The Deputy who has just spoken suggested we should try to examine the position as objectively as we can in order to try to find out the wisest likely policy for the country to pursue in future in relation to CIE. He himself gave a remarkably good example of that objective analysis. What he had to say in his very short contribution was most valuable. I should like to examine the position as nearly as I can to the same objective way as the Deputy.
We put this Bill forward simply because we are just a little over halfway now, I suppose, to that very important date in the calendar of CIE —1964— the date on which, according to the decision of this House, the company must break even. At this stage, as mentioned by the previous speaker, if things go on as they are going, then at a gradually progressive rate and at an increasing speed, CIE—on the railway side at any rate—will end up at Kingsbridge. Clearly, it is, if anything, now rather like one of those mythical animals they talk about which slowly at first, but at an increasing speed, eventually devour themselves. CIE on the rail side, is doing that. The position should be examined to see whether it is desirable that this shall happen.
Is the whole idea of rail services like the idea of tram services in the cities— a fossilised museum piece which can safely be dispensed with from the point of view of our country, from the point of view of the various factors involved in making this great change? Consider the demographic changes that are likely to take place in rural Ireland, the social changes that are likely to take place, and the various other changes. Consider the prospect of the people of Killorglin arriving to the All-Ireland Football Final in buses on one particular day when they might have gone along by train. Is it better that it should take place like this or should we try to retain the best there is in the rail services?
I think our greatest objections to the present approach to the examination of the public transport problems of the country are that their treatment has been based on an adherence to what we believe are really doctrinaire conservative ideas of the organisation of transport. We believe we can show that the application of the principle that the service must pay its way or else be abolished is a bad principle. It is having a damaging effect on the country as a whole. It is not even providing us with an efficient service. As far as we can see, it is not even at the present moment—examining the accounts of CIE—likely to meet the directive of the law in 1958 that it must pay its way by 1964. It has had a number of very serious repercussions from the point of view of the roads, the greatly increased congestion on the roads, and, following increased congestion on the roads, has had the effect of increasing the rate of accidents on the roads, deaths on the roads, injuries on the roads.
In addition, I think it can fairly be said that the labour relations in CIE are probably about as bad as they could be. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister if he still feels that the retention of this imposition on the management of CIE is justified.
I would again support the Deputy's viewpoint that this imposition was placed on the Board of CIE, and I suppose incidentally on the Minister, by a decision of the House and can be removed only by a decision of the House. For that reason, I agree completely with all the censures made against the Chairman of CIE— I think he is all the things they said he was, arrogant and dictatorial, with an appalling sense of public relations. He is very foolish that he does not take pains with public relations and I think the Minister is also at fault in many respects in his curious attitude to this question of his responsibilities. At times, he is responsible; at other times, he is not responsible.
I agree also with what Deputies have said in regard to this question of trying to get information about CIE. I found myself in the position of putting Questions to the Minister and either having them ruled out by the Ceann Comhairle on grounds which were perfectly legitimate, I have no doubt, or of having them accepted by the Minister but being told by him that he had no responsibility. I have tried to get information on matters such as the mileage of trains in a particular year, the number of diesel and steam engines, the durability of these locomotives and so on—all perfectly legitimate information for any public representative trying to make up his mind about claims made for and against the present system of public transport.
I have written to Dr. Andrews and asked for information, and his reply to me has been that he would not give it. Rather like Deputy Corry in a way, it is comforting to know that the man is equally arrogant with us all, that he treats us all with the same measure of contempt. Instead of giving me the information I sought, he sent me a 16 to 20 page long-winded, wordy, platitudinous dissertation on his ideas about public transport. I am not a bit interested in his ideas because I know too well what they are. I also know too well what is happening in the operation of the transport services —that eventually they will be reduced to an irreducible minimum, operating so that Dr. Andrews can produce his annual report every year in glowing colours, giving us only very limited information, as most Deputies have pointed out.
I do not think the Deputy who has just spoken is right that we must not do anything that would make Dr. Andrews work himself out of a job. I do not think there is any fear of that. He has not stopped a large number of unfortunate workers working themselves out of jobs. There is a very high rate of redundancy in CIE. It is one of the things which has led to the very poor labour relations which exist in CIE. We believe then that this whole question of public transport is a particularly complicated and complex one. Transport services in any society are the threads which hold the whole fabric of that society together and when an effort is made to disrupt these threads, to curtail or restrict them in any way, it will make great changes in the very fabric, and that is a most important consideration. In our discussions of public transport in 1958, we did not take that point into consideration sufficiently seriously. If we are to alter public transport to whatever way will best suit the economy or needs generally, we must take into consideration all the other factors which are inextricably bound up with the apparently simple questions of buses and trains, of road freight, passenger traffic and so on.
The most important of these implications are the social implications, particularly in a society like ours which is predominantly rural, predominantly agricultural, which has this dreadful record of rural depopulation, this flight from the land, this very undesirable great growth of the concentration of population particularly on the eastern seaboard, in Dublin, and in the city areas generally—all particularly undesirable in a country which is anxious to try to develop its economy, based as it should be on agriculture. There has been a tendency by city Deputies —perhaps it is understandable— on the question of the management of CIE to concentrate too much on the cities and large towns and virtually to ignore the outskirts and the farther off parts of the country—places like Dingle, Donegal, Connemara or wherever it may be.
We hold the view that every man in our society has identical rights and he should be given as near as possible identical facilities, and that if a person, as part of his contribution towards the national economy, chooses to own a small farm out in Rossaveal, or up in Donegal, or down in Dingle, he has certain social responsibilities which, to a certain extent, he can honour only if he is enabled to do so by the existence of transport services—simple things like the education of his children.
There is a tendency in CIE to talk about the big man, the man who is driving around in varying sizes of motor cars and so on, personal transport of one kind or another, but it is terribly important to many small farmers that they be facilitated in such matters as sending their children to school or seeing that their wives can go to the local towns for domestic purposes, or social purposes, in seeing that young people living in rural Ireland can be given facilities for transport to the bright lights of the local towns. These are the most important considerations, if we are to encourage the people to remain in the rural parts of Ireland. It would be just too bad if we all came into the cities to live. The repercussions would be felt on the national economy and national prosperity as a whole. Everybody would suffer. The population surveys have shown this is a very serious defect in the development of our population changes over the past 30 years and I believe that the present deterioration in the transport services, brought about by this insistence on the provision in Section 7 of the Act that the transport company must be run purely on a profit and loss basis, without any humanitarian considerations whatever, is the result of that retrograde, irresponsible decision which has done very great damage already.
As the previous Deputy and other Deputies pointed out, it will do irretrievable damage, unless some serious consideration is given to it. Quite obviously, also, in the consideration of public transport, one must take the repercussions in regard to the provision of an alternative transport system and how that is to be done. That brings in the question of how much money we are prepared to spend on roads if they are to carry this alternative traffic. A tremendous amount of money must be spent on these roads, to enlarge existing ones and increase the mileage in order to see there is not complete bedlam as there is at the moment. In order to reduce that bedlam a considerable amount of money will have to be spent.
As far as I know, there has been no co-ordination between the Minister for Transport and Power, the Minister for Local Government and the local authorities in the provision of better roads to bear the increased traffic. It is the sheerest madness to go on as we are at the moment pouring a greater volume of traffic of all kinds on to our roads — more personal traffic, more public freight traffic. Our roads were never meant for such traffic at all.
