I desire to say that I am going to oppose this Bill, because I think the powers given in it under Clause 3 are a hindrance to the development of the trade and commerce of this country, and anything that is a hindrance to the development of the trade and commerce of the country adversely affects employment. If the powers under Clause 3 are extended to 31st December, they will increase, rather than decrease, the number of unemployed in the country. The powers asked for under this Clause state that it shall be lawful "for each of the several Canal Undertakings specified in the First Column of the Third Schedule to this Act to continue for so long as this section remains in force to charge the several rates, fares, tolls, dues and other charges which were respectively directed by the Orders specified in the Second Column of the said Third Schedule to be charged by such Undertakings respectively."
I contend that any inquiry such as that promised by the Minister must naturally confine itself and its recommendations to matters connected with the Dublin Tramway Co., and has no power whatever to revise, or to deal with, the rates of canal companies. Canal rates, especially where canal companies act as carrying companies, have private agreements with railway companies. In many cases these canal companies are owned and controlled by railway companies, and therefore any increased or decreased rates fixed by canal companies are generally the outcome of conferences dominated by railway directors. I contend that, so far as the railway rates now in operation in the Free State area are concerned, they will always be a guide to the canal companies which are under the control, and in some cases owned by, the railway companies. So far as any reduction of rates is concerned, the high railway rates and charges at present in operation were authorised at a time when the cost of labour and materials was much higher than it is at present. Railway and canal companies have always contended, so far as the public is concerned, that any reduction in wages, or in the cost of materials, would be followed by a decrease in railway and canal rates and fares. That has not been the case in the Free State area. In the case of the railway companies, the wages of their employees, taken on an average, have been reduced by £1 per week, while the reduction has been something less in the case of canal companies' employees.
I want to know from the Minister, who asks us to give an extended period for the increased rates, on what grounds such an increase has been justified? I have had reason to think, from the knowledge I have gained, particularly within the last couple of days, that there is a move on, so far as the Northern Railway Companies and the British Railway Companies who act as carrying companies to Free State ports, are concerned, to place the traders of the Free State at a disadvantage in regard to rates and charges. The railway rates generally in the Free State are, at the present time, 150 per cent. above the pre-war figure. The railway rates for carrying companies to Free State ports from British ports are 75 per cent. above pre-war rates. The railway rates for certain classes of agricultural produce within and around the border of the Six County area are 100 per cent. over pre-war rates. Therefore, that is giving a decided advantage to the people who wish to import goods either from Great Britain or the Six Counties into the Free State, so far as the selling prices of their goods are concerned. I contend that the influence of the State under the present administration, or under any administration that may succeed it, especially in foreign lands, through the League of Nations or any other association of world powers with which it is associated, will depend on its ability to maintain its position in the British and world markets, and not upon the sentimental influences of its citizens in foreign countries, such as prevailed in the past. I urge that powers of this kind, given without satisfying ourselves that there is a necessity for extension of such powers will put a chain around our own necks, and destroy trade and commerce in the Free State area. It was possible, previous to the Treaty, to revise rates and freight charges so far as railway and canal companies were concerned, by the bodies affected making an appeal to the Rates Tribunal, which has now ceased to exist. If such a Rates Tribunal were in existence, I could see a means by which a Clause such as No. 3 could be modified.
I am not satisfied that any inquiry such as that promised by the Minister here, especially regarding tramways, is going to deal with the situation we are confronted with in regard to canals and railways. It seems to be the policy of the Canal and Railway Companies, especially since the Treaty was signed, to cut down, as far as possible, running expenses and to maintain, and where possible increase, dividends, and particularly and significantly to add whatever they can to the reserve funds of the Companies. That is in anticipation of some declaration of policy on the part of the Government as to how it intends to deal with the transport services of the country. By postponing a declaration of Government policy regarding the future of such services, you are hindering instead of helping the trade and commerce of the Free State. The Government should, at the earliest possible moment, make a declaration of its policy regarding the future of such an undertaking. Taking the Canal Company as an example, I have gone to a lot of trouble looking through their balance sheets. I find that in 1919 their reserve fund stood at £60,000. In 1920 it was increased by £2,000, and in 1921 it was increased by £40,000. The Railway Companies are in the same position. Huge reserve funds such as those should not be added to. The undertakings should, in the ordinary course of events, give the benefit of such profits to the trading community and to the development of commerce within the area. While they have those powers, and while there is no body in existence to revise the rates now in operation—and they will be allowed to remain in operation until 31st December —there is no possible chance of these Companies doing anything different to what they have done since they got the power in September, 1920. The Grand Canal Co. has an understanding with the G.S.W.R. Co.; by the way, some of the Directors of the Canal Company are also Directors of the Railway Company. They have an agreement in operation that they will take traffic according to arrangement at certain contract points so far as the canal and railways are concerned. The Canal Company shows in its balance sheet for 1921 a figure of £13,333 representing deferred maintenance. That was a sum voted by the British Government out of the Irish taxpayers' or traders' pockets for the purpose of building new boats or putting their boats in a proper and satisfactory condition. That amount still remains in the balance sheet of the Grand Canal Co. In that year also they show £38,500 as money on deposit and on loan. Seeing that the Directors of this particular company are the men who run the Dublin Stock Exchange, I cannot understand why they would leave £38,500 on deposit at 1½ per cent. while there was a possibility of having a little flutter and securing a better rate of interest. Some of those very people have advised the Irish people to have nothing to do with internal loans. Now you see what you are faced with. I do not wish to worry the Dáil by going at any considerable length into figures, but on looking at the 1921 balance sheet of the Grand Canal Co., I think any Deputy will find it very hard to discover what amounts have been set aside under different headings. For Accident Insurance and Contingency funds in 1920 the amount was £5,337; in 1921 the amount was increased to £27,552, so that all the available Contingency and Reserve funds of the Canal Co. had a considerable increase in every direction. Seeing the reserve funds have been added to to that extent, I contend that the Minister is not justified in giving powers such as are in Clause 3, enabling the canal companies to carry on at the same rates as heretofore when labour and the cost of materials were at their highest points.
I notice also in the balance sheet for 1921 £759 representing unclaimed dividends. These must be very conscientious people to leave their money with the Canal Company unclaimed. Possibly they may devote it at a later stage to some charitable fund with which the Government may be connected. There is another aspect of Canal Control which I think it is desirable I should draw attention to. The Grand Canal Company, as a carrying company, has the same number of boats plying on the Grand Canal as what are known as the bye-traders, yet the bye-traders, who use on the canal only half the number of boats, have to pay actually up to 80 per cent. of the cost of maintenance. I notice Deputy Gorey looking at me very curiously with regard to that, but, I think if he examines the balance sheet of this Company, he will find I am correct. There is another aspect to which it is necessary to draw attention, and that is that 52 per cent. of all the traffic carried over the canals consists of agricultural produce, and that was one reason why I thought Deputy Gorey and his colleagues in the Dáil should take a greater interest in matters of this kind than such a person as myself.