With the general principles of this Bill I do not think any reasonable person can quarrel. It is an attempt merely to confer upon railway companies within the Saorstát rights with regard to road motor transport now enjoyed by every private citizen. It, however, suffers from a number of defects. In the first place, it is, in my opinion, very belated. It should have been introduced at least three years ago before certain vested interests in road transport were created, which will now, to a great extent, help to make its working rather difficult. It divides control between the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Local Government. Thirdly, it is merely another small piecemeal attempt to deal with a very complicated and important problem which can only be dealt with satisfactorily by one comprehensive measure co-ordinating the various systems of transport, both by rail, road, water and air, when we have aerial commercial services. The Government have shown an enormous lack of policy or general constructive ideas with regard to this question of transport. In 1922 they set up a Railways Commission to inquire into the whole question of railway re-organisation. There was a majority report and three out of the four Commissioners recommended the acquisition of the railways by the State. The Government failed to give legislative effect to their findings and introduced instead, a Bill amalgamating the railways completely within the Saorstát. Then, in 1923, they set up a Commission to inquire into the canals and inland waterways. That Commission reported after a careful study of the problem, but the recommendations went by the board, and have, so far, not been acted upon.
In November, 1923, the Labour Party in the Dáil introduced a Transport and Communications Bill which provided for a constructive and comprehensive solution of the whole transport problem. It involved the setting up of a Transport Ministry which should deal with rail, roads, aerial and postal services under the one Ministry. The Government were full of praises for the Bill, but saw that it was heavily defeated nevertheless. In April, 1924, the Railways Bill was introduced and has become law. Since that the Government have had to introduce two amending Bills, one regarding the directorate and another to fix the basis of compensation for redundant employees. Now we have another Bill introduced dealing with the railways and their connection with road motor transport. Strange to say, a month after this Bill is introduced the Government set up a Committee to inquire into the whole question of road transport, traffic regulations, speed maxima, cattle droving and matters of that kind. One would have imagined that a committee would have been set up and that its findings would have been before the Government before they introduced a Bill such as this. In addition, a Commission on Harbours was set up several months ago which is also considering another phase of transport. It is not in a position to deal with all harbours. It cannot deal, for example, with the harbours for Dublin and Cork. The result is that the question of transport is in a most deplorable state of chaos, and the attempt to solve it has been picemeal, without having any relationship to any other attempt. It is quite possible, when the recommendations of the Committee on Transport are available, that some of the Bills, such as the one before us, will have to be repealed or else amended out of all recognition. The question of transport is exceedingly important.
Apart from the question of commercial and industrial development, the amount of traffic passing is exceedingly limited. At the best of times, when the railway had almost a complete monopoly of transport, there was hardly sufficient to keep them going at full speed. It was certainly never a very profitable undertaking even when it paid most absurdly low wages and worked its employees the longest possible hours. Now the transport is being shared by a whole fleet of private motor buses, and this Bill proposes to add to that motor competition on the road. I agree it is an equitable measure to give them an opportunity of engaging in the new form of transport, and is a protection to the community to the extent that the routes must be approved by the Minister; the routes and fares must be fixed, and they cannot be changed except with the approval of the Minister. The motor services must also be run and cannot be withdrawn without permission.
I think it would be a desirable development if transport generally were controlled in that way, because at present there is no standardisation whatever of charges and no assurance that certain services would be changed and no regulations governing the cleanliness of passenger buses, or any of the other regulations considered necessary where railways are involved for the safety and clean transit of the travelling public. To that extent the few buses that the railway company will run will be an improvement on the other forms of transport, but it will only deal with the outside fringe of this big subject, and it is lamentable that the Government could not see its way to go into the whole question of inland transport, and then introduce a comprehensive measure instead of allowing a whole period of vested interests to grow, and then to bring in legislation which will be hampered to the extent that these people will be claiming compensation if there is any limitation of services by restriction of routes. The sooner we have a comprehensive measure the better for the country and its industry.
