It would, I think, be correct to describe the measure before the House as another chapter in the long, melancholy story of public transport since the establishment of the State. The announcement of the huge sums which will be written off or transferred to the Exchequer under the proposal before the House, while it will come as no surprise, will act as a sharp reminder of the serious situation which has continued without interruption for decades.
This Bill in so far as it proposes to reorganise transport services is based on the recommendations of the Beddy Commission. While the Minister has dealt at some length, both in introducing this measure and also in the Supplementary Estimate which was considered in November last, with various aspects of the transport problem, nevertheless there will be considerable disappointment that no indication has been given of the steps C.I.E. propose to take to try to bridge the gap between revenue and expenditure. The committee which reported on this matter dealt exhaustively with the problem from almost every angle and, while numerous suggestions have been made by different organisations and we here in the House have discussed the problem on a number of occasions, it must be recognised that neither the Government nor the Dáil can run a transport company. We can offer suggestions as to improvements or changes which are considered desirable or, on the other hand, express criticism of the policy being operated. This measure does afford an opportunity of trying, once again, to get agreement on a policy that will eliminate or reduce the losses that have been such a continuous feature of public transport. In that connection, I was interested in the Minister's concluding remarks where he said that the Government accepted the view that the railways had to be maintained as an integral part of the transport system.
Reading this report and examining the figures published in a number of tables in that report, it is obvious that many of the difficulties arise from the attempt made over the years to maintain a railway service built for conditions and circumstances which no longer exist. Since the establishment of the railway system, conditions and circumstances have altered radically. It is pointed out in the course of this report, at paragraph 384, that in the construction of our railways regard was had to the size of our population in the middle of the 19th century and that since then there have been fewer people for railways to serve since the population has fallen since 1861 by one-third and the rural population has been halved. It goes on to say that this is contrary to the experience in every other country in Western Europe. While it is true to say that no other country has abandoned the railway service—and I do not suggest that we should—nevertheless, C.I.E. over the years, has endeavoured to maintain a service in conditions and circumstances which are entirely different from those which existed when the railways were built.
Reference was made in the course of the inquiry to the feeder service provided by C.I.E. road transport to railheads and the efforts made to bring custom to the railway by means of that service. The figures given in the course of the report indicate that, certainly for live stock, which is one of the big users, conditions have altered very much and that they have even altered since the end of the emergency. During the emergency, and even for some time after the emergency ended, no alternative transport was available but, since then, with the exception of long hauls, the tendency has been, with the establishment of marts throughout the country, and even in the case of fairs, for live stock to be brought by road. Anyone familiar with the requirements of that particular trade will agree that it is a much more satisfactory system. With the exception of long hauls or occasional large fairs in particular centres, from every point of view, the efficient and the economic method of transporting live stock is by road.
It is, therefore, unrealistic for C.I.E. to try to maintain a system which was satisfactory in other circumstances and at a time when road transport was not available. It is quite true that, prior to the advent of road transport, there was no other system available and farmers and live-stock traders had to use the railways but, with the advent of road transport, conditions changed and, in view of the losses involved in handling, and so forth, nobody will revert to the old system.
What appears to me as being the dilemma of public transport and, to some extent, the dilemma of Governments over the years, is the effort to maintain a railway system, certainly railway services in parts of the country, in the altered conditions of the present day. As far as one can gather, it was the view of the committee which reported on this matter that it will not be possible in future to maintain such a system, except at the cost of a State subsidy or State subvention of some form or another.
There is in Section 6 of this Bill a general directive which defines the duties of the board. It goes on to say in sub-section (2) that, taking everything into account, it is proposed that not later than 31st March, 1964, the operating expenditure, including all charges properly chargeable to revenue, shall not be greater than the revenue of the board.
The Minister, in the course of his introductory speech, referred to the fact that the amalgamation of the portion of the G.N.R. which runs within the State and C.I.E. will take effect later this year and he said it may mean an amendment of this Bill, changing the subvention and certain other matters. It is somewhat difficult in a discussion of this kind to deal with the problem when an amending Bill is contemplated in the next few weeks and when, instead of an annual sum of £1,000,000, we may be dealing with a greater sum. What this Bill does say is that, allowing for whatever changes C.I.E. propose to make, taking the liability which has been removed in respect of the sums that have been written off and the transfer of the 3 per cent. Transport Stock of 1955-60 to the Exchequer, deeming it as a Government loan, and the transfer to the Minister for Finance of the annual interest charges of something over £600,000 a year, over and above these charges, the loss which C.I.E. expects to make will not be more than £1,000,000 a year, that is, to provide them with money for capital purposes and also for any other contingencies which may arise. That, in itself, is a formidable sum.
We have, over the years, become accustomed to dealing in large sums so far as transport losses are concerned, but I think there will be general disappointment that there has been no indication from the Minister's speech of what reorganisation internally in the transport company or what changes in policy are anticipated or in course of being implemented which will reduce or eliminate the present heavy losses. It is true that C.I.E. have been faced with a difficult problem, if not an impossible one. On the one hand, there is an obligation on them to maintain services because, up to now, of common carrier and other obligations, an obligation to maintain a railway service in conditions which make it difficult, if not impossible, to do so and, on the other hand, the difficulty of competing with private transport undertakings.
We must recognise that conditions and circumstances have altered substantially since the railways were established, that it is impossible, even if it were desirable from some points of view to put back the clock. Therefore, the suggestion which C.I.E. made in their submissions to the committee of inquiry and to the Minister, and which were repeated in a number of reports, that there should be a restriction on private transport, is unrealistic. We might as well suggest that we should go back to horses and traps. There may be some advantages but a pattern of transport has developed, and the indications are that the users of road transport, particularly traders dealing in perishable commodities and live-stock hauliers, recognise it as a more efficient and more satisfactory system to operate. Once the obligation of common carrier is removed from C.I.E., C.I.E. will then be in a position to operate on a commercial basis in so far as they will be able to charge competitive or preferential rates to different traders.
The Minister said that they would be in a position to quote different terms and to make bargains with merchants and traders and that it was hoped in this way to attract custom or to stem the loss of traffic. In that connection, there is a need for some right of appeal or some tribunal to which traders can go if they feel there is unfair discrimination against them. The present-day conditions do not warrant the retention of the obligation and it is obvious that in present circumstances it is unduly onerous. However, once it is removed, the way will be clear for discriminatory treatment. That discrimination may mean the ordinary commercial practice of offering a trader better terms, on the understanding that he gives all the traffic to C.I.E., but there is another aspect of the question which should be considered. If a large trader is given preferential terms as against smaller traders who trade in the same goods and who are competing with him, it might operate to the detriment of those traders, and, unless those traders are allowed to operate their own transport or have available to them an alternative system, it would, I think, be contrary to the public interest to allow preferential treatment to go to the extent of discriminating unfairly or unjustly against a number of smaller traders. The provision of some sort of appeal or review, should the necessity arise, might be considered between now and the Committee Stage.
The Minister announced—and it is included in the Bill—that it is proposed to relieve C.I.E. of the obligation to provide a road service where they discontinue an existing rail service. In that connection, some changes should be made in the present conditions under which licensed hauliers are allowed to operate. At present, licences are granted under the 1933 Act and weights, and so on, have altered very much since that time. Over the past 25 years, there have been very great changes and conditions which were regarded as normal in 1933 no longer exist, and there ought to be some adjustment of the conditions under which merchandise licences are granted.
The restrictions about unladen weight or the maximum weight at present bear no relation to modern lorries or modern requirements. Some more flexible system should be adopted which would permit an extension of the maximum unladen weight. These matters probably could be more properly discussed on Committee Stage, but undoubtedly the present restrictions and requirements which date from the 1933 Act bear little relation to the type of lorries in use and available at present.
When it was announced that this measure would be introduced, I think it was generally understood that there would be no alteration in transport policy before the discussion on this Bill took place. Public opinion undoubtedly has been greatly perturbed, not now but over the years, by the continuing heavy losses made by C.I.E. and the recent announcement by the company that it was proposed to increase bus fares and freights from Monday next, 12th May, was especially resented, particularly as the announcement was made on the eve of this discussion. In anticipation of that discussion and in view of the promised reorganisation which it was understood would be the subject of debate here, the increases in fares and freights have created a good deal of ill-feeling.
One of the essential requirements for a satisfactory transport system is public goodwill. For a number of reasons, C.I.E., not through any fault of their own staff, whom Deputies on all sides of the House find courteous, considerate and helpful when changes are suggested, but through some lack of liaison with the public, lack goodwill and understanding. As I said earlier, neither the Government nor a Minister can run a transport undertaking, but repeatedly criticism of C.I.E. is expressed through lack of knowledge and information. If C.I.E. took the public into its confidence and explained the necessity for certain changes, or for a particular line of policy, it would do a great deal to secure goodwill and understanding.
It is inevitable that if people have only one side of the story, views will be expressed which might not be expressed if they had the whole story. Therefore, the recent announcement that fares were to be raised on the eve of this discussion came as a great shock to the general public and the decision to drop the special fares applicable to school-going children is particularly harsh. It is well known from the figures of bus receipts published periodically that the suburban services are paying. It was therefore a shock to the people that the increases which were announced were so steep and more especially, as I say, that this change in regard to school children was made. So far, it has not been possible to get the amount of revenue which it is proposed to secure from the abolition of these school children's fares.
I think it is right to say this, that while other transport users, adults, business people and even people travelling for pleasure may have—or some of them may have—alternative means of transport, or may be able to reduce the number of their journeys or postpone them, in the case of school children, no alternative form of transport is available. Some of them are either too young or are travelling in places in which it is dangerous for them to be left alone and unattended. While some children may use bicycles or other forms of transport, the vast majority have no other means of transport available to them. They must go to school and they must use the public transport system. Therefore, it is quite unfair that this facility which was available to them should be abolished.
I think also that we ought to be given an indication of the proposed amount which it is expected to secure, and the actual contribution to the total budget of C.I.E., which will be made by users of the suburban services. As I said, much of the criticism expressed against C.I.E. would be eliminated if the company had a better public relations system. Whenever suggestions are made to the company for improved services, I find they are met with the utmost consideration and receive every attention with a view to seeing if the suggestions can be accepted or met in any way, but that is only one aspect of the problem, where a group of people in an area have a suggestion to make and get a Deputy or other public representative to make it for them. The vast majority of the users of public transport, who accept the service as it is, and who, because of preoccupation with their own affairs, do not make any recommendations or suggestions as to how better and more useful services could be provided, express their view in the way in which they meet whatever changes are made. Alternatively, it is expressed when they see an announcement of the losses, such as the Minister made this morning, or which are periodically announced at sittings of the Labour Court.
It was a disappointment that we did not get an indication from the Minister of what the proposed reorganisation, foreshadowed by the company, is and I hope the Minister will give us that indication before the Second Reading is passed. So far, the changes, to some extent, have been merely bookkeeping ones, a transfer of a liability which C.I.E. itself could never meet, to the Exchequer, which, in the long run, had to meet it any way. There is some merit in putting into the Bill a fixed sum. Over the years, we have all had experience of Government announcements, on a few occasions, that there would be no subsidy for C.I.E. Both this Government and the previous Government announced that decision. Then, in a short time, C.I.E. have to approach the Department of Industry and Commerce and they get embattled with it. Subsequently, the Department of Industry and Commerce get embattled with the Department of Finance and finally, the three of them, the two Departments and C.I.E., agree on a figure which is presented to the Dáil and it is passed covering either one year's or two years' losses.
If a figure is put in the Bill it, at any rate, sets a headline, but in the absence of an indication from the Minister of what changes the company itself proposes, and what increased traffic it is proposed to attract, it is impossible to view this measure as setting an end to the losses which will be made by the company. There is no evidence from any quarter that the company will attract increased traffic. Experience over the years indicates that the contrary will be the case; that, in fact, the difficulty is to hold the traffic it has, rather than anticipate any increase in traffic because if C.I.E. gets the contract for some specific commodity, it is more than offset by losses on other fronts. It is, therefore, disappointing to the Dáil, and to the country, that we have not been given a better indication of the proposed reorganisation which, in turn, would offer better hopes for a more satisfactory outcome for the future.
