and must tend to increase the costs of the company. Personally, I do not think that C.I.E. was wise in taking over a road freight service.

I think that if they had confined themselves to the railways, and allowed private enterprise—the private lorry owner—to operate the road freight service they would have saved money for themselves. I am of opinion that the private lorry owner could provide a cheaper and more efficient service. The company is suffering a loss in that branch of its business, and that is perhaps a matter which the Minister might take up with the board.

We know, of course, that the private lorry owners were victimised to a certain extent to enable C.I.E. to put this freight service on the roads. The effort of C.I.E. in that direction has not proved a success. It has resulted in a certain amount of loss to the company. I admit that it is not one of their heaviest losses. The argument may be made that it had become necessary so that the road freight service would be availed of as a feeder for the railways. I do not think that service has contributed one ton extra to the goods railway service. The company, by initiating that service, has simply tied another mill-stone around its neck. It is a service that is not paying, but it is one that was well and capably handled by the private lorry owner. We should not forget that C.I.E. received concessions when increased taxes were put on motor vehicles, petrol and so on. That has been a certain amount of help to them. The taxpayers are asked to contribute the £1,100,000 in this Vote but the taxpayers, particularly private motorists and private lorry owners, are contributing their own share in another way. We know quite well that recent proposals of the Minister for Local Government regarding increased taxation on lorries, cars, and all that kind of thing, represent a certain contribution towards C.I.E. from users of these vehicles.

What progress has been made by C.I.E. technicians in evolving a turflocomotive? I was here for the greater part of the Minister's opening speech and I do not think he referred to it. I would like him when replying to tell us what progress has been made. To my mind, in our country, that has such abundant supplies of natural fuel in the form of turf, it would be gratifying if we knew, even though such locomotives did not go into active service on a big scale in peacetime, that there was a reserve of such locomotives that could be made available at short notice in the event of an emergency which would deprive us of coal or diesel oil.

In that regard also I would like to know if any experiments have been carried out in the electrifying of railways in the same way as that has been done in certain lines in England and on the Continent. We have several hydro-electric stations and are advancing towards complete electrification of the country, and it would be useful to know if that was a feasible or workable proposition, again in case of another emergency.

There is the further question, could such locomotives be manufactured within the country or would we have to import them? Would it be possible to electrify the lines or would the consumption of electricity by the trains interfere seriously with the total output of the hydro-electric stations, to the detriment of factories and other users of electricity?

These are the few points on which I would like the Minister to enlighten us. This is the only chance we get in the House to discuss C.I.E. Several Deputies have complained that when they table questions in regard to C.I.E. they are told that under the last Act the Minister has no responsibility in the matter. Even though the Minister can shelter behind that, and even though the House, by legislation, has said that the Minister will have no further control, courtesy would suggest that the information asked for would be given where the House votes a considerable amount of money to any particular project. Even though they know that, according to statute, the Minister has no responsibility in the matter, I feel sure that the Board of C.I.E. would not refuse the Ministersuch information. As a matter of fact, I am sure they would keep one statistician in readiness to supply any information that the Minister or the Taoiseach might request, in view of the fact that we vote such a large sum for C.I.E. and in view of the fact that it will be an annual commitment for many years to come.

I hope we will see the day when C.I.E. will be a paying concern, when the Minister will not have to ask the House for money to fill the gap. Personally, I feel that that day is very distant. Until industry in rural Ireland, particularly in areas most remote from the capital, is developed, until agriculture is firmly established and the downward trend in the population of rural areas is arrested and the population starts to show an upward trend, I cannot see C.I.E. working on a level balance. That may seem pessimistic, but we must face facts.

I have no qualms whatever in saying that the Minister should get the money that he is asking for at the present time because I realise the importance of the steel rail system. Every Deputy says that we cannot do without it and, if we are not prepared to scrap it, we should give the money the Minister is asking for and make no bones about it.

Mr. Maher

If any matter that comes before this House for discussion deserves to be discussed in a non-political way it is this question of our national transport institution. Having had many opportunities in the past, particularly in recent years, of reviewing this matter, I feel that there is nobody so immature in the political life of the country as not to recognise the difficulties facing C.I.E. However, it is not enough for public representatives to recognise and appreciate that it is a problem reeking with difficulties to operate efficiently a railway transport system and a road transport system in a sparsely populated country. It devolves on public representatives to try to penetrate the public mind and to register there in no uncertain way that this question of transport is a very difficult one. If we are to take practical steps towards a partial solution—I do not believe thereis a complete solution—the first thing is to get public recognition of the difficulties inherent in the problem. If we succeed in doing that, we shall get the measure of public co-operation that is necessary to bring about a partial solution of this problem.

Under the 1950 Transport Act the Board of C.I.E. was set up and powers were given to that board whereby they could curtail services, increase rail and freight charges, close branch lines or take whatever steps that they deemed necessary to bring its revenue into line with its expenditure. Although that legislation exists, we find that in the Budget of 1952 quite a significant sum, amounting to £1,300,000, was provided to finance the deficit in the operation of C.I.E.

It has transpired that that sum will prove completely inadequate to bridge the gap that will exist at the end of this financial year and that most of another £1,000,000 will be required to close the gap. That, everybody will agree, is a very serious situation and one that must cause serious perturbation in the public mind and in the minds of public men.

Realising the position, I expect the Minister for Industry and Commerce asked C.I.E. to recast its policy and to submit proposals of a long-term nature which would hold out some hope at a reasonable date in the future that it would make a fair step towards closing the gap which exists in its finances, or if possible strike a balance there. The proposals submitted contained one for the restriction of the area of operation of private lorries. It is because of that particular proposal that I speak here. I feel that that proposal is an unconstitutional one and one that will cause, if it is ever seriously considered or comes before the Dáil, a legitimate and serious grievance in the public mind. I do not think that it would stand any great chance of surviving in the Dáil, because I feel that public resistance would be so pronounced that it would defeat it. I, therefore, respectfully suggest to the Minister that, whatever proposals he may submit to the Dáil, he must confine himself to our railway system; that it will not be possibleto interfere successfully with private transport in this country.

There are many factors operating in our transport system. I do not propose to go into all the details, but I think there is far too much transport in this country. I have heard a much more experienced man than I am, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce, say once that the volume of transport was four times greater than in 1939, and we only have 30 per cent. increase in the volume of merchandise to be carried.

I suppose to some extent that accounts for some of the difficulties we are now coming up against. We all may have open minds as to what should be done. I noticed that most of the more experienced Deputies have refrained from making any specific suggestion, and I propose only to some extent to do the same thing. If you consider over a protracted period this whole question of transport you will be ultimately forced to a decision and you must decide to apply corrective measures. I feel that the eventual outcome of the proposals of C.I.E. and the other proposals will be that we will have to make a choice between closing some of our branch lines or interfering with private transport. The permanent way, to some extent, is necessary. In fact, during an emergency it would be impossible to carry on without it, and I would be the last to advocate that it should be completely abandoned. On the other hand, I think that our circumstances are such as to warrant a reduction in the area of operation of C.I.E., as far as the railway is concerned. To be honest, I feel that the closing of certain branch lines is fully justified, and the maintenance, as far as it is possible to do so, of quite a significant proportion of the permanent way. There is not any easy solution to the problem, and I am afraid that for quite a long number of years to come it will require a significant subvention from State funds to bridge the gap that will exist from year to year in the finances of C.I.E.

In my limited experience as a public representative I have met organisations who, in good faith, were resisting strenuously any proposal to restrictthe operation of private lorries and the very same people have, to my personal knowledge, called public meetings to resist the proposal to close branch lines. That is, of course, quite contradictory. We cannot have it both ways. I feel there is a case which can be advanced very convincingly for the closing of certain branch lines. At the same time, I am all for the retention of the permanent way, if necessary by the aid of State funds.

I believe it is necessary to effect some economies in the internal administration of C.I.E. I am not capable of putting forward any suggestions as to what should be done, but I believe there is plenty of scope for that and that it should engage the attention of the board, and perhaps of this House, if it decides to take on itself powers to interfere with the internal administration of C.I.E. There is a lot of overlapping, and I believe a lot of waste which should be eliminated. That may not solve the problem, but it will bring about to some extent the closing of the financial gap which exists.

Many speakers have pointed out that buses and trains are operating in the same direction at the same time. In my constituency at least the trains and buses cater for different types of passengers. The buses carry people who live between towns and do their shopping in these towns, whereas the trains do not cater for that type of passenger. I believe it is justifiable in many cases to operate trains and buses in the same direction.

I often wonder if the possibility of running our trains by electricity has been fully explored. Deputy Blowick mentioned that matter, and I have seen it in other countries. It did strike me that it might be a solution to some extent to our problem if the lines could be electrified. I do not know if there is anything in that, but I should like to put it forward as a suggestion. I am afraid that, for quite a number of years to come, we will be subsidising C.I.E. and that the best we can hope for in present circumstances is to bring about a partial solution of the problem by closingdown some of our branch lines. I am, however, against any proposal to interfere with the rights of individuals to operate their own private transport.

Mr. O'Hara

I want to say at the outset that it does not come as a surprise to me that C.I.E. are looking for a further Supplementary Estimate to keep that concern going. I do not know of anything that has happened in the last 12 months that would create a state of affairs in which C.I.E. would be able to do with a lesser amount or without any assistance from the taxpayers.

Last year and again to-day many Deputies have criticised certain aspects in the running of C.I.E. Certain criticisms have been offered and certain suggestions made. Since last year it would appear that nothing has been done to bring about more efficiency in that organisation.

The Minister has said that it is his intention to establish here the diesel engine on our railway system. As far as I know the diesel engine is much more economic than the present engine. Its utilisation would be bound to effect certain economies and I would be the last to suggest that the Minister should not avail of the most modern type of engine he can find, provided he is satisfied that in doing so more efficiency can be achieved.

It was suggested that we should experiment with turf-burning engines. It would certainly be a great advantage if such engines could be constructed because the use of turf would bring about employment in the vast tracts of bog we have in the country, particularly in the poorer areas. I suggest the Minister should examine that suggestion thoroughly and get his experts to give him the results of their experiments as quickly as possible.

We seem to be travelling very slowly in making our transport efficient. It does not seem right that this company should be coming back year after year asking the taxpayers to keep them going almost indefinitely. I am fairly conversant with transport since I engaged in the actual carriage of my own goods from Foxford to Dublin and I can tell the Minister that I made thetransport of my goods pay. I brought my eggs to the North Wall and hauled my own goods for my own stores. There is one aspect in relation to the carriage of eggs of which the Minister may not be aware.

On Sunday night the Minister for Agriculture announces over Radio Éireann the code mark for eggs and egg exporters must pack their eggs and have them delivered to the North Wall by a certain date and at a certain hour. Naturally anyone exporting eggs would prefer to do his own transport because of the hazards in engaging C.I.E. to do it; in that case one has to pay carriage, take a chance on the eggs being delivered in time and run the risk of a lightning strike. On one occasion I remember having to help other members of my family in removing eggs from a goods train that halted on the line because of a strike. We had to carry those eggs across bogs and fields, load them on a lorry and convey them to Dublin. At the time there was no guarantee that there would not be a strike at the North Wall when the eggs arrived there. Fortunately there was not a strike and the eggs went through.

Experiences like that are not forgotten. Most traders are not very wealthy and only engage in trade in order to make a living. The danger of a strike is something always present in the minds of people who are engaged in dealing in perishable goods, such as eggs, milk, ice cream and a thousand and one other commodities. Strikes have done very considerable damage to C.I.E. in general. Another factor which has done a good deal of damage apart from strikes is the uncertainty people feel about the delivery of their goods, particularly when those goods have to comply with certain regulations laid down by the various departments.

Deputy Burke and Deputy MacBride mentioned the fact that someone at the top in C.I.E. was, in their opinion, responsible to a great extent for these strikes. They suggested that had this individual been more tactful strikes in the past could have been averted. I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of strikes, but I think thoseresponsible for these strikes can be blamed for the position in which C.I.E. finds itself to-day.

I spent upwards of 12 years journeying twice a week from Foxford to Dublin. I made that journey pay. Assuming one carries 240 cases of eggs at 2/6 per case, that gives me £30. It is possible to earn an extra £10 in carrying goods on the journey back. Indeed in some cases one can earn as much as £15. Naturally, in selecting the goods, one selects those with a high freight content, and the cheaper lines are left for C.I.E. If it is merely a question of 5/6 or 10/- one does not worry about that, but if there is fertiliser to take at 35/- per ton that, naturally, is the freight one selects. One can understand that that type of transport has grown over a period of years to the detriment of C.I.E. Private owners of private vehicles are taking the most profitable end of the business and leaving to C.I.E. the type of goods on which there is not much carriage. Strikes also have caused, to my knowledge, certain manufacturers in this city and miles and miles away from it, to buy very expensive lorries. To-day you will meet lorries going down the country with 20 tons of bextar or with large quantities of jam, and you will meet others travelling through the boreens and byways of the West of Ireland delivering various commodities that at one time went by rail and that people used to collect, as I collected, at the railhead. These people discovered that, due to constant strikes, they could no longer chance sending these perishable commodities by C.I.E. and sent them by their own form of transport. They have that transport now and I suppose they will continue to use it with consequent serious loss to the income of C.I.E. It is very hard to see what the Minister can do about that situation, but it is very doubtful if C.I.E. will ever get that business back again.

There are other factors that can be taken into account in considering the fact that C.I.E. is not paying its way. Some of the wagons on the railway lines in my own part of the country are so long on the rails that you would nearly get to know them passing. Someof the wagons from which I took commodities being delivered to me years ago are still on the line. Quite naturally, by running old machinery of that kind, the maintenance costs are much higher than they would be if we were able to replace it as it should be replaced from time to time. The same applies if you continue to use a car for 15 or 20 years. The more you use it the less economical it becomes and in the long run it is better to replace it.

However, I am referring to the matter here in an endeavour to help the Minister over the difficulty. It is a very serious difficulty and the prospect does not seem to be too bright. Like Deputy Maher I have no great solution to the problem while we just drift along as we are drifting at the present time. The Minister and Deputy Morrissey and others who have been dealing with this problem for a long time have more experience of the inner workings of this company than I would have but I hope that the few points I have made here might be helpful. However, these points are just made as suggestions and I would like if the Minister would go more thoroughly into the matter with the company and with their experts, to examine their books and to examine their workings.

While I do not like to reflect in any way on the working man I am convinced from what I see happening from day to day that workers who are engaged by C.I.E. often delay along country roads where it is rather hard to see what they are doing. A big company like C.I.E. employing something over 20,000 people, I believe, would not be able to keep a check on everybody connected with the company. It is quite natural in such circumstances that you will always have a few black sheep, and that there will be a certain amount of idleness. The majority of C.I.E. workers are like workers in other spheres; they take their work seriously and believe in working honestly and faithfully and it is a pity to have a few black sheep who will not pull their weight.

I would like to say to the Minister that any attempt to do away with our railway system in this country wouldbe fatal and I sincerely hope that he does not consider taking that step. As Deputy Giles and others pointed out it was the one thing we could fall back on during the period of the emergency. I remember on one occasion, when I was younger, meeting the Minister on behalf of the North Mayo Lorry Owners' Association with a group of other people during the period of the emergency. On that occasion the Minister had so many thousands of gallons of petrol to allocate and he had to make that go round and at the same time, in a difficult period and in difficult circumstances, to keep the machinery of the State going and keep our transport system going.

It is no harm to keep those things in mind for the future because our transport system is one of the most necessary things we have. If we should lose sight of or forget about the experiences we had in the past we might find ourselves, in four or five years' time, in a much more serious situation. Therefore, I believe it would be very unwise at this juncture to do anything that would, at a later date, jeopardise the whole transport system.

In conclusion, I would suggest, if the Minister has in mind the operation of diesel electric engines on our railways, that in regard to the engines we have on hands which are considered perhaps almost valueless it might be no harm to keep them on reserve for a later date even if they were dismantled. It may well happen we will require them later on. I hope we do not have to go back to machinery that has been discarded, but it could happen. I remember in my own business we had to search in lanes and back streets in the cities and towns to get parts for our motor vehicles and for various other things. Old spare parts were found in dumps in different places throughout the country and they were put into use again. If the Minister has in mind the introduction of this more modern diesel outfit, I sincerely hope he will not throw these things into the scrap heap and think they may never be wanted.

Mr. Lemass

Whether the history of public transport in this country proves the superiority of nationalisation overprivate enterprise is an argument in which many facts could be produced on both sides. There is this to be said for the Transport Act of 1950, and the only thing I can say in its favour without some qualification, that it killed the illusion that nationalisation was certain to provide us with better managed public transport, give greater security to transport workers and give the public cheaper and more efficiently organised transport services.

I doubt if ever a kind word was said on behalf of the former owners and directors of public transport undertakings in this country, but members of the Dáil, I think, would be far more inclined to utter such a kind word now than they were when they were actually controlling our transport services. That is probably a good thing. This idea that there was some system of organisation of transport concerns, that there was some virtue in public ownership as against private ownership, which would solve all transport problems, had got to be removed before those problems could be seen in their reality. We can, I think, see them now to be precisely as they were 20 years ago or ten years ago—problems which arise out of the need for a plan, the need for good management and the need for capital.

It was said here that when I introduced the 1944 Transport Act I promised it would provide the country forthwith with cheap and efficient transport services. I am quite certain I did nothing of the kind. The C.I.E. organisation was set up in 1944 when the war was still on in Europe, with transport services held down to the minimum because of shortages of fuel and of necessary materials to repair equipment in service. It was set up then in the realisation that, while nothing could be done to improve the transport organisation of the country until the war was over and the wartime scarcities had passed, nevertheless, a plan could be made, and the only things we hoped that organisation would do in the war years following its establishment was to keep emergency services going as best they could and have a plan ready by the time the emergency had passed.

They worked on that plan, and itsmain outline became fairly clear to me by the year 1947. I will refer to it again later. The organisation never got a chance of putting that plan into operation. As the House knows, the scarcities of 1947 were even more acute than the scarcities of the war years. The ending of the very severe fuel difficulties which this country experienced in that period did not come until early in 1948. Then there was a change of Government.

I am not going to criticise my successor of 1948 for deciding to hold the position as he found it, unchanged for a period. I know that he was told a few weeks after taking office that the undertaking was in danger of losing money because of higher wages and higher fuel costs, and that the only way the danger could be averted was by increasing fares and charges.

He was reluctant, as one of his first official acts, to sanction such an increase of fares and charges, particularly as the level of transport fares and charges had been one of the matters discussed in the previous general election. But remember that C.I.E., the organisation which was established in 1944, was held in that position through 1948, with instructions not to increase its fares or charges, not in any circumstances to reduce any of its personnel, to drop all development projects which they had in contemplation and to incur no capital expenditure until the Government then in office received the report of a commission that was to be established, a commission over which Sir James Milne presided and which reported in the following year.

The only thing which has to be said about the report of the commission is that not one single recommendation was accepted by the then Government. Having received the report, having rejected every recommendation in it, they produced proposals for transport legislation which were ultimately enacted in 1950 as the Transport Act of that year. A point which I must make in fairness to myself is that any resemblance between the transport organisation created by the Transport Act of 1950 and the organisation set up by the Transport Act of 1944 is purelycoincidental. The only similarity was the name.

Mr. Morrissey

What is the difference?

Mr. Lemass

The new organisation set up in 1950 had a different constitution, a different capitalisation, a different type of board and even a completely new set of persons on the board. It is true that the name which I gave the organisation set up by the 1944 Act was carried over and put on the new undertaking. People have said to me that this organisation which is now functioning is that which I created. I repudiate it—as it is a completely different type of organisation, with a different management and no relationship with the older organisation except the fact that both were running transport services and both bore the same name.

Mr. Morrissey

It is the old child, with a new bib.

Mr. Lemass

It is your child with my name on it.

Mr. Lemass

I was going to mention that. I do not think it is a success. I do not want to put it stronger than that. I have not got a final report from C.I.E. on it, but I am inclined to think that the experimental engine on which they were working was not successful. The board are now developinganother idea which, if successful, would be from many points of view more useful and that is a gas-producer engine which could be worked alternately on oil or turf. We would need to have some consideration in any re-equipment programme for the requirements of emergency circumstances, but it is clearly undesirable that we should tie up capital in equipment that would be utilised only in an emergency. If we could devise an engine which could be economically operated on either oil or turf, which would be available for use with oil in normal times and with turf during a period of emergency, that problem would be solved. That is a matter on which ideas are circulating now, but whether these ideas will crystallise into definite plans at some future time I cannot say.

I do not know that Deputy McGilligan is going to be very thankful to Deputy O'Higgins for his attempt to apologise for his failure in the 1951 Budget to make provision for anticipated C.I.E. losses in that year. I think it would be much better for Deputies opposite to admit that they were facing an election and that they wanted to leave as much as they could out of the Budget. One thing they decided to leave out were the known losses of the company in that year. The losses in that year amounted to £2,600,000.

Mr. Dillon

There is not a scintilla of truth in that.

Mr. Lemass

Deputy O'Higgins may be right or wrong in saying that it would be unwise to put a figure in the Estimate. He said that to put a figure in the Estimates for the losses of C.I.E. would be an invitation to them to lose that amount of money. I am not complaining about the absence of figure from the Estimates; what I am complaining about is the absence of any provision in their Budget for these losses and the fact that the deficiency in the Budget for that year had to be made good after the change of Government. Deputy Dillon says that the problems of C.I.E. were brought about by the last Budget but I think it would be more true to say that the problemsof the Budget were due to C.I.E., since the deficiency in the previous Budget was due to the fact that no provision had been made for the losses of C.I.E.

Mr. Dillon

You have to go a long way back for your alibis.

Mr. Lemass

It has been said that the additional losses this year are attributable to the increases in wages secured by C.I.E. employees this year. Since I resumed office as Minister for Industry and Commerce every increase in wages has been offset by an increase in charges, and that is going to continue to be so. I want no misunderstanding on that point. I do not want any group of C.I.E. workers to think there is some bottomless well of Government subsidies into which they can dip when seeking further wage increases. Wage increases, or other variations in operating costs, will in future be offset as far as possible by increases in fares and charges and if these increases in fares and charges should cause a falling off in traffic, that situation will have to be dealt with by a reduction of services and a reduction of services may involve a reduction of staffs.

I think there is a great deal of nonsense in the allegations which are made by various people about C.I.E. competing with itself. I am assuming that those who organise C.I.E. services are competent to do their job. They have examined fully and in great detail every suggestion that an omnibus service is operating in competition with a rail service, and that more business could be got for both if their starting times were adjusted. In each case that I went into they were able to show me that any alteration in the times of the services would mean that fewer people would travel and that both were being provided at the time experience showed that the public required them. There was no solution of that problem by a mere alteration of time-tables. They were able to show, as Deputy Maher said, that a different type of custom was being catered for in each service.

I am quite certain that there are in parts of the C.I.E. service defective arrangements and a considerable amount of waste. Individual workers employed by C.I.E. frequently give me or offer to give me examples of waste, particularly in the workshops. That is inevitable in an organisation of that size. I know that the public feel that the management of C.I.E. is not as good as it should be, and that if there was more drive or energy in it the whole concern would be better. That is possibly true. I have been told that all the more obvious changes have been considered over and over again, not merely by the board, but by their various departmental expertsand, if rejected, have been rejected for good reason.

Deputy Norton says the company has not devised a policy. That is his criticism of the board, that it had not done what the Government of which he was a member expected it to do when it appointed it, and that is, to produce a transport policy. I do not know what he means by that. The board is convinced that the backbone of the public transport service should be the main line railway system. I agree with that view. I think that the railways shorn of unnecessary branch lines and unnecessary stations and operated with new equipment and subject to the elimination of practices which are no longer necessary or unduly costly can be made to operate without undue loss. In any event they must be preserved as a necessary part of the whole transport organisation.

The basis of any policy is that public transport services must be provided. Operating upon that general idea, they have produced not a policy but a plan, a plan for the re-equipment of the undertaking. That is something which they may not have had considered previously but which they undoubtedly have done now following the intimations they got from me that before anything would go into the Estimates this year by way of subsidy such a plan would have to be available to the Government, and that I would have to be in the position that I could come to the Dáil and say in justification of that subsidy that a plan of that kind existed. In the circumstances, I do not think they can be criticised for failure on that ground.

Their central aim is fairly well known, and it is one with which the majority of Deputies would not disagree. They have now produced what appears to be from the examination already given to it practical proposals for the realisation of that aim. I agree with the Deputies who said that while it is deplorable that we have to find this additional sum to meet C.I.E. losses, there is really no alternative to doing it.

I hope that the losses next year will be less. There is a reasonable expectationof that because fuel costs have fallen which will contribute to some extent to a reduction of the losses, and the benefit of the higher charges which came into operation this year will be felt over a full year next year, so that there is a reasonable hope that the losses next year will be less than this year. But even upon the basis of that expectation, it must be said that they are still too high. I would agree with any Deputy who says that the public transport services must be maintained and that we should not baulk at the point of providing public funds to do so, but I do assert that if we ask the taxpayers to provide money through taxation for this purpose, there is an obligation on the board of directors to run it as a business concern, and not as if it were a relief scheme. The board of directors have a specific obligation placed upon them by law of providing reasonable services for the country with reasonable efficiency at minimum loss. That is the statutory obligation on the board of which I have reminded them on more than one occasion since I resumed office as Minister.

I accept, notwithstanding Deputy Esmonde's criticism of the 1950 Act, the obligation, while I am Minister, of ensuring that the board will not lose sight of that obligation, but will work consistently towards its realisation. So long as I feel they are doing so, then I will not hesitate to ask the House to vote whatever money is required to meet deficiencies in its revenue until the long-term capital investment programme outlined makes a further subsidy unnecessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Vote reported and agreed to.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 19 Feb 1953