With reference to this motion I have received a communication from the Secretary of the Ministry for Industry and Commerce to say that the Minister is ill and is confined to bed. The Secretary expresses the belief that the Minister will be well in a few days and that he will be almost certain to be able to attend next Wednesday. We have to meet on Wednesday, and I think on Thursday, to dispose of two or three Bills that still remain to come before the Seanad before the House rises over the Christmas vacation. I understand, according to the message conveyed to me, that the Minister is anxious to attend, and thinks that he ought to attend, not merely in courtesy to the House, but in view of the importance of the motion, so that it is for the Senator to consider what is the best course to adopt. The motion is Senator O'Farrell's and, of course, his convenience has to be considered in the matter. But if it is not inconvenient to his arrangements, possibly it would be desirable to adjourn consideration of it until the House meets next Wednesday.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. - PROPOSED MINISTRY OR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I would like the Minister to be here, and I think it is very necessary that he should be. But the only alternative as has been suggested to me on behalf of the Minister is that we could go on with the debate but not conclude it by taking no decision in order to give the Minister an opportunity of replying.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That occurred to me, but I did not know that that suggestion came from the Minister. It occurred to myself that that would be a convenient course, to open the debate to-day and to give any Senator who likes to take part in the discussion an opportunity of doing so, and then adjourn it after the House has expressed its opinion, for further consideration this day week. Of course, that would not deprive any Senators who had not already spoken of the right of speaking this day week.
I was prepared to adjourn, but as the House has been brought together for a few minutes' business, perhaps it would be better to proceed with the discussion to-day as far as practicable and the Minister will have the Official Report at his disposal in a few days. The debate can be continued and the Minister can reply next week if he is well enough to be here. In the circumstances, perhaps, it would be better to proceed now, but, at the same time, if there is any general opinion against that, I do not want to press the matter.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The Clerk tells me that in his interview with Mr. Duggan your suggestion was not before his mind at all apparently. He did not convey that to the Clerk at all, nor apparently had it been considered by the Minister himself, as no suggestion in that way came from him. As we will probably have to sit on Wednesday and Thursday next week it might perhaps be better to keep the discussion intact and dispose of it on Wednesday next.
I think we should go on with this motion now. The very fact that the Seanad meets so seldom, and that we have been called to discuss the motion, is a reason why we ought to take up the discussion of it to-day, continue it to a certain stage, and let the Minister reply next week. In that way the Seanad would not be called together and go away after a few minutes business.
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is a fatality that was unforeseen and that nobody can provide against. It may often happen, but I hope not. It is a fatality that it is impossible to provide against. What I feel is that in the course of Senator O'Farrell's statement he might want certain figures or information from the Minister. He might find himself embarrassed, and so might the Seanad, if any question of fact or detail arose and we had no one to tell us how the matter stood. As the Seanad will have to come back again on Wednesday and, I think, Thursday, I do not think either their own consciences or the public will be inclined to blame them, having regard to the fact that this is a fatality over which they have no control.
Senators came up to dispose of this business, and if it is adjourned there is likely to be congestion next week.
CATHAOIRLEACH
There are only two Bills to come before us.
There is one Bill, and it raises a very important principle. As one of them presents itself to me, the Bill putting a tax on margarine and rosary beads is one of very great importance, and I think there is scope for a full day's discussion on it. We will be very congested next week.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I have heard so often threats of full day's discussions that have so seldom eventuated, that I am not very sanguine about it.
I suggest that the Seanad should go on with this motion to-day if Senators wish. We have nothing to do.
I think this particular motion will involve many other Departments besides Industry and Commerce. I think the Department of Local Government and Public Health will be particularly concerned in the debate and that it may be the business of the Minister for that Department to be present and also the Minister for Agriculture. They might like to be here and to reply. For that reason I think it would be wise to go on with the debate now as far as possible.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think any harm would be done by that, and if Senator O'Farrell is anxious to open the discussion we will hear him.
It seems to be the general feeling of the House that I should go on with the motion. Before I do so it has been pointed out to me that the first part of the motion might be dropped because quite accidentally it contains an argument that should not have crept into it. I beg leave to alter the motion to read:
The Seanad is of opinion that the necessity for the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport charged with the regulation and, as far as practicable, the co-ordination of all branches of inland transport, and to deal with other matters relating thereto, is urgent and should be proceeded with as early as possible.
CATHAOIRLEACH
This is a matter on which I would like to have practical agreement because it is a very important matter. The only thing that occurs to my mind is whether there might be some difficulty in the minds of some Senators about committing themselves to a specific solution, and I would suggest the words, "The Seanad is of opinion that the question of the establishment of a Ministry..." The motion asks them to say that there should be a separate Department established.
That would alter the wording of the latter part of the motion.
CATHAOIRLEACH
"Is urgent," Instead of saying "proceeded with" say that the matter should be taken into consideration. If you alter the word "necessity" and say that it should be taken into consideration by the Executive as early as possible——
If the House is agreeable I would be prepared to agree to the wording you suggest, as I am not bound to any particular form.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The motion would then read:
That the Seanad is of opinion that the question of the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport charged with the regulation, and so far as practicable, the co-ordination of all branches of inland transport and of all other matters relating thereto is urgent, and should be considered by the Executive Council as early as possible.
Whatever the views of Senators might be regarding the details of the motion, there will, I believe, be general agreement as to necessity for more effective transport regulations than at present exist. A revolution in internal transport is taking place—one might almost say, has taken place, although of course its ultimate extent is still impossible to assess. This revolution has developed so rapidly as compared with any previous new transport development that it is quickly getting out of hand.
The Government, either through being too deeply engaged with even more urgent problems, or through failure to appreciate all that is involved in recent transport development, has failed or omitted to take the steps which, I submit, are urgently necessary to give some sort of ordered direction to these new developments. The longer the problem is shelved the more difficult and complex it will become. A pretty chaotic situation already exists, and all the symptoms go to show that in the very near future there is going to be a serious accentuation of the chaos and the complexity of the problem. Every week new vested interests are being created, which will eventually constitute additional obstacles to an ultimate solution, when, as is inevitable, a solution is sooner or later attempted. I understand we are on the eve of a big transport war. It has, in fact, already commenced along certain routes which supply the cream of the traffic, and it is more through good luck than through good management or good sense that this competition has not already resulted in serious casualties, not only to the passengers travelling in the competing buses but to people using the roads by other vehicles, and to pedestrians. I shall refer to this aspect of the question later on, but meanwhile I would suggest that it is now, rather than after some great disaster has occurred, that an effort should be made to regulate and, as far as possible, co-ordinate the different forms of transport and the different interests engaged in them. I am sure every member of the House appreciates the vital importance of transport in its relation to the economic, industrial and cultural development of the nation.
In an address to the Institute of Transport Congress, in May last, Dr. Grant Robertson, Principal of Birmingham University, declared that "National efficiency demands efficiency of transport," and to secure efficiency he was emphatic in stating that "Control must be vested in national bodies, or in bodies with defined duties and powers, and responsible for the exercise of their delegated functions." Applying this latter test, we certainly cannot claim to have an efficient transport service nor, as matters now drift, are we likely to have an efficient service in the near future. We may, indeed, have cheap fares at certain hours along certain favoured routes, but this in itself does not connote an efficient transport service, or a service likely to bring any material or lasting benefit to the community. To have any kind of intelligent progress that is efficient without being wasteful, especially in a sparsely populated country with a small carrying trade, all branches of transport must be considered as part of a single whole. No less an authority than Sir Eric Geddes, speaking in the British House of Commons on the 17th March, 1919, said:
"We have realised, perhaps, in the last year or two that without a go-ahead system, a vitalising system of transportation, the health and housing of the people, agricultural development, settlement of the land, and the industrial development of the country cannot possibly be achieved. ...The (British) Government has come to the conclusion that some measure of unified control of all systems of transportation is necessary— that there must be some body who can be asked what the transportation policy of the country is, and whose responsibility it is to have a policy. There is none to-day, and it is only the State, the Government, that can centrally take that position."
Unfortunately Sir Eric Geddes found vested interests too powerful for him, but if his statements were recognised as true by the then Government of highly developed Britain how much more is it true of undeveloped Ireland? The various departments in inland transport during the last six years will be present in the minds of most Senators. State control of the railways ended in August, 1921. Early in 1922 the Provisional Government set up a Railway Commission of which three members reported in favour of nationalisation of the lines. The fourth favoured amalgamation. The Government adopted the recommendation of the minority and in 1924 there was passed the Railways Act which merged in one group the railways completely within the Free State. It is interesting to reflect that all parties agreed on the principle of the establishment of a rates tribunal which would, in the interests of the travelling and trading community, control the rates and fares charged. A tribunal was in fact set up under the Act and almost at once ordered a substantial reduction in rates and fares. In July, 1923, the Commission on Canals appointed by the Government reported in favour of the preservation and development of existing water-ways and went on to say:—
That the best interest of the community can only be secured by placing them (the canals) under the control of a central authority empowered to develop them actively.
The Government gave no effect to the findings of that Commission. In March, 1927, the Government introduced the Railways (Road Motor Services) Bill, under which the railways are empowered to run road motor services for passengers and goods under the permit of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in regard to routes, rates charged and nature of services rendered. This is the only controlled motor service in the country. Side by side with the controlled buses "freelance" buses may run, charge any fares they please and give what sort of service they may choose. This introduces an element of farce into the whole position. I agree with the control exercised over the railway buses but believe that in order to be consistent and effective a similar control should be exercised over similar competing services having public roads at their disposal and running for private profit, particularly as these services have placed at their disposal the public roads of the country, for the damage to which neither the railway company, nor any other bus or lorry service is paying.
In April, 1927, the Government set up an Inter-Departmental Committee to inquire into road traffic regulation such as speed limits, cattle droving, etc. This Committee is still sitting, but its terms of reference do not permit it to consider at all the question of the reorganisation and national control of transport. The Government has set up another Committee on harbours which has been sitting for a very considerable time but it can deal only with Government harbours—not with all harbours. It cannot, for example, deal with Dublin or Cork ports.
The policy of the Government right through seems to have been to deal with transport only when the circumstances of the case compel it to do so, and then only to touch it in a piecemeal and hesitating way. Certain it is that none of the different commissions or committees that have been set up have been instructed or authorised to consider any other branch of the problem of transport than that with which they were particularly and mainly concerned. They have not been authorised to consider any particular problem in relation to other problems of what is the one question. The Government has never regarded transport as a whole. It turned down, as Senators will be aware, the Labour Party's Transport and Communications Bill of 1923, which provided for the establishment of a Ministry of Transport which would concentrate in one Ministry all the powers and duties of the Government in regard to transport, and it turned down, in 1924, the Labour amendments in the other House and in the Seanad which sought to make a similar provision when the Ministers and Secretaries Bill was going through.
Meanwhile, road transport has become popular and evidently profitable. A rapid new orientation of traffic is taking place. Apart from old traffic, a certain amount of new traffic has shown development, due to people travelling because of new services, who otherwise would not or might not travel as much as they do now. With free highways, low taxation, and the absolute absence of any form of restriction or regulation, it is small wonder that speculators of all kinds have taken to road motor transport as a new and unexploited industry. The railway companies could no longer refrain from doing something in their own defence, I suppose, seeing that the cream of the traffic was being taken from them by specially-favoured competitors, and they have now entered into the arena of competition, which happens to be the public roads, for 90 per cent., at least, of the upkeep of which the ratepayers and the owners of private motor cars are responsible.
Competition in transport as in other matters may be very desirable, but a great deal depends upon the nature of the competition. What sort of competition have we in the Free State at the present time? We have something in the nature of several dogs, some very large and some very small, all fighting for one tiny bone. There is no referee, no linesman, no rules of the game. For practical purposes it is a case of catch-as-catchcan. Surely it is vain to hope that an efficient transport system, either national or local, will emerge from a dogfight of that kind. There is no co-operation, no co-ordination amongst the various competing companies, and there is no consideration of public requirements by way of a spread-over of the services throughout the day.
We have at the present time, I think, about six companies serving Bray. If the rolling stock owned by these companies were properly distributed they would, or undoubtedly should, be able to give Bray and district a very efficient service. But what we find is a concentration of all the companies on the few rush hours, when passengers are numerous and easily picked up, but very little service during the remaining portion of the day. You will often have to wait for nearly an hour for a bus to come along, and then you will find an avalanche of five or six buses belonging to different companies, tearing along at a terrifying speed. The speed at which these are driven, the recklessness with which they pass each other at dangerous corners, and the manner in which they pull up to get waiting passengers is simply amazing, and it is a mere matter of good luck that some serious casualities have not occurred before now.
We have, or at all events had quite recently, a bus service leaving Limerick at 9 a.m., due to arrive in Cork at 2 p.m. Now a rival service leaves Limerick at 8.45 a.m., and reaches Cork at 1.45 p.m. That surely is waste, and it involves unnecessary wear and tear on the roads. No doubt the later service will soon adjust its time-table to meet the new position, and goodness knows how many times the time-tables will be changed and chopped to meet the ever-increasing competition. All this is done without any regularity or without any regard to public requirements. If you take up an A.B.C. Motor Bus Guide at the beginning of the month you will find that by the time the middle of the month arrives practically the whole of the services have been altered because of the desire to compete rather than to serve. The same thing is happening wherever there are competing buses, and although fares may be low at the present time, owing to sweated labour conditions which are rendered possible because of prevalent unemployment, the services are erratic and are running all sorts of risks.
Many of the present buses are owned by people who are working on credit and who have no security whatever against third party claims. If, unfortunately, through an accident—which is quite easy owing to rapid and careless driving over narrow roads—the passengers in any particular bus were killed or maimed, in many cases there would be nobody from whom compensation could be recovered. That is a very serious consideration and one which should have the immediate attention of the Government. The public have no means of ascertaining what companies are insured against third party risks.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Have the drivers to be licensed?
All that is necessary is that they must get a driving licence.
CATHAOIRLEACH
And is there no power to make that additional, for example, to insurance?
No, none whatever. Anybody can buy a licence on behalf of somebody else, in the name of somebody else, and the licence might be issued to a blind man, as far as the issue of the licence is concerned. In any case it does not deal with the question of insurance against third party risks. In my opinion it should be the duty of some responsible authority to see that all public carriers of either goods or passengers are adequately insured in this respect. I have had personal experience on the road between Mullingar and Dublin: I saw a number of private motor cars having to draw aside to allow two competing buses to charge past at a speed of over forty miles an hour. They were obviously racing to see which would reach a certain village first, on the principle that the early bird gets the worm. I afterwards learned that they reached it almost together, and that the front bus pulled up so rapidly before the waiting passengers that the one behind almost collided with it with the result that a dispute developed between the two drivers, ending in blows in the presence of the passengers. Is this the sort of competition that the public require? Neither of these buses was more than half full. One of them could easily have given the service, with very much less risk to the passengers.
The entry of the railway companies into road transport will, of course, increase the number of vehicles on the roads, but the fact that the only control that exists at all is in connection with the railway buses and lorries will mean that the tendency in the future will be for railway companies in self-defence to secure controlling influences in other bus companies, so as to avail of the absence of restrictions and regulations of any kind. In fact, this allegation is already being made in respect of one of the railway companies, and I have before me samples of propaganda that have been issued which certainly will not make for co-ordination or good feeling between the companies. There is one little booklet entitled, "What the Irish Railway and Tramway Companies have done to reduce fares and increase comfort for the travelling public," and when you open the booklet you find that it is blank. There is another entitled, "Which is your choice; monopoly or fair competition? Open letter to President Cosgrave," with suitable illustrations on the front, and in another: "Strange partnership—Great Southern Railways Company allies with the I.O.C."—the Irish Omnibus Company. These are being scattered broadcast by the competing services, one trying to discredit the other.
I do not know if that is the sort of competition that is necessary in order to develop this country, either industrially or culturally. The main object of the competition is not to meet public convenience at all, but rather to oust competing interests. The result will inevitably be to have a huge addition to the strain already placed on the roads, which will be out of all proportion to the actual services rendered, or to the requirements of the travelling and trading community. The position is one that must quickly be relieved unless we are to be confronted with the spectacle of keen industrial rivalry, extremely likely to absorb in its strife a huge amount of wealth and effort which at this time are so vitally necessary to the increase of national production. There will be too great an absorption of capital and effort in this one industry, giving an unregulated service, and taking capital that is so badly required in other industries to increase national production, and thereby increase work for transport companies.
The buses and lorries, of course, are all imported. A couple of companies were having the bodies of their own buses, or some of them, built here, but now, through what they claim to be the urgency of new competition, they are giving orders for the building of buses across the water. I understand that one important company that always had its rolling stock manufactured here has recently placed an order in Great Britain for forty buses. At the rate of £1,500 per bus this represents a sum of £60,000. There was no necessity, I think, for giving this hasty order. The requirements of the community would have admitted of the delay that would have been involved in having the bodies built locally, but the company concerned felt that some other company, importing buses in their entirety, would snatch up traffic, and hence they have given this order across the Channel and the money and the work is lost to this country.
One inevitable result of this will be the over-capitalisation of the industry which will, sooner or later, have to be paid for by increased rates and fares and sweated labour conditions. It will also make the problem of reorganisation a very much more expensive and complicated problem. A difficulty is also being created by allowing the importation of buses, the over-all dimensions of which are quite unsuited, and constitute a very serious menace to public safety when used upon the narrow and winding roads that are still to be found in many parts of Ireland. These are the type of buses that are constructed for the great highways like the Great West Road and the Great North Road out of London, on each of which from fifty to twenty lines of traffic can travel abreast. A vehicle that would be quite safe on a great highway of that kind constitutes a very serious menace, not only to passengers but to all other kinds of traffic which use the roads. In many cases the overhang from the back axle is very much too great, and when going round a corner when it pivots on the rear wheels the driver has no control. You find private motor cars and others having to go in on the grass edges to avoid being thrown over by the overhang of these vehicles going round corners.
Pending the report of the Inter-Department Committee on traffic regulations and the giving effect to its findings by legislation, which will take some time, one wonders what sort of inspection or supervision there is in regard to the mechanical efficiency and road-worthiness of some of these vehicles. I am afraid that at present it is of a very casual nature. Certainly it is common knowledge that there are two buses plying in and out of Dublin with wobbly front wheels. Anybody who saw these wheels in action would not dream of going on these buses. It is not unusual to find one of them disabled by the roadside, and still they are allowed to remain in service and there is no evidence whatever that in the event of an accident the passengers would be able to recover any compensation from the proprietors.
Nobody with any intelligence or sense of progress would suggest that the buses and lorries should be kept off the roads. They have come to stay; they have great purposes to fulfil, and, intelligently and prudently regulated, they have a great future before them. But if the public interest is to be preserved and suicidal rail and road transport competition is to be avoided, the Government should take steps without delay to
(1) Determine broadly whether rail and motor services are to be regarded as complementary or definitely competitive.
(2) Institute simple competent inquiry into their respective tax and road burthens.
(3) Ascertain whether, as is proposed of passenger traffic in London, an agreed allocation of traffic is possible, especially in certain analogous areas all over the country.
(4) Determine whether the amount of public control over the railways under the Act of 1924 should not be increased, and the principle extended to comprehensive treatment of road transport, viewed in conjunction with the railways.
From a programme of this kind some definite guidance might emerge, with the saving of a very large amount of public money at a time when the country economically has nothing to waste. It is quite evident that this subject, and the various matters ancilliary to it, such as the question of the upkeep of the roads, is of sufficient importance to warrant the undivided attention of a single Ministry. At present the Minister for Industry and Commerce, in addition to what railway control he exercises, has an infinite variety of other problems to attend to including unemployment insurance, industrial investigations and statistics, the Shannon scheme, unemployment exchanges, trade surveys, and general industrial organisation. Then the Department of Local Government, which is entrusted with the question of road construction and maintenance, so intimately connected with new transport developments, is charged with every kind of local activity, from town planning to health insurance, and from the design of waterworks to the appointment of doctors and nurses. It would be unreasonable and futile to expect that either or both of these Ministers could devote the time, the thought and the scientific investigation that are necessary to a comprehensive treatment of this important question of transport organisation. To quote Dr. Grant Robertson again:—
A nation that cannot recast its administrative principles and machinery when its modes of transport are being revolutionised will cease to be dynamic, even if its science is progressive. Advance in administrative science is as essential as advance in physical science.
If there is one Department of the Public Service in which a change in our administrative methods is urgently necessary it is in the realm of transport. Then there arises the question of communications, or in other words Posts and Telegraphs. This is unmistakably a branch of transport, seeing that letters and parcels are carried by rail and road by one form of transport or another. It has been recognised as such in Belgium, where transport and communications are under one Minister. My suggestion is that a new Ministry, or at least a new Department of State of some kind, should be set up, to which would be entrusted all matters of transport and communications—railways, road transport of whatever class, and Posts and Telegraphs. The extra expense of appointing another Minister, who would simply take over the staffs of the three Departments that are now dealing with transport and communications under three different heads, would be saved many times over by the efficiency that would be secured and by the economies that could be effected by proper co-ordination. In Germany I am informed that all private motor transport companies have been merged in one concern, in which the bulk of the shares is held by the State or by local authorities. This concern negotiates directly with the railways concerned regarding the division of traffic routes served, rates charged, and so forth. In addition, postal administration is taken into consultation between the road and the rail authorities.
The question of road maintenance alone is becoming a very big problem that demands more scientific treatment and consideration, and will require more in the near future. The problem will become very much more acute as new avalanche of lorries and buses are turned on to the roads. Another question that arises, for instance, is the use of solid tyres on lorries. These are highly destructive to roads, and in addition are very much more liable to skid than the pneumatic tyre.
In dealing with these matters I have made no reference, although it is quite obvious, to the complete absence of all safety regulations to be imposed upon these carrying companies, such as are imposed in the case of railways. Neither is there any regulation in regard to cleanliness of vehicles, either for the conveyance of goods or passengers. The whole problem is so complex, so utterly unregulated, that it would be impossible to have it given the attention it undoubtedly deserves by any haphazard distribution of different branches of the same problem amongst different Departments. It cannot be solved by a discussion here. It requires the careful consideration of a Minister with a competent committee of experts in transport organisation, road construction, and so forth, because these are all aspects of the same question. It is not yet too late to grapple effectively with the problem, and I hope that vested interests in existing Ministerial arrangements will not stand in the way of the adoption of measures calculated to deal with one of the most pressing economic probplems, before it is too late and when it can be solved without the imposition, either on the taxpayer or on industry, of unbearable financial burthens. The longer the problem is left untreated the more vested interests there will be to deal with, the more difficulties there will be to be grappled with, and the more financial considerations there will be involved. In my opinion, now is the time to deal with this problem. It can only be dealt with in the manner I have indicated, by the full-time attention of a Minister dealing with all phases of transport, treating each branch as a part of the one great whole. I therefore move the motion.
I feel I must disagree with this motion. Senator O'Farrell, in opening his speech——
On a point of order. Has the motion been seconded?
CATHAOIRLEACH
I thought the Senator was rising to second it.
I second the motion. I really think that the public owe a debt of gratitude to Senator O'Farrell for bringing this important motion before the Seanad, in order that the attention of the Government may be directed to it. Whether we are going to have railway accommodation or not, I think the competition with the railway companies at present is most unfair. Motor bus services have been introduced without contributing anything whatever to the cost of the roads. Motors have been allowed to be run on roads that were never intended for such traffic. We all know that the ordinary roads were not built for such motor traffic as we have now, and I think it is not at all fair that a large amount of money should be spent on the upkeep of our roads and that these motors are to get the benefit. Besides, the railway companies contribute very largely to the rates. If you take any county in the Saorstát and find out the amount that the railway companies contribute to the upkeep of its roads you will find that it is a very considerable sum. I was told in one small county that it would be at least £2,000 a year. That is a very serious consideration, and I think it is a matter that should be taken up. Large amounts of money are being spent on the roads, and grants are given, principally for their improvement and for the relief of unemployment. Here you have companies carrying traffic on the roads without contributing one penny to them, and helping, to a large degree, to swell the ranks of the unemployed.
Large buses start from one centre, such as Belfast, Derry and Dublin, and to my mind they are doing a very serious injury to the small towns all over the Saorstát. The idea now is to take the men and the women who have a little money to spend away to the larger centres. They take them for a joy ride, but, of course, when they get to these centres they think they will get the latest fashions, and all that, for little or nothing.
That all comes back on the people who have to pay for the upkeep of these roads. The railway companies are trying to get relieved of their responsibility in the matter of rates. Take, for instance, the town which I represent. Last year there was an application made on behalf of the railway company for a great reduction in the valuation of their property there, with a view to getting a reduction in their rates. That application was granted. This is a very serious matter and, as Senator O'Farrell pointed out, it is a very important one in the interests of the public. There are buses on the roads and there is very little supervision over then, so that there is great danger to the public. I understand that in the northern counties there is a good deal of supervision, but I am afraid that we have very little supervision in the Free State in this respect. Last week a number of buses were put off the roads in northern counties because they had not proper accommodation, but I have not heard of any being put off in the Free State on that account. The Government will have to tackle this question. We may be told that bus owners pay very high taxes, but I think anyone with commonsense and with a knowledge of the destruction done to the roads by these buses will recognise that the taxes which their owners are paying are altogether inadequate. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion, which I think, is a very important one from the point of view of the ratepayers and from the point of view of the safety of the public.
There is another aspect of the matter of which we should not lose sight, namely, the enormous number of poor people who are depending on dividends from the railway companies for their existence. Hundreds of such families all over the country are on the verge of starvation. A few years ago railway shares were regarded as gilt-edged securities, but now, owing to the fact that opposition traffic has been allowed to come on without proper taxation, railway dividends amount to next to nothing. That fact contributes to a large extent to unemployment and privation. Every five or six miles of railway mean the employment of a number of people, and in small stations weekly wages often amount to between £10 or £12, which means a lot towards the upkeep of a small town or village. As a contrast to that, what money do the bus concerns pay? They take all the money possible out of the towns and contribute nothing. If they were leaving money in the country for the construction of such buses things would not be so bad, but I am afraid that those concerned with such traffic have a very poor Irish outlook, and I think it is time for the Government to step in and do something to put such traffic on a proper basis.
CATHAOIRLEACH
The text of the motion as it now stands is:—
"That the Seanad is of opinion that the question of the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport charged with the regulation and, as far as practicable, the co-ordination of all branches of inland transport and of other matters relating thereto is urgent and demands the earliest consideration of the Executive Council."
When proposing this motion, Senator O'Farrell encompassed as wide a range as that which he attributed to the functions of the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think that he has looked on this matter totally and exclusively from the railway point of view and, of course, the seconder of the motion did not camouflage, to any extent, the fact that he is out for the total abolition of road transport and traffic. Senator O'Farrell, however, does not go that distance. I think that everybody will agree that the conditions of transport and traffic in large industrial areas of England are totally different from those prevailing here. Senator O'Farrell quoted from Sir Eric Geddes, who introduced a Communications Bill in England, which was afterwards altered to the Transport Act. Under that Act there was set up a Transport Ministry, which has now been scrapped, as they found that it was in the interests of economy and efficiency to do so. We have too much State control, too much bureacracy, and too much monopoly in the unification of the railways already. I am not for a moment contending that the conditions in connection with road transport or the merchandise carried by buses are satisfactory, as I know they are not, but I do not think that anything Senator O'Farrell has said is likely immediately to improve the position, certainly not the establishment of another Ministry. There are Acts dealing with this matter already, and unless there is a policeman or inspector within every couple of hundred yards you will inevitably have increased competition, with the evils of which he gave examples. It is open to any county council to apply to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to put any particular traffic off the roads. There are certain measurements prescribed as the maximum for vehicles, namely, 7 feet 6 inches, and the Minister has also power to regulate their construction. Possibly there may be some difficulty in putting all these regulations into force. If they were put into force suddenly they might impose hardships on individuals. No country wants to do harm to its nationals or involve them in loss. I do not see why that should be done unnecessarily in the interests of the railway company. We have been told that many of the bus concerns are run on credit. Possibly they are, but most firms of commercial enterprise are run, to some extent, on credit. What is the railway run on? It is run on public money, some of which, unfortunately, is mine, and I am not getting any dividend from it. If it is a better and cheaper method of carrying merchandise to and from small country towns, where the railway services are bad, why should any statutory regulations be enforced to restrict that which, after all, helps to give an outlet for capital? We have been told that these bus services are intermittent, that there are large numbers of them when the traffic is plentiful and easily picked up, but is it not the same with the railway companies? Do they not run seven or eight special trains on such occasions as race meetings, and so forth? Apparently, what is a virtue in a railway company is an offence on the part of buses, because they do not run during certain hours of the day when there is very little traffic. I did not think that I would hear such nonsense from Senator O'Farrell.
With regard to the point about the danger of accidents, I am wondering that the surgeons are not working day and night in view of the reckless driving and inefficiency. There has not been an enormous number of accidents. I think fewer accidents are caused by buses than by private motor cars. If the mover of the motion could incorporate some measure to compel every man who drives a motor car, or, at least, every owner of a motor car to insure against third party accidents, I would support that. I think that that should have been done already, but it should apply to all forms of motor vehicles as well as buses. We have been told that there was an alliance between the railway companies and some of the bus owners, but it seems to me that, for once, there is an alliance between the railway companies and the trade unions. It is not unfair competition, and it seems to me to be effective competition. It may need some regulation, and I think it does. There are laws at present which may not be as strictly administered as they should be. They could be tightened up. Nothing has been said here to justify the setting up of another Ministry and another set of officials. The roads, which are under the control of the Local Government Department, have been greatly improved. With regard to harbours, there is a Commission sitting to deal with that question. It has sat in Cork, and I am told it is holding an inquiry with regard to Dublin port. There is also a Commission sitting to deal with the regulation of road traffic, particularly in regard to the existing laws and as to how they should be modified. I think that this motion should not be proceeded with until that Commission has reported, and I move that no further action be taken until then.
Let me put Senator Dowdall's mind at rest by assuring him ing the beginning that I am not approaching this matter from a railwayman's point of view, but neither am I approaching it from a busman's point of view. I take it that the motion has been moved in the interests of the general public, and it is from that point of view that I would like to make a few remarks. I agree with Senator Toal when he said that Senator O'Farrell has done a public service in drawing attention to this matter by tabling his motion. There is no doubt that many matters are engaging the attention of the Government at present, but there can be few of them more urgent or important than that of the general question of transport. I adopt an adjective used in the phraseology of the motion, in which the present condition of things is described as chaotic. It should be pointed out that the Free State is not alone in that experience. With the advancement of civilisation practically every capital in Europe is confronted with the same difficulty in regard to transport facilities. Anyone who has visited London, Paris, or any other large capital city, sees all round him an enormous increase in traffic, and all Governments, apparently, are engaged in considering how best to deal with the problem. So far as our own city is concerned, it is a matter for congratulation that conditions have so improved and things have become so active in Dublin by reason of our native Parliament.
If anybody has any doubt about the importance of this motion I think, with all respect to Senator Dowdall, it would be removed by the statement of Senator O'Farrell which, I think, was not made from any point of view except that which I indicated. There was one phrase in his lucid statement with which I do not agree and that was when he said that the problem could not be solved in this House. It may not be solved in this House but I cannot help thinking that some of the suggestions emanating from the debate here will be helpful to the Government in considering the matter. Congestion unquestionably exists in Dublin, and it is growing from day to day. It is not confined to vehicular traffic. It extends to pedestrian traffic and it is a matter which would engage the attention of a Commission or any body set up to consider the whole question of transport. I should say, in passing, that the Dublin Metropolitan Civic Guard are dealing with this traffic with great efficiency and courtesy. One heard at the beginning of this debate some severe criticism on the action of the Guards in regulating traffic. Whether these criticisms were justified some time ago I do not know, but no grounds exist for them to-day as the officers concerned with point duty are fulfilling their duties with great courtesy and efficiency. I do not know whether I could go the whole way with Senator O'Farrell when he suggests a remedy for this problem. Conditions are chaotic not only in the matter of congestion but also in the matter of administration. Senator O'Farrell has developed that point and I am not going over the ground he traversed, but I quite agree with him that there are too many Departments dealing with this matter at present. I think he enumerated them. In this respect we are at a disadvantage in not having the Minister for Industry and Commerce here. We deeply regret his absence and hope that the reason for it will quickly disappear and that he will soon be as strong as ever.
I went to the trouble of making an inquiry in regard to the number of Departments dealing with this problem, and I find there are as many as five. We have the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the Ministry of Justice to a limited extent, the Local Government Department, and, as Senator O'Farrell pointed out, the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs has an important voice in traffic administration. It is within the knowledge of all of us that the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs controls the running of mail trains. That is a very important matter in regard to traffic. Again, from another aspect of the case we have the Railway Tribunal. With all respect to Senator O'Farrell, with whose arguments as to the condition of things I thoroughly agree, I think there is no necessity to set up a new Ministry. I suggest that there should be unity of control and co-ordination. That suggestion is to be found in the terms of the motion, and, so far as I am concerned, I would be quite prepared to support the motion if he eliminated so much of it as prescribed the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport. That, I think, is as far as we may reasonably be expected to go. If the Seanad adopted Senator O'Farrell's view, and recorded its opinion that a new Ministry should be set up, I cannot help thinking, with all respect to the mover of the resolution, that it would add to our financial burden. It is all very well for him to say that the various departments under the different Ministries, which are dealing with various aspects of the traffic problem, could be co-ordinated under a Ministry of Transport. I think that they could be co-ordinated under one of the existing Ministries. It will be within the recollection of the Seanad that when the Free State was established—I speak subject to correction—all the powers of the British Ministry of Transport were transferred to two Ministries here—namely, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce and, I think, the Local Government Department. I suggest for the consideration of the Seanad—I think it was thrown out at one stage of his argument by Senator O'Farrell—that all the functions exercised by these Ministries in regard to rail and road traffic could be efficiently exercised by one Ministry without additional expense. Senator O'Farrell seems to set great store, and he seems to think there is a great virtue, in the establishment of a Ministry of Transport, but experience in Great Britain does not support the view that the problem can be solved by setting up another Ministry. The grouping of the railways in the Free State was achieved without the aegis of a Ministry of Transport. It was done under the provision of a Free State Act and without the creation of a Ministry of Transport, and it was carried out more expeditiously and at far less cost relatively to the public without the creation of another Ministry than it was done under the Ministry of Transport in England. It has, I believe, been conceded that, amalgamation having been effected in England, the Ministry of Transport is no longer necessary and its abolition is under consideration. If that be so, it strengthens my suggestion, namely, that this problem, admittedly grave and many-sided, could be effectively solved without the creation of a new Ministry. Senator O'Farrell has made a powerful case which, I think, will convince any reasonable man that the problem is pressing at our own doors and cannot be shelved. He gave his experience in regard to buses on the roads. I can produce experience as an onlooker in regard to the bus competition on the Rock Road near the city. The speed of the buses there would take the sight out of your eyes.
Some time ago a letter appeared in the Press from a motorist who frankly admitted that he was travelling at a very considerable rate, at a rate outside the legal limit, but that one of of the buses left him standing, so to speak, on his journey to the city. From every point of view it is desirable, and indeed imperatively necessary, that this question should be considered at once. Perhaps the most important standpoint is that in regard to human life. It is amazing that more accidents do not occur. In the old days it used to be stated that before the railway companies would make any beneficial move a few railway directors would have to be killed. Perhaps now it could be said that before the bus services can be efficiently dealt with a few bus directors will have to be killed. I am not going into the economic aspect of this question, as it might be thought that I was looking on it from the point of view of a railwayman. I am speaking for myself and without authority from anybody, and I say with great respect that the problem is so urgent the Government should take it under immediate consideration and devise some means to regulate transport traffic in all its bearings.
This motion deals with a very important matter, and I quite agree with the last speaker that in bringing it forward the mover has rendered a public service. I agree that all is not well. I also agree very largely with the views expressed by the mover and seconder of the motion, especially with the statement that the longer consideration of the problem is deferred the more formidable it will become, because this is not a static matter. It is going to develop very much, and the number of vested interests will be increasing all the time. Although I agree with the diagnosis of the mover of the motion I do not agree with his prescription. While a great deal of what I am going to say will be in support of his views, the conclusion to which I will come will be somewhat different, though aimed largely at the same object. In discussing this matter I do not think that we ought to forget that the invention of the internal combustion engine was of enormous benefit to mankind. If it came forty years earlier we would not have trams in the streets, nor light railways. In both cases we would be much better off. But there is also this to be remembered, that though Ireland has benefited greatly by that invention it is unlike England, as we have not got dense population and sufficient wealth to justify a close network of railways. In backward districts in Ireland the ideal cure is the motor vehicle, but, like other benefits, it is not without its attendant evils. The main difficulty is one of waste.
The problem with which the motion deals is not concerned with small motors, whether private or for hire, but with big omnibuses and lorries. These vehicles obviously benefit the providers and the users, otherwise they would not be used, but the question is whether they are not benefiting a limited number of people at the expense of many more. Who pays for the increased maintenance of roads rendered necessary by this form of traffic? That, however, does not dispose of the point. Supposing all the extra cost was paid by motor taxation, there would still be room for waste, so far as the community as a whole is concerned. The ordinary wear and tear occasioned on the roads by ordinary motor cars is almost inappreciable, but, in the case of big buses and lorries, on the inferior roads especially, the amount of damage is visible to the eye as these vehicles pass. It do not believe that that is for the public benefit. In districts not served by a railway, where there is considerable population and a considerable amount of traffic, I think that the ideal form of transport is that provided by buses and lorries.
I think that very large expenditure on roads is justifiable in such cases as that, but where you have traffic parallel with the railway starting from the same point and terminating at the same point, and carrying, very largely, traffic from one point to the other, there, I think, are possibilities of very great waste. If the whole country belonged to one wise man I do not think it is likely he would transfer the great body of traffic from a steel road specially made to carry it economically to a road not made to carry it economically. That was never intended, and it would lead to great waste. In most cases I think free competition is the best solution of difficulties of this sort. In this case I do not think the competition is useful. The railways labour under the heavy burden of statutory obligations. They are common carriers and they must carry most things offered to them. They are not free to charge what they like. They must go on carrying, and, in effect, the rates are controlled by the Government, and also the standard of safety and even conveniences of passengers. All this is because the railways were once a monopoly. Now they are not a monopoly, but are competing with an exceedingly useful form of competition which is largely free from all these burdens and obligations. That is unfair, and I do not think it is in the public interest. I think a fuller recognition of the complete change of conditions is necessary on the part of the Government. I see no reason why there should be any discrimination between the railways and the privately owned buses. The question is how to improve the position and bring about an improvement, and how co-ordination can be brought about—that blessed word we see so often in the newspapers. I often wonder whether the eloquent writers know what they mean when they use the word co-ordination. I believe it means "to bring into proper relationship with each other." Of course that would suit all tastes, but "proper relationship" is a matter on which no two people might hold the same opinion.
I do not put the mover of the motion in that category. I think he has quite clear ideas as to what he wants brought about. I do not agree with his remedy, that is the setting up of a Ministry of Transport. What would be the "proper relationship" in this connection? That perhaps might be stated in this way, that each form of transport service should carry that traffic which it is economically best suited for carrying. How that is to be brought about is a difficult matter. The mover says he believes that the establishment of a Ministry of Transport would bring that about. A much better state of affairs, in my opinion, would be to set up a departmental or Government inquiry with a view to legislation. Taxation on various types of road motor vehicles should be more in proportion to the wear and tear of roads which they occasion. Possibly there should be prohibition of very heavy motor vehicles on roads where disintegration of the surface would be visible as they pass. Instead of setting up another Ministry, I think we want less Government control of railways rather than more. We want the elimination of unfair handicap; we want fair play and a remedy for a state of affairs which is largely anomalous. The reason I propose a different remedy from Senator O'Farrell's is that, while inquiry and legislation are the proper functions of government, I think constant interference in commercial affairs is a role which suits the Government least, and causes most harm. The two great industries which have been most interfered with in Great Britain by the Government are the railways and the coal mines. I do not think anybody can say there has been a particularly happy result. The present anomalous position of inland transport is largely the result of Government interference. If we had not Government control I maintain that the railways costs to-day would not be nearly so high as they are. The railways would be giving a cheaper service to the public, and as a result a great deal of the difficulty in the matter of road service would not exist. I think that such inquiry, legislation and regulation as is required by the Government can quite easily be done by the existing Ministries and Departments. It might be possible to transfer from one Department to another certain responsibilities now divided between them. I think the setting up of an additional Ministry is quite unnecessary. What the country wants is economy and not more Ministries. Let the existing ones inquire into this problem and formulate a policy of legislation. Having established a fair field and no favour, let competition do the rest, and competition is the best of all producers of good public service. What is wanted and best suits public requirements will survive; what is not wanted will disappear. One amendment has been adumbrated to the motion, but I think it would do no harm if I proposed another. It would take this form:
"The rapidly increasing development of road motor transport, with the possibility of unduly wasteful competition, uneconomic expenditure on roads, and disregard of public safety, constitutes a problem which calls for the attention of the Government with a view to such remedial legislation as may be found desirable."
CATHAOIRLEACH
Are you putting that forward as an amendment?
Yes.
I second the amendment.
On a point of order, is it proper to have contained in a motion or an amendment an argument such as is contained in the amendment just put before the House? I have not the Standing Orders, but I think it is not competent to move a motion which contains an argument.
CATHAOIRLEACH
It is more in the nature of a preamble. What was occurring to me is that probably we could meet most of the objections if the motion took this form: "That the Seanad is of opinion that the regulation and co-ordination of all branches of inland transport, and all other matters relating thereto, whether by the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport, or otherwise," etc. This would not bind us to a specific solution.
Might I suggest that we do not move amendments to-day, as after listening to the statement of the Minister there are amendments we may want to move. It may be better to debate the original motion on general terms as we have been doing, and then take the amendments after.
CATHAOIRLEACH
A general resolution asking for a reform in this matter, without necessarily prescribing a remedy, would, I think, satisfy most people. The words I have suggested would leave the whole thing to the Government to determine. We do not, in that way, dictate to them what is the remedy. I am only throwing that out as a suggestion.
In seconding Senator Bagwell's amendment, I cordially agree with the idea in Senator O'Farrell's motion. It is of importance, but I do not think it has been proved that a new Ministry is called for to deal with the question. The highway laws established by Great Britain are of immense volume and confer upon ordinary citizens, ordinary road users, privileges of great importance which, I think, have been forgotten by some of the speakers. We are here involved in a question of traffic, the only conception of value being the English conception—more money, the mere getting of industrial materials from one place to another. All the arguments have been based on the English model. I think the English model has no sort of connection with us, and is no sort of guide as to what should be done in this country. England is highly developed industrially and the railways are maintained by industrial products. By using the roads in feeding the railways industrial products are carried by the various motors, and so on. Here we deal solely with trade brought from England. We are told there is to be a big transport war, and we believe there will be belligerents and neutrals. Who are the neutrals? They are the people whose territory is being invaded by this great trust—the people of the country who are paying for these roads. If you set up a new Ministry to make transport efficient, is it likely that they will be as anxious for the safety of what you call the neutral on the road as a body like the Local Government Board, which for years has been dealing with roads and trying to arrive at a just method by which taxation could be secured?
Is it likely that a new body would be more efficient in the way of arranging proper taxation on the roads than the Local Government Department? I think not. I think it is only by wise counsel, deep thought, and by careful attention to the opinion of the various authorities concerned in the administration of the roads that the solution will be arrived at which will prevent a war such as Senator O'Farrell believes is imminent. I certainly agree it is unjust that railways should contribute big sums, as Senator Toal said, £2,000 in his county. That would mean £80,000 or £100,000 in rates in the entire State. It is unjust they should be mulcted in those charges, and that those who are fulfilling those services the railways were designed to fulfil should be allowed to do that and not be asked to bear the necessary burden. As to the question of dangers to the public, will these dangers be prevented by a Ministry of Transport, whose sole object is to make transport efficient, and which will not be concerned with the rights and amenities of individuals on public highways? Personally, I feel that even the Local Government Department has neglected the amenities of the public on highways? I read in the newspapers the other day that a young lady riding on a bicycle near the city was ridden down by one of these buses. I do not know if she was killed, but certainly she was badly injured. The evidence showed that she was allowed by this monster on the public highway only three feet. That any citizen of the Saorstát should be allowed only three feet between the curb and a bus is to my mind monstrous. Individuals have great privileges on roads. The Highway Act conferred many privileges, and gave the means by which one may gain the perfection of one's rights. The whole question is so bristling with difficulties, and at the same time I think the rights of individuals are so safeguarded it is better there should be an inquiry whereby all the Departments dealing with transport—the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, the Local Government Department and the Ministry of Justice, as suggested, though I am not quite sure how it comes into it— would co-operate. I think the discussion adumbrated by Senator Bagwell will be fruitful. The course to be adopted is not to appoint a new Ministry. These are times of economy, but for my part I do not think that economy, as commonly understood, should be allowed to stand in the way of efficiency. I think, however, the establishment of a new Ministry would not make for the benefit of the body politic.
I have had an opportunity of speaking with Senator O'Farrell with reference to a suggestion I had thrown out. If the House would accept an amendment on these lines. I think agreement would be found:
"That the Seanad is of opinion that the co-ordination and regulation of all branches of inland transport, and all other matters relating thereto, is urgent and demands urgent consideration by the Executive Council."
That eliminates the words in Senator O'Farrell's motion relating to the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Transport.
CATHAOIRLEACH
And leave out "all other matters relating thereto." They are not necessary. All you want is "regulation and co-ordination of all branches of inland transport." The other matter has no sense. You cannot co-ordinate, but you can regulate all other matters. You cover everything by the "regulation and co-ordination."
Of all other matters relating to transport.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You could not co-ordinate all other matters. You can co-ordinate inland transport. Does not that cover the whole question?
It does, except the question of roads.
CATHAOIRLEACH
Surely that would come under "regulation."
It might by assumption.
CATHAOIRLEACH
You do not strengthen it by these words.
They do not weaken it.
CATHAOIRLEACH
They do not weaken it, but they make an absurdity of it.
Is it not possible that before those speaking have agreed someone else will have made a further proposal?
CATHAOIRLEACH
That is very likely. We must get them agreed. I think we are getting on very well. I have seen Senator Bagwell's amendment and I cannot allow the Senator to put it in that form. It is highly argumentative, and there is an elaborate preface and neither of these am I inclined to allow. If Senator O'Farrell would accept Senator Brady's suggestion, then the two Senators would be in accord, for the resolution then is confined simply to calling the attention of the Government to the necessity for regulating and co-ordinating inland transport. That does not commit you or suggest any resolution. I do not think that will hurt anybody.
It seems to me that the principal object of a number of the speakers was to provide some kind of agreement. I think it is not particularly dignified for the Seanad on the first day of the debate, which is by agreement to last two days, to spend a considerable amount of time trying to arrive at a resolution which will be accepted by the proposer of the motion and by everybody else. We are now trying to evolve a resolution which will hurt nobody before we have even heard the Minister. I think that is not the most dignified or the wisest way of dealing with this problem. Personally I have an open mind as to whether it would be desirable to form a separate Ministry dealing with transport. I think I will be against it, but, as I have said, I have an open mind on the question, and I have also an open mind as to the possibility or desirability of forming a department dealing with the subject under one of the existing Ministries. No one has so far given us facts. I do not know how much has been done by the present Government. I know they have certain powers, and I know that the bulk of the matters that have come before us in the discussion are dealt with by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. There was a tendency in the earlier speeches to suggest that Northern Ireland were using their powers to do a great deal, and that nothing was being done here. I am satisfied that is not the state of affairs. I am satisfied that certain powers are exercised by the Minister. I would not like it to go out, especially in the absence of the Minister, that nothing has been done. I would like to emphasise the main part of Senator Bagwell's speech. Like him, I am old-fashioned enough to believe that a great deal of progress will be through competition, but when the competition involves national waste, as it does in a question of transport, it is a case for the State to step in. We will probably disagree as to what exact steps should be taken.
It seems to me to be obvious that, in view of the fact that it is a problem in Northern Ireland, in England and in France, the existing powers are not sufficient to deal with the problem. Senator Bagwell suggested we should start fair. You cannot do so. Existing regulations, in the main, were framed to deal with railways. The present bus system is a subsidised industry as against the railways. The State provides probably 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the cost of its permanent way. If it were to be asked to provide a similar proportion for the railways, and if we compared the two together, we should then know which class of traffic is most economical. I am speaking from the national point of view. Senator Bagwell suggested that railways are best fitted for carrying heavy traffic. That is a generally accepted view. One railwayman told me that passenger traffic in five years would all go on the roads; and another told me that people would go back to trains for long distances. A country which wants capital for industry cannot afford capital for roads where there are trains running long distances, from Dublin to Belfast, Cork, or Limerick, in competition with the buses, especially as the train can carry many more passengers. Senator Bagwell suggested that an inquiry might lead to higher taxation on the buses, so that they would bear their share of the rates. That does not seem as simple as it sounds. As pointed out by Senators, in districts not adequately fed by the railways, buses may prove a godsend, notwithstanding the people may get fashions from the larger districts. I do not consider that you can solve the problem simply by putting heavy taxation on the buses It will be those who are able to compete with the railways that can bear the taxation, while the buses serving the smaller areas of population will not be able to do so, and you will find yourself, from the national point of view, where you were. I hope the House will not definitely make up its mind as to the exact steps that should be taken, until we have heard from the Minister some information as to what steps are being taken to deal with the problem. We agree that there is foolish competition on the roads. I have been on a holiday in the South of France, and I have found that you could get quite as much excitement there as on the Bray road, and there was as much chance of getting an accident. I imagine the problem is an international one.
CATHAOIRLEACH
To put this in order, I ask if the House is prepared to give permission to Senator O'Farrell to amend the terms of his motion so that it will read:
"That the Seanad is of opinion that the question of the regulation and co-ordination of all branches of inland transport is urgent and demands the earliest consideration of the Executive Council."
Agreed.
CATHAOIRLEACH
I do not think anyone proposes or suggests we should come to a vote on that. Let us know the common grounds we are discussing, and then when we adjourn all this will be before the Minister. When we have heard his statement we can draft another, or change the motion into any form we think fit. If that is the view of the House it might be well to close the present discussion now.
The Seanad adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 o'clock Wednesday, 30th November.