With regard to the consideration of this Bill in Committee the Definition Section is Section 1, and a number of amendments have been put down to Section 1, which aim at altering the Bill in the Definition Section to bring it into harmony with amendments which Deputies hope to carry to other sections. I suggest that a discussion on the Definition Section would not be as satisfactory to the Deputies themselves as a discussion on the suitable sections of the Bill proper, and, therefore, that Section 1 should be left over, and that we should take the amendments to the later sections. For example, that Amendment 1 to Section 1 by Deputy Hewat should be deferred, but that amendment 11 to Section 2, by Deputy Hewat, on the same thing should be taken first. That applies, I think, equally to an amendment by Deputy Good, and an amendment by Deputy Redmond. The Definition Section could be taken later, and would not be a matter of contention once we had decided upon the Bill itself. If that is agreed, we could begin at Section 2. Does Deputy Hewat agree to that?
DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - RAILWAYS BILL, 1924—THIRD STAGE.
Yes.
SECTION 2.
(1) With a view to the reorganisation and more efficient and economical working of the railway system of Saorstát Eireann, the amalgamated company shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of this Act by the amalgamation of the companies set out in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act, and by the absorption of the companies set out in the second column of that Schedule.
(2) For the purposes of this Act the Arigna Colliery Extension Railway, the Athy-Wolfhill Colliery Railway, and the Castlecomer Railway shall on the 1st day of January, 1925, or such earlier or later date as the railway tribunal after consultation with the Minister may fix, be absorbed by the amalgamated company on terms to be agreed with the owners of those railways or in default of such agreement, on terms to be decided by the railway tribunal.
I move—
To delete sub-section (1) and to substitute therefor the following sub-section:—
(1) With a view to the reorganisation and more efficient advantageous and economical working of the railway system of Saorstát Eireann two amalgamated companies shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of this Act by a division of the companies mentioned in the first column of the said First Schedule to the Act into two separate amalgamated groups as follows:—
Group 1 to consist of an amalgamation of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company (including the Geashill Extension separate undertaking) with the Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway Company (including the Bantry Bay Extension), absorbing in the said Group 1 the following other companies (specified in the second column of the said First Schedule), viz., the Ballinascarthy and Timoleague Junction Light Railway Company, the Baltimore Extension Railway Company. Limited, the Bantry Extension Railway Company, the Clonakilty Extension Railway Company, the Cork, Blackrock and Passage Railway Company, the Cork and Macroom Direct Railway Company, the Cork and Muskerry Light Railway Company, Limited, the Donoughmore Extension Light Railway Company, Limited, the Schull and Skibbereen Tramway and Light Railway Company, Limited (West Carbery Tramways and Light Railways Company, Limited), the South Clare Railways Company, Limited, the Southern Railway Company, the Timoleague and Courtmacsherry Extension Light Railway Company, the Tralee and Dingle Light Railway Company, Limited, the Tralee and Fenit Railway Company, the Waterford and Tramore Railway Company, and the West Clare Railway Company, Limited.
Group 2 to consist of an amalgamation of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland with the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company (including the City of Dublin Junction Railways and New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways), absorbing in the said Group 2 the following other railways (specified in the second column of the said First Schedule), viz.: The Athenry and Tuam Extension to Claremorris Railway Company, Limited, the Ballinrobe and Claremorris Light Railway Company, Limited, the Cavan and Leitrim Railway Company, Limited, the Dublin and Kingstown Railway Company, and the Loughrea and Attymon Light Railway Company, Limited.
The Government's proposal is that there should be a unification or partial unification of the railways within the Saorstát, and I think the principles were largely discussed on the Second Reading. By the way, I do not know whether there is a time limit in connection with this.
The rule in Committee is that Deputies can make three speeches and are confined to ten minutes in each speech, but the mover of an amendment is not confined to ten minutes.
Thanks. I was afraid I might be expected to say all I had to say within ten minutes. I have before me a map of the railways of Ireland as a whole. The railway system of Ireland as a whole, as regards the trunk lines, comprises four companies—the Great Northern, the Great Southern and Western, the Midland Great Western, and the Dublin South Eastern. It is proposed by this Bill to compel an amalgamation of the Great Southern and Western, the Dublin South Eastern and the Midland Great Western, together with various baronially-guaranteed lines and other small lines. The Great Northern Railway, running from Dublin to Belfast and the North of IreLand, has its main line running along the east coast. It, however, radiates towards the west, and in doing so comes into touch with the west of Ireland and the Midland Great Western system. But the main line running from Belfast comes down to Dublin. The Dublin South Eastern Railway is practically a continuation of that route. It runs from Dublin south to Waterford and Wexford, and the two combined, as far as the main line is concerned, make a complete exploration of the east coast of Ireland, and serve all the ports in that area. The Midland Great Western is entirely a westward line. The Great Southern and Western Railway practically covers the biggest area of the south of Ireland. Now, the proposal is that the Midland Great Western Railway and Dublin South Eastern Railway should be absorbed in an amalgamation in which the Great Southern and Western Railway is the biggest factor—in other words, that the Great Southern and Western Railway, like an octopus, is going to dominate not only the area in which they have at present control, but the districts covered by the other two railways as well. The proposals in this Bill for the unification of these railways are put forward as a national proposition to deal with a state of affairs which the President, in his speech proposing the Bill for the Second Reading, largely dealt with. Now I rather gather that the idea is for one tribunal to have control of all the railways within the Saorstát. Our proposal in connection with the amendment is that they should be formed into two groups. I am not going to speak in any very enthusiastic terms of the proposal contained in the amendment. All that I am going to say about it is that, at all events from the standpoint of the business people, it would be less harmful than the original proposition in the Bill. In our opinion, the grouping of the Midland Great Western Railway with the Dublin South Eastern Railway is not a satisfactory proposition, unless you bring in the Great Northern line. At the present time, as we all know, there are difficulties in connection with the Great Northern Railway, but for that very reason this pressing forward of the Bill, as it stands, seems to us unwarranted.
The Great Northern Railway, as compared with the other trunk railways, has perhaps been the most alive of any of the railways to the needs of the area which it serves. In saying that, I do not want for a moment to disparage the other lines. But I do say that the Great Northern Railway has seen the needs of the district which it serves, and before the war was the most financially successful, perhaps, considering its mileage, and had from a business point of view, pushed its business opportunities to the utmost. When I deal with the Midland Great Western Railway, I must not be taken as passing any strictures on the present management or the immediate past management. But in the past the Great Northern Railway keenly competed for the trade in the Midlands of Ireland. What the position under the new order of things is going to be, I do not know. At all events, as we have it to-day, we have one of the main lines, one of the strongest main lines operating in the South and West of Ireland—more particularly in the West—with an increased charge over pre-war rates of 75 per cent., as against the companies with which this Bill is dealing, with an increase of 120 per cent. to 130 per cent. As a business man, representative of Dublin business interests, I must look with grave apprehension on such a state of affairs. The Great Northern Railway in the past has not been a friend of Dublin. The Great Northern Railway in its ramifications has drawn as much traffic as it possibly could from the area served by the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland out of the Dublin area. Looking at the matter from the point of view of Dublin, the situation that is going to be created by the passing of this Bill is not a very happy position as far as the traders in the area are concerned. That is the foundation of the amendment that stands in my name to Clause 2.
Although there have been a large number of amendments tabled to this Bill. I think the Dáil will agree that the fundamental principles of the opposition to the Bill are really embodied in this amendment. I do maintain that the case of urgency for this measure has not been very well sustained by the President in his statement. I do not think that there has been any particular case made for the attitude the Government has taken up in connection with this Bill, in pushing it forward, and pushing it forward in a way that leaves me and many others in a very awkward position.
The President says to this House: "Here is the Bill. I stand by the Bill or I fall by the Bill." I cannot feel very happy in the atmosphere created by that statement. I do not want to criticise the Bill as an individual resisting the will of the head of the Government or our Executive Council. But, on the other hand, the Executive Council cannot expect me to endorse the President's statement that the business men who feel that due consideration is necessary before the Bill is put through, are talking bosh. Perhaps we are talking bosh. We often do. At all events, I would ask this Dáil to try and change the atmosphere and look at it from the public point of view. What advantage is going to be obtained by any section of the public from the passing of this Bill? I say none. I say you are going to set up a bureaucratic control. True, the President says: "We are creating a monopoly, but the public have to be safeguarded. We are going to set up a tribunal. We are going in various ways to protect the public." Well, I have been connected with some tribunals. I have sat for weeks on end on tribunals, and all I can say, as regards tribunals, is that I hope to God no tribunal will ever enter into the administration of my business. Are the railways a business proposition, or are they not? If they are not a business proposition well and good. Let the Government take them over and do what they like with them. But if they are a business proposition to be run on business lines, I say the less interference by the Government in the administration of the railways, consistent with their duty to the public, the better for the railways and the better, I think, for the public.
It has been pointed out, and rightly, that the English people found that there was wasteful competition by the mass of railways working into the same places. If the analogy could be sustained as to the methods adopted by Great Britain or as to the situation as they found it, as far as I am concerned I would not be in any way in opposition to proposals such as these. But with sparsely populated districts such as our railways cover, I claim that no case has been made out for dealing with our railway problem in this way. If the railways themselves saw a great advantage or the chance of better administration, it was open to them to come to the Dáil or go to the Government. They have not done that. The intervention of the Government in this matter, I think, is forcing on them, at all events on some of them, action which they do not consider is justified. The Government may say that this is not Government control of the railways. I venture to differ with them. I think on the lines of the Bill it only needs a very short time until bureaucratic control will operate on our railways to such an extent that the Government themselves in self-defence will have to take them over altogether.
From that point of view of course many people, and some members of this House, will say that is all to the good. That is in favour of the Bill. I make them a present of that. But one thing I do say is this, that the people as a whole should have an opportunity of expressing their views in a matter of such importance to them. After all, we are supposed to be a democratic country, and if they say so, well and good. What is the basis of the complaint against the railways at the present time? The particular complaint I have heard, and it is a very insistent and a very strong complaint, is that the rates being charged are far too high. If that is the object of the Bill— to reduce the rates that are going to operate in this country—it would be a strong argument in favour of the Bill. But even the most enthusiastic supporter, and even the President himself, I think, disclaims any idea that this amalgamation is going to result in lower rates. What is the chance for-lower rates? The argument is put forward that the cost of administration jointly would be less than the individual cost.
In some ways I say yes, possibly. Anything that is saved in that way will not be of any very considerable importance, but what are you going to lose, so far as the expenditure is concerned? I think you are going to lose the intimate personal effort on the part of each railway to keep down costs and working expenses and to run their lines on the best possible methods they can. But, let us face the alternative. What about increasing the rates? You are going to surround the railways with tribunals, courts of appeal, and so on. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is going to put in a claim, if he loses anything on the railways, and is going to go before that tribunal. That will be very pleasant and nice entertainment to keep the tribunal busy. But what, I ask, is it going to cost? I happened to waste all last week and part of this week sitting on a tribunal that had reference to the railways.
There is no provision for a tribunal in the amendment at all.
Yes, but am I not in a position to take the Bill as a whole? There is a section in the Bill dealing with the setting up of tribunals.
The Deputy's amendment proposes an amalgamation scheme of two groups as against the amalgamation scheme proposed under Section 2. The tribunal will come later on.
Yes, but many of the amendments will have been wiped out in the meantime. On the main question. I think I was dealing with the saving of rates, and perhaps was speaking against my own amendment. I might not be out of order in doing that either.
Not strictly.
I take it that I am in order in saying that the amalgamation proposed by the Bill itself will raise costs. As an instance of that, I may say that it came within my own knowledge, owing to certain circumstances, that a very considerable reduction is at present allowed to baronially guaranteed railways in the way of remission of wages to the extent. I understand, of 10 per cent. If this Bill becomes operative that reduction will disappear at once, but I make a present of that to the President.
Are you disposing of it in your amendment?
I am putting it forward as an argument in your favour. I think it was said at a meeting of the Port and Docks Board, at which I was not present, that there were a large number of amendments to this Bill. Some member of the Board. I cannot recall his name, remarked that each amendment would take three hours in the Dáil.
A DEPUTY
Three days was the remark that was made.
That is a much longer period than I thought was mentioned. I would like to make it clear to the Dáil that in the amendments I am putting forward and for which I am responsible, so far as having my name attached to them is concerned. I do not want to import, and will not import, any suggestion that they are there for the purpose of obstruction. I will not occupy any time in dealing with them beyond what is absolutely necessary. The amendments I am responsible for are not put forward with any idea of obstruction as far as I am concerned. If it is the will of the Dáil that this Bill should become law. I think so far as I am concerned. I will have discharged my obligations by endeavouring to point out that the Bill is harmful as it stands. That is the object of my amendment. As a whole, therefore, while I do not claim that this particular amendment is the best possible solution of the railway problem, I do say if it is considered that some action should, or must or can be taken in connection with the railway situation, that the proposal contained in my amendment to Section 2 will be a better proposal than that contained in the original section. It, at all events, leaves us in the situation that when the position of the Great Northern Railway within the Saorstát area is determined, there will be an opportunity for further expansion by taking the Great Northern into the group that is now left free of the octuple group. It will leave us an opportunity of dealing with the situation which will then arise in a much more satisfactory way than can be done at present. On the other hand, I would suggest to the Government—of course, they will not accept the suggestion—but I suggest to the Government that they should withdraw the Bill or withdraw the operation of it until such time as the general atmosphere is more favourable for dealing with the railway situation as a whole.
Now, we said something about competition. The answer was "Nonsense, there is no competition." The railway companies themselves say "Nonsense, there is no competition." I ask is that so? The railway managers meet together and make rates. I do not know whether any Deputy in the Dáil has ever been at a railway conference, but if he was and was a student of human nature I think he would have followed the differences of opinion amongst the railway management at these conferences, and a good deal of wire-pulling and various other actions in favour of securing traffic. The most important thing that we say is that we want to be secured in alternative routes so that a certain amount of judgment can be exercised as to which route will operate most favourably for the trader. In connection with that do not make any mistake. Where the rates are the same to two places or to one place you will find that one or other company will get a preponderance of the traffic for very good reasons which are apparent at all events to the traders if they are not apparent to you. This non-competition stunt that only operated during the time of control and has been carried on perhaps into the time that we are in at present, is not going to last, if the companies are let alone. We will have competition which may not be for the good of the railways, perhaps. Perhaps this Bill is put down for the benefit of the railways. I do not know, but I beg to assure the President and the Dáil that we will have competition, and make no mistake about it. I referred to the fact that the railwaymen meet in conference and in congress. So do the Labour men. You are all familiar with the fact that we have Labour congresses. Does Deputy Johnson think or know that there are no opposing elements in these Labour congresses, although on the surface they are very much of a body? I think after all that both these questions are human questions.
I never met a body of men in trade that you could hold together without competition, but perhaps under the new order of things in Ireland and the new era that we are entering on we are all going to work together in brotherly love. I say that if the Railway Bill is going to bring about such a situation it is well worth the cost, but if it is not going to do that then what is it going to do? The proposal is to amalgamate the railways within this area. You propose to put them in a position in which they have not been in before. You propose to put them in an autocratic position which, in my judgment, is not healthy. I would ask you not to make any mistake about it, that the railway system in this country has to be influenced by the cross-Channel traffic. A lot of the competition that we get originates from the other side of the water, or it originates here in connection with the other side of the water. If this group is formed you are going to be in a position to tell the people at the other side which way they are to send their goods. You are going to tell the L.M. and S. to clear out, and that you are going to send our traffic around by Rosslare, and that they must clear out of the job. You are going to send the Great Western down to Cork, and you are going to say to the L.M. and S. you are not going to touch here.
This proposition opens up vistas and possibilities that I hope the general discussion on the other amendments to the Bill will fully reveal. I hope that the Dáil, before the discussion is over, will have a full conception of what the Bill means. If, after that, and in their wisdom they decide that this Bill is going to do anything for this country, I am satisfied; but I ask you all to be sure of what you are going to do. I am sure there is no use in my talking, because the Executive Council will say to the lambs on their own benches: "You must vote for this Bill." If that is so I am only wasting my time in putting forward arguments here.
The lamb's tail is going to rebel this time.
I hope that the Executive will not take up that attitude, and I hope that some of the business men on the Government benches will ask that the whole proposition be considered in the business interests of the country. If they do I would ask them to go with their cap in hand to the President and say: "May I vote in favour of this amendment?" On these lines possibly we may get a majority on this side of the House. If I might appeal to the Government I would say: "This is a very important matter for every man, woman and child in the country, and it is a matter on which the people have a right to be educated." I suggest to the President that the Bill be dealt with on its merits. I ask him not to take up the attitude that because we do not agree with him or with his advisers on this matter that we are out to break him. God forbid that I should be out to break the President. I am not here for that purpose, and I am sure, if I tried, I would have very little chance of doing it. This Bill clearly claims to be a business Bill. It is not a political Bill, and if it is a political Bill let us know why politics should operate in this particular way. If it is not a political Bill, I ask to have it treated as a business Bill. Let it be put to the free vote of the Dáil and let it stand or fall by the decision of the majority.
The amendment is: "To delete sub-section (1) and to substitute therefor the following sub-section:—
(1) With a view to the re-organisation and more efficient, advantageous and economical working of the railway system of Saorstát Eireann two amalgamated companies shall be formed in accordance with the provisions of this Act by a division of the companies mentioned in the first column of the said First Schedule to the Act into two separate amalgamated groups."
I want the discussion to be on whether this amendment which is to create two groups is preferable to the provisions of the section itself, and I do not want Deputies to follow Deputy Hewat into the principle of the Bill.
I apologise.
Mr. EGAN
As one of the lambs led to the slaughter by the President as referred to by Deputy Hewat, I would like to make a few observations on this Bill. You, A Chinn Comhairle, have very appropriately pointed out that the substance of Deputy Hewat's amendment is to appoint or to create two groups of amalgamated railways in the Saorstát, instead of one, as is contemplated by the Bill in its present form. I listened very carefully to all that Deputy Hewat had to say, and I must confess that he gave us very little reason at all, or at least very few reasons, and certainly to me no convincing reasons, as to why we would be any better off by having two groups instead of one. He had rather a roving commission, and he touched on a great many aspects of a general Railway Bill. He produced a map, and let me say that I am rather sorry he did not make a little more use of that map and study it a little more closely. In the short time at my disposal I propose to devote the few words I have to say to the question of competition. In the general discussion on the Second Reading of the Bill Deputy Good also made many references to this question of competition and he looked pathetically in my direction and mentioned the town of Tullamore. He seemed to suggest that I, as a business man, would support or confirm him in the view that there was no serious railway competition in Ireland. I have been close on thirty years in business in Ireland, and I have been connected with a great many business concerns, and I have no hesitation whatever in stating that I have never yet experienced the benefits of railway competition in Ireland. The man in the street when he hears business men differing with one another, as professors and doctors sometimes do, is naturally in a bit of a quandary to know who is right. I say to any person with an unbiased or open mind on this question to take the map which is now in Deputy Hewat's hands and to study it, and then ask himself where the possibility of competition exists.
The plain fact of the matter is that if you want to go from any one town in Ireland to any other, or if you want to send goods or agricultural produce from one part of Ireland to another, you have one line by which to do so, and only one, in most cases. You may shut your eyes, put that map in front of you, put your hand down at random on any town, and see if you can go by a second way to any other town and you will find you cannot. Deputy Redmond in this connection mentioned some time ago the town of Waterford, the one possible bright spot that might suggest competition. I would like to ask Deputy Redmond can he give any definite facts to show that competition does really exist there. It is quite true that there may be a theoretical competition owing to the presence of two railways, but everyone knows what happened on such occasions. Whenever two large interests are placed in close contact there may be a certain amount of hostility to one another to begin with, but very soon they come to realise that their mutual interests lie in a friendly feeling existing between them. A friendly feeling accordingly grows, and ultimately, of course, as in the case of very many other business combinations, a friendly agreement and a working arrangement is arrived at. The Dublin South Eastern possessed running powers over parts of the Great Southern and Western for many years, but they never found it convenient to work them, and where is the competition? After all, you have to consider, in discussing competition, the main feature of the railway situation in Ireland. You have the Great Northern Railway running north and serving one area; you have the Midland running over the west and serving an utterly different area; you have the Great Southern running through the Midland and South and serving still another, with its various feeders, and you have the Dublin South Eastern serving another part and, to a very small extent, some of the areas covered by the Great Southern. So that for all real practical purposes such a thing as competition does not exist in Ireland in so far as 999 tons of goods out of a thousand that are carried are concerned.
Why amalgamate at all, then?
Mr. EGAN
Well, there are various other advantages suggested in amalgamation, but I am endeavouring, unlike Deputy Hewat, to stick to the amendment which is immediately before the Dáil, and I have fasterned on the one point that he tried to make a certain amount of in his speech, and that is the question of competition that, I maintain, does not exist. I would really like to know a little more as to how he considers that these two groups would be any improvement over one group. In the course of his early observations he said that the rates on the Great Northern Railway were seventy-five per cent. higher than pre-war, and that the rates on the railways of the Saorstát are 125 per cent. above pre-war, and then I think he went on to indicate that that would mean that a good deal of traffic would be drawn out of certain parts of the West of Ireland presumably towards the port of Belfast. If it is the case—and I do not admit for a moment definitely that it is the case— that any appreciable proportion of this traffic from the West is being diverted from the port of Dublin to Belfast, that may be a bad thing for the port of Dublin possibly, but is it a bad thing for the people whose traffic it handled more cheaply? After all, although I have every consideration for the chief port of Ireland and for the capital city, of which I am very proud, still in discussing such a national question as railways you cannot take individual ports such as Dublin, Waterford, or any others. You have to visualise the railway and economic policy of the country as a whole. Deputy Hewat told us that he had no enthusiasm for the amendment. It is not creating any amount of conviction in the minds of those listening to him to introduce the amendment in that way, and I certainly do hope that at a further stage he will develop that a little more. I want to refer to another thing that Deputy Hewat said. He indicated that this whole question of dealing with railway policy could well be left over to a later time. I do not believe in that policy of do nothing. It seems to me to be a policy of drift. It is not the sort of policy I would venture to say that Deputy Hewat himself put into force when he started his business career. He did not go into his office, thump his table, and say: "Every day I am getting better and better, my business is growing better and better, and I am getting better off." He faced his difficulties, handled the situation, and did not allow things to drift, and I maintain that in such an important matter as this, the whole matter of the railways in relation to the economic condition of the country, no Irish government worthy of the name could possibly allow this problem to remain untouched. Numerous railway commissions have been appointed in years past to deal with railway grievances; and it is quite clear that something must be done to try to improve the conditions of business and economic conditions generally, in so far as that can be done by the alteration of the railway systems. I do not think that up to this Deputy Hewat has made any case, either in favour of his amendment or against the Bill generally.
Any more than Deputy Hewat, I am not very much enamoured of this Bill, but I agree with Deputy Egan when he said that we cannot wait any longer. The position at present in regard to the railway system is very deplorable so far as the agricultural community and, in fact, all classes of the community are concerned. As regards the amendment, if we had unity in Ireland I would be in favour of grouping as against unification, but as things stand at present, and owing to the fact that we have had, no matter what anybody says, no competition in recent years on the lines it is now proposed to group. I do not think that the present Bill will do any harm. Unlike Deputy Egan, I have had experience of competition between the different railways, and I will give the Dáil what I saw with my own two eyes in the West of Ireland regarding the competition that existed between the Great Southern and Western and the Midland railways. Before the Midland ever got running powers into Limerick, the Great Southern and Western, the Great Northern, and the Midland Great Western had canvassers in every fair and every town, pulling the coat-tails of people. Twenty-five years ago the Midland got running powers into Limerick and the competition became more acute between the Great Southern and Western and the Midland, especially in places where they are in opposition, such as Athlone, Clara, Collooney, Claremorris, and Tuam, and these were attended by canvassers on behalf of the railways, and also on behalf of the shipping companies. After a time the railway companies saw that this competition was not paying. They ceased to compete and started to pool the traffic in these various centres. As soon as they had done that they could do, and they are doing, what they like with the public. We have had no through rates since 1913 until recently. Up to 1913 we had through rates via the port of Dublin, and other ports. I must say that the Great Northern are at present the only people putting up any competition, and it is true, as Deputy Hewat has said, that the Great Northern have reduced their rates to 75 per cent. over pre-war rates. Recently they have reduced the wagon about 30/- from Dublin to Belfast. Similar reductions have taken place down as far as Newry, and all stations north.
We are paying from 120 per cent. to 130 per cent. over pre-war rates. I wish Deputies and the Government would realise the position we are in in competing against Continental countries with our produce from this a purely agricultural country. We have had within the past few years grouping in England. Immediately after the grouping the first thing the public in England did was to go to the railway companies and say, "We want an immediate reduction; we cannot wait for the Report of the Railway Rates Tribunal to fix the rates. We want an immediate reduction in rates." And they got an immediate reduction of 25 per cent. On the 1st May last year they got a reduction of £9,000,000 a year. It has cost them £44,000,000 as a consequence of this reduction in railway rates and dock dues since the war. Here we are in the same boat we were in when we were getting high prices for our cattle, pigs, and all produce. We are paying these excessive rates. Take the position of a farmer to-day. He was getting £11 10s. per cwt. for his pigs, when control ceased. He was geting these carried on the Irish railways at the rates that then existed. He is getting £3 16s. per cwt. now, and he has to pay the same rates as during the war. He has to compete with the Dane with his bacon and pork, and when the Dane gets home his £1 is worth 27s. I hope that the people, especially the business men, will have some consideration for the situation that exists so far as the community we on these Benches represent, because we are in such a position that we feel like a drowning man, and we are ready to grasp a razor. No matter what occurs we must have some change in the present management of the railway system. It cannot be any worse. I do not know whether I would be in order in referring to the Railway Rates Tribunal. I notice that Deputy Hewat did——
Deputy Hewat was stopped.
I bow to your ruling. However, I will have another opportunity, and I intend to deal with the matter on the other stages of the Bill, but so far as I am personally concerned, and I think I speak the views of my party, if we amend this Bill, as we hope to do, we are prepared to support it. As I said in my earlier remarks, we are not very much enamoured with it, but for the present we will give it a trial, and if it fails we will have to try other remedies. Per haps we might eventually come round, if labour has more sense, to favour Deputy Johnson's idea of nationalisation, and if labour adopts in the next few years a reasonable attitude——
Like the farmers.
Yes, like the farmers, and cease these strikes and these scenes at the ports and all that sort of thing, we are open to be converted. We are broad-minded, and I hope that the Deputies who brought in the Bill for nationalisation will realise that instead of the situation we had when Deputy Johnson introduced the Bill the lion and the lamb may lie down in the one fold.
I am not sure whether Deputy McKenna is supporting the amendment or not, but I would suggest, the way things are moving, that a reconsideration of the position by the farmers rather suggests that it will be going back to the donkey cart rather than to nationalisation of railways. The amendment has been put forward presumably because of being better than the proposal in the Bill. That is to say, that it is better in the mind of Deputy Hewat that two groups should be formed instead of one, and the plea, in so far as a plea has been made, is that it would create competition and by that means assist the trading community. No argument has been adduced to show that these two combinations would lead to competition. Some argument has been used to show that hitherto the alleged competition of rival companies has been very ineffective, but Deputy McKenna did endeavour to show that some years ago there was competition in the West of Ireland for through traffic, but that after a time it was found too expensive and the competition ceased. I would like those who are in favour of this amendment to bear that in mind— after a time it was found to be too expensive and the competition ceased. Competition between railway companies means expense in canvassing, in advertisements, and in many incidental items which add to the cost of running the railways. It does not by any stretch of imagination lead to any greater production of crops. It simply means competition for the traffic that exists. It does not, in fact, though some people think it does, create new traffic, but Deputy McKenna and others, and I am assuming now that Deputy McKenna is supporting the amendment, forget that this Bill is going to ensure to the companies a definite rate of profit, a definite rate of dividends, so that the increased expense which competition would involve will have to be covered by the increase in receipts, because the profits of the company are being practically guaranteed, and, therefore, the trading community will not be benefited by this alleged competition. But there is another consideration to which I would like to draw attention at this stage, for it seems to me, from what one has gathered in this controversy, that the only idea in the minds of the controversialists is that the railways are intended to foster and develop trade between Ireland and England, and every consideration regarding competition and service has always in mind this oversea traffic. I suggest that we have a right to consider the possibility that railways in Ireland may be directed to serve transportation within Ireland, and give some encouragement to that transportation from one part of the country to serve consumers in another part. If we are only to consider the effect of railway policy in respect of this oversea transportation then we are going entirely on the wrong lines.
Deputy Hewat did attempt to suggest, by showing us a map, that his proposed amalgamation would lead to competition and, incidentally, benefit, to the trading public. I have been trying to follow the argument and to understand how benefit would accrue from the particular kind of competition that he speaks of. The Bill, as I have already said, ensures a certain rate of profit. The competition would involve increased expenditure on the part of the company. If that increased expenditure has to be met by increased rates, then the case that Deputy Hewat puts forward for this kind of competition falls to the ground.
I would much prefer, if it were possible, to have listened to the discussion on the amendments that will be raised to Clause 29 of this Bill, before expressing the very definite opinions that I have in regard to the amendment now before the Dáil. Deputy Hewat, in moving the amendment, did not inform the Dáil whether he was speaking with authority on any or all of the companies that would be a party to the proposal that he has asked us to decide upon here now. Commissions have already been sitting in this country dealing with the question of the organisation of the Irish railways, commissions upon which businessmen as well as others have given their decision. The majority recommendations of every commission that has ever considered this very serious question were in favour of nationalisation or State ownership of the railways. But even the minorities, whenever they did include businessmen, and I think they did on all occasions include businessmen, were never so foolish as Deputy Hewat is here now in suggesting that things should be left as they are. That is really the effect of his proposal. However, there is one very pertinent point concerning this amendment, upon which we have not the information which we are entitled to, before we come to a decision upon the amendment. Does Deputy Hewat pretend to speak on behalf of any or all of the railways that would be a party to this group? Is he in a position to say here and now that negotiations have already taken place between the principal companies suggested in this duplicate group, and that they are prepared to come to a decision on all the very essential details concerning the setting up of this two-group system? If he is not in a position to say that, then he is only moving an amendment which postpones for a further period— perhaps a very long period—the solution of the whole question.
I would be very much surprised to hear that the Dublin South Eastern Company, or any other company mentioned in this group, have discussed all the necessary details of an amalgamation such as this with the Midland Great Western Company. It would be surprising in view of what we have learned from the Press and elsewhere, and in view of the fact that there is an agreement already in existence between the Midland Great Western and the Great Southern if they were prepared to favour the scheme suggested by Deputy Hewat. I hope when Deputy Hewat speaks again he will give us some enlightenment upon these very important points. I think he should have dealt with that when moving the amendment.
So far as I am personally concerned —and I think this is the view of our Party, favouring as we do, a scheme of nationalisation—I am prepared to come to a decision on a matter of this kind in favour of whatever scheme will bring us most easily and most quickly to the ideal we have before us, namely. State ownership of the railways as a whole. In that way I favour the clause in the Bill as it stands in preference to the amendment submitted by Deputy Hewat. From what I read of the discussion of the Dublin Port and Docks Board and the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, I thought Deputy Hewat would come forward with an amendment favouring a scheme of grouping of the Dublin South-Eastern, the Great Southern and the Midland Great Western Railway. He has very quietly left out of his group the Great Northern Company. He has given us very useful information as to why he has done so. He has made the significant remark that the Great Northern Company does not serve the port of Dublin. Is it because he wishes that it should not serve the port of Dublin that he has excluded the Great Northern Railway Company from the scheme suggested in this amendment? I would like to hear from the President, or from whoever replies on behalf of the Government, as to why there was not conditional inclusion of the Great Northern Railway Company and of every other railway company that has mileage or does business in the Free State, and particularly those companies that have their headquarters in the Free State. A conditional clause of inclusion, I believe, should have been put into this Bill, in the same way as it was put into the Transport and Communications Bill that was moved by Deputy Johnson on behalf of his Party. I would like to hear from the President the reason why the Great Northern Railway is not included in the system in the Bill of railway organisation within the Free State area, which will be a self-contained system, either under the existing jurisdiction of the Free State, or whatever other extended boundary we may secure as a result of the operation of Clause 12 of the Treaty. Deputy Hewat referred to the service to traders which the Great Northern Company were giving as a result of the difference in the rates— 75 per cent. in the case of the Great Northern, and 120 or 130 per cent. in the case of the other railways that are proposed to form this amalgamated company. That is quite true, and that is the reason, for Deputy Egan's information, why there is at the present time a natural inducement for traders in the West of Ireland to send their traffic through the port of Belfast.
I hope, when the reorganisation scheme passes through all its stages here and elsewhere, that it will mean that we will be at least in an equally favourable position to command the traffic from the West of Ireland, which should go through its natural route, which, in my opinion, is the port of Dublin, and not the port of Belfast. Deputy Hewat complains that the effect of this Bill will be the loss of that personal effort to keep down working expenses. I think it will be quite the opposite. I think a good deal of unnecessary expenditure and waste will be saved by the amalgamation scheme that is proposed in the Bill. I do not think that Deputy Hewat, as a business man, would favour a continuance of a system which would mean the keeping of three separate staffs in a town like Collooney, with a population of less than 400 people. If Deputy Hewat stands for that, I think it is not good enough to ask us to support the amendment that is before the House. That is the position. If he stands for a continuance of the present system, he stands for waste such as I have referred to at Collooney and elsewhere. Deputy Egan said, as a trader of thirty years' standing, that he had never experienced the effect of competition. I presume he was referring to the question of internal or local traffic, because if he meant competition as regards through traffic, I certainly think he is not correct.
Mr. EGAN
I referred to internal traffic.
I quite agree. Where there would be through traffic he would certainly experience a good deal of competition and would gain the result of that competition which is going on even to the present day. Only recently I have been given an instance of this competition in the constituency which Deputy Egan and I represent. I have been told that the competition between the Great Southern Company and other companies, as a result of private agreements, is such that traffic from the town of Birr goes around by Limerick in order to get via Rosslare out of this country. I do not know whether that is the only route for traffic from Birr, but it certainly is the result of very serious competition which is going on in the constituency Deputy Egan represents.
Which will be stopped under this Bill.
I do not think so.
Competition means waste.
Deputy Egan, I think, also made a statement which was made here on the Second Reading and which is not correct—that there is no competition existing at Waterford for railway traffic. If I know anything at all about railway business, I do not know any point where there is greater competition for traffic—through traffic particularly—than in the City of Waterford. However, I merely intervened in this debate to try to ascertain from Deputy Hewat, when he speaks again, whether he is speaking with the knowledge and approval of the companies which are proposed as the second group, whether any negotiations have taken place between the companies named and whether there is any hope, in the event of an amendment of this kind being carried, that the companies would settle in a satisfactory way every detail connected with amalgamation such as is suggested in the amendment.
Until I heard Deputy Davin speak I was going to vote against this amendment. I look upon Deputy Davin as something of an expert in this matter. The instances he put forward to reinforce his argument are so unconvincing to anybody who happens to know the facts that he has caused me a considerable amount of doubt. He spoke, and Deputy McKenna also spoke, of the conditions at Collooney. I happen to know those conditions well. Deputy Davin says, under this Bill, it will not be necessary to maintain three stations at Collooney. In the first place, one of the railway companies at Collooney is not included in the Bill at all. The Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, because it has three miles of its line in the Northern area, is not included in the group at all. As to the other two stations, you must have them unless you build an entirely new station about half a mile distant.
I said I was in favour of the inclusion of every railway company in the amalgamation scheme, whether the railway is wholly or partly in the Free State.
I am now getting down to physical conditions. There are three stations at Collooney and they are all three on different railway lines, which do not unite except at a distance of nearly a mile from Collooney and that in a place where, owing to the physical conditions, it would be very difficult to build a station. But even so, you would have to build a station. If you keep on the existing stations, you must have staffs to run them. You must have signal-men and signal-boxes. I do not believe there will be any great saving there by amalgamation, any more than I think that any really substantial saving will be made anywhere.
I must say that, while I do not agree with Deputy Davin, I am very much surprised at Deputy Hewat. I have always considered Deputy Hewat as a mild and benevolent man—a man whose hand was as warm as his heart. It surprises me when I see him put down an amendment of this kind, because he knows, and we all know, that the Great Southern Railway Company has come to an agreement with the Midland Great Western Company. Deputy Hewat proposes to break that agreement —to tear away the Midland Great Western Railway from the man of her choice and hand her over in a marriage of convenience to the Dublin South Eastern Railway, with whom she has nothing in common. What is to spring out of this forced and unnatural union? Competition—hitherto undiscovered competition! To return to Collooney, where I know the conditions best. The work of the three railways there I can remember for twenty-five years. I am told by Deputy McKenna that there was competition at Collooney. I am told by Deputy Hewat that there was once competition all over the Saorstát. All I can say is, that I do not remember any competition at Collooney within twenty-five years. I am neither a pig buyer nor an excursionist. If I were, perhaps I might have discovered special forms of competition. But the ordinary man sending the ordinary freight—household goods and so forth —got no benefit from competition at all. The fares from Collooney to Sligo are exactly the same on each of the three lines. If they give a cheap ticket on the market day, they all give it on the same day and they all charge the same fare. All that was gained by competition was that the guard who blew the whistle and waved the flag wore a different uniform on each of the three lines. The uniform of the guard on the Great Southern line was embellished with silver, the uniform of the guard on the Midland was plain blue, and the guard on the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway wore a tweed suit and peaked cap. That was the only gain the average passenger or person who did not deal with cart-loads of stuff or whole trains of stock got from the competition at Collooney. And that is a place where there was really exceptional opportunity for competition.
We are told there is competition in Waterford. There may be competition for freight. Very likely there is competition for through traffic, because the English companies come in there. But the competition for passengers is reflected in that part of the time-table of the Dublin South-Eastern Company which gives details of the Dublin-Waterford service. You have to leave Dublin at the crack of dawn or reach Waterford after midnight. That shows the competition as far as the ordinary man is concerned.
I am sceptical about the value of the Bill. It certainly will not fulfil all the hopes put forward. But I cannot see that it will be improved in the smallest degree—to some extent it will be injured —by the adoption of Deputy Hewat's amendment.
I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything on this amendment. But there is one thing I would like some information about. I think Deputy Hewat has lost a small portion of railway route. He has cut some line worked by the Great Southern and Western from Tuam to Claremorris, and I think he has disposed of the Tuam-Claremorris section to the Dublin South-Eastern Company. What he has done with the portion of the line from Claremorris to Portumna I am at a loss to know. I think it is due to the Dáil that we should discover this railway and find where it is to be placed.
I have been listening to Deputy Hewat and reading his amendment. The first part of his amendment is very imposing on paper. There is a tremendous number of Cork companies and Kerry companies set down, but it really means nothing at all. He stood up, I think, to propose or convince the Dáil that there was going to be competition if his amendment were adopted. It is remarkable that during the whole of his speech he did not deal with competition at all, or point out where it could be effected. As a matter of fact, I think he fought deliberately shy of the question. He told us that this was the means of preserving competition, but I do not think I ought to labour the question, because Deputy McKenna and Deputy Egan dealt with it. There never was competition in rural Ireland. There might have been competition in other places for traffic, but certainly not for the local traffic. Deputy Hewat, in his claim to speak for the business men in the Saorstát. I think is making a claim that certainly is not very modest. I do not say he does not speak for the business men of Dublin, but I challenge him when he says he speaks for all the business men of the Saorstát. There are a few business men in the Saorstát outside Dublin who transact business over the railways, and I have yet to meet the business man in the South of Ireland who would attempt to take up the attitude which Deputy Hewat takes up. When he says he speaks for the business men, I would like him to remember that there are some business men I know that he does not speak for.
I am inclined to think that this is not altogether an Irish concern, and that people who speak of Irish interest, show that it is not the only interest they have in this matter. I believe there are interests outside the Saorstát that largely come into the argument. I think if we were to be quite candid with each other we would find that the really big interesting proposition is the Great Southern of England and the London, Midland and Scottish.
There is no Great Southern in England; there is the Great Western.
I mean the Great Western of England and the London, Midland and Scottish. Perhaps, after all is said and done, these are the interests, and not Irish interests. We had no improvement while these two companies had separate fields of operations. The Dublin port supplied the one and the Southern port supplied the other, and we know what competition meant while these two companies had a free field of operation. We had no competition, and we had the worst rates, and the most adverse rates, of any part of the United Kingdom. If this amendment were agreed to it would mean that that state of affairs would prevail and that each would have its own closed ports and its own closed fields of operation. The original clauses of the Bill will do away with these closed boroughs and will bring Waterford into competition with Dublin, and we will have real competition, which we would not have under this amendment.
Some Deputies deprecate any competition with the port of Dublin. They seem to think only in terms of Dublin, but I believe that we will have real competition under the Bill as it stands, which we would not have if the amendment were adopted. We want competition for the Irish trade between these two companies, and I contend we will have it more under the Bill than under this amendment, and until I am convinced to the contrary I will continue to believe that. Let Deputy Hewat, and whoever else speaks, say what their real reasons are, and then we will have open minds to accept their views if they can prove them; but I say again he does not speak for the business men of the provinces, however he may speak for the business men of Dublin.
It is very difficult to argue with any strength against an amendment when the mover of the amendment suggested at the very start that he had very little enthusiasm for it himself. When we come to consider this particular amendment we can see at any rate that there is a considerable reason for his lack of fervour for the particular proposition he puts forward. The amendment as it comes forward now is really a readjustment of the other scheme that was dealt with on the Second Reading by the President—the scheme put forward by the Dublin South Eastern Company. It has not been bettered by modification, because whatever competition might have been helped by an amalgamation between the Great Northern Railway in so far as that can be controlled, and the other vague proposition included in the Dublin South Eastern scheme previously referred to, all that now disappears from the present proposal before us. What advantage is there to be gained from this amendment of Deputy Hewat's that is not to be gained from the larger scheme contained in the Bill? Are any economies to be effected? Are rates to be reduced through economies that will be effected under the present scheme? And can any economies be effected under this scheme—the lesser scheme—that cannot be effected in a greater degree under the larger scheme that the Bill contains? Competition is one of the slogans with which this amendment has been introduced. Now, competition has never to any great extent existed in this country. I could quote witness after witness from the Scotter Commission questioned upon this point with regard to competition. The answer was almost invariably the same, with difference in its methods of presentation, but the effect was the same, that there was no possible competition except at one or two points in the whole of Ireland. Supposing competition does exist? Has it produced a level of rates at present that is admirable or even tolerable in the present circumstances?
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE at this stage took the Chair.
It is on this point that I hold that Deputy Hewat's scheme has, if anything, worsened than when previously mentioned as the bigger Dublin South-Eastern scheme. The President referred to one difficulty there; that a section of the railway line is lost; but taking this scheme, in its broadest outline, we are to take the Dublin South Eastern and unify that with the Midland Great Western, and we lop off there from the Great Southern and Western that portion of its line which runs from Athenry through Tuam to Claremorris. I presume it is intended to take off the whole line there from Athenry to Collooney. As the amendment stands that is the proposition. Now, in the Counties of Galway, Mayo and Sligo, there might have been some point at which there was competition possible between the Midland Great Western and the Great Southern and Western, and in this scheme here Deputy Hewat proposes in the interests of competition to take off that section of the line from Athenry up to Tuam and Claremorris to Collooney, doing away with certain small points at which there was competition possible.
Another of the cries against the scheme set forth in the Bill is that we are setting up a monopoly. I fail to see that that monopoly is, to any great extent, weakened in principle if you simply take away from the bigger undertaking one small section, and set up what is, in fact, if I may be pardoned the expression, two monopolies. Deputy Hewat, I think, revealed the purposes of his amendment in one phrase. He said it must be remembered that the railway situation has to be influenced by cross-Channel considerations and that is the gist of the amendment. The whole intention of the amendment is rivetted on cross-Channel traffic and rivetted on cross-Channel traffic diverted through only one port in Ireland, the port of Dublin. But the amended scheme contains within its terms, every principle contained in the larger scheme against which outcries are raised. It is unification to a certain extent; it does away with whatever little competition there might be, and it has the effect of perpetuating grievances already in existence.
I am not quite clear as to whether on this point the fact of the running powers held by the Dublin South Eastern over a section of the Great Southern and Western is to be considered as relevant, but if it is so it suffices to point out that if this be taken as competition it is competition of the most futile and wasteful form.
Take the points of contact; there are two or three, and see the route distances between Dublin and the various towns served by the two systems. Dublin to Limerick on the Great Southern and Western line is a distance of 123 miles. On the Dublin South Eastern, with running powers over the Great Southern, down to Limerick, the distance is 193 miles. Between Dublin and Cork the routes are 145 miles by the Great Southern and Western, and 206 on the other route. Between Dublin and Clonmel, 112 miles and 104 miles.
What about Athlone?
The Dublin and South Eastern is a single track line, the gradients are steep, the rolling stock and permanent way are in need of repair, and the expenses that are going to be thrown upon this combined undertaking of the Midland Great Western and the Dublin and South Eastern, in order to effect running powers over their lines, are such as will definitely destroy whatever little economy might be effected by lessening of the administrative expenses. The fact is that for a period of years running powers were exercised in Tipperary, but they were found not to be remunerative, and that for a sum of less than £3,000 a year the management of the Dublin South Eastern agreed not to utilise these running powers. Now if you set in contrast the sum of £3,000 per annum against the traffic receipts of the Dublin South Eastern for a year you are getting some measure of the effect of competition that might be derived from running powers being utilised over that system. It has been said in connection with this minor amalgamation scheme, and in opposition to the greater amalgamation scheme, that no economies have been shown as likely to result from unification. But the simple enumeration of the number of companies proposed to be unified, and staffs—many of whom will become redundant—ought to show a certain degree of economy. There are twenty-five railway companies in the Saorstát, and in control of them there are 170 directors, 20 secretaries, 14 managers, a similar number of civil engineers, 13 mechanical engineers, 13 accountants, 31 auditors, 54 baronial arbitrators, and that is a staff on which at least a certain amount of administrative economy may be effected.
What about the Railway Tribunal?
The expenses of that will be set off against the economies to be effected there. Is it argued that it will exhaust the result of these economies? In addition to that there is the question of workshops. There are fifteen separate workshops for the twenty-five undertakings. Surely that leaves room for economy and for better and more economical administration?
There are different gauges for the different railways.
Not 25 different gauges?
No, but a number of different gauges.
Different gauges there are, undoubtedly, and that will prevent economies that might be made in the matter of the standardisation of rolling stock and other matters. Certain economies must be got, however, in the standardisation of rolling stock, and the disappearance of some of those unnecessary workshops.
Furthermore, there is the question of the bulk purchase of stores, simplification in the methods of account-keeping, the unrestricted common use of rolling stock on different lines where possible, and in addition—a point on which there is generally great expense and extravagance—the amount of money that can be saved on printing, stationery, advertisements, tickets, and time tables. There is sufficient ground for stating that economies are to be looked for on the amalgamated undertaking. In opposition to that we are told that whatever we may save on administration expenses we are bound to lose that intimate personal effort on the part of the railway companies to keep down their expenses. A review of the present situation of the railways does not show that intimate personal effort has produced very good results, and in exchange for that intimate personal effort on the part of the railway managers we are going to have a close and constant supervision by a Tribunal with headquarters in Dublin, moving about, accessible to every member of the public interested, and if that supervision does not bring about the same, and even better results, than the intimate personal touch of the present-day managers with their systems I do not know what will.
The only alternative to this proposition is the very simple proposition of postponement; that is to say, that in face of a demand that comes from all over the country for the immediate handling of this problem, a demand which has led the Labour Party in this House to introduce a Bill, which has led the farmers to ventilate their grievances through many questions, which has led this Government to introduce this measure, instead of acceding to these demands we are faced with the simple solution of postponement, and with the half-hearted compromise we get in Deputy Hewat's amalgamated scheme of the Midland Great Western with the Dublin and South-Eastern. That simple solution is like the old adage: "Live horse and you will get grass." I have, personally, very little doubt from the information put before me that if this suggestion is adopted, if the Bill is not proceeded with, and if there is a simple postponement of the whole solution, we are going to come to a position in which certain railways, certainly the baronially guaranteed railways, will have to go out of existence, and a great many of the larger companies, although they may not have to go out of existence, will certainly find that their traffic has diminished to a point where the only remedy will be either excessive rates or else the closing down of railway communication over large areas.
I do not think there is any necessity for me to say that we on these benches do not altogether agree with the Bill as presented to the House. We have already given evidence of that. But, at the same time, so far as Deputy Hewat's amendment is concerned we are entirely opposed to it, because we consider the next best thing after nationalisation is amalgamation. The attitude Deputy Hewat appears to take up is that now that the Bill has passed its Second Reading, and there is a prospect of its going through, we have got to make the best of a bad job. He tells us that at the moment there is competition so far as the railways are concerned. Like Deputy Gorey, I am at a loss to find out where the competition is. There may be competition in favour of certain ports, and, as Deputy Good himself admits, it is exercised because the railways are influenced by cross-Channel companies, especially shipping companies. On the other hand, I have in my mind the state of affairs that prevails in the county that I represent, the County of Wexford. There we have the port of Rosslare, where the Great Western Company of England holds great sway, and we have the Great Southern and Western Company helping the Great Western there. I have no hesitation in saying, in an endeavour to wipe out the port of Wexford. At the last meeting of the Wexford Harbour Board there was a discussion which showed clearly that that was the case. Coal can be brought from Rosslare up to Ferns, in the northern part of Co. Wexford, for 9/6 per ton, and it costs 9/11 to bring it from Wexford to Ferns, a distance of about 11 miles less. Here we have a conflict of interests. You have coals brought a longer distance at a cost of 5d. per ton less, and the reason for this is that the Great Southern and Western Railway Company controls the quay line of Wexford. The rails run along the whole quay front, and the Great Southern and Western Co. charge what, to my mind, is a preposterous sum for haulage on the quays, to the detriment of the port of Wexford. Here we have definite evidence of the Great Southern and Western Railway Co. helping the Great Western Co. of England to wipe out Wexford port in the interests of Rosslare, where the Great Western Co. holds sway. There is no evidence of competition in any part of Ireland, so far as I can see, and, to my mind, it would be a good thing in circumstances such as I have outlined that we should have amalgamation of railways. I do not want to say any more on the matter. I merely wanted to give a concrete example of the influence that is being brought to bear by cross-Channel companies on Irish railway companies to do certain things in the interests of the cross-Channel companies.
I am glad that the Minister is finding so much support in opposition to the amendment. Railways are themselves of the nature of a monopoly, and it does not matter how many run into towns. For instance, in America, between Chicago and New York, there are seven railways owned by seven different corporations. There are the Great New York Central, the Pennsylvania, running up the Sesquahana Valley, and for a time after they were built there was effective competition, like the competition that was supposed to exist between the Great Southern and Western and the Dublin South Eastern. The railway companies found it better to enter into arrangements and understandings amongst themselves, and in the end the Government had to step in, and Government regulations had to supersede, as they will, I hope, supersede in this country, the much spoken of competition. In every country where there were different lines under private ownership it was hoped that competition would protect the public and the ordinary traders, but the experience has been that ultimately the Government had to step in and protect the traders. If I had any criticism to offer on this Bill it would be that this arrangement is not sufficiently definite in its protection of the travelling public and the traders. To illustrate the steps that were taken in other countries when competition between the railways failed, you had in America a Federal Inter-State Commission regulating Inter-State traffic, and each separate sovereign State in the American Union also has had to set up a Commission to regulate and to fix tariffs and charges on the railways trading within each State; so that you have one Federal Commission and thirty-six different Commissions within the States themselves. In England you have the Railway and the Canal Commission, which, I understand, the Railway Tribunal is now about to supersede. In France you had similar arrangements until the State took over control of the lines. As railways are, like roads, in their nature monopolists, and if they are to be controlled by Government legislation, it seems to me that the Government might have taken heart and——
Gone the whole hog.
——and gone the whole hog. I confess that I do not think that there is a Deputy whose tendencies are more individualistic than mine, but in the case of the Post Office and other public services, which of their nature are monopolists, I think that the proper thing would be for the Government to take their courage in their hands and bear the whole responsibility. In every business where competition is possible a different policy should be pursued. For instance, if the Deputy who has moved this amendment had really wanted an effective competition in transport, the most effective competition could be found in main highways through the country.
This would be first.
I agree. If the Government, instead of pursuing a policy of going slow, would give us, the traders of the country, real highways over which we could send heavy traffic at cheaper rates, then the railway question would not be of that vital importance to us that it is at present.
Wait until we introduce our Bill.
There is no necessity to introduce another Bill. £770,000 will be spent this year to improve the highways, but instead of being spent by one central body it is being spent by 26 different, overlapping, uncoordinated, and even, the word has been suggested, in some cases inefficient, incompetent bodies. There has been an advertisement for 60 steam-rollers—
I must remind the Deputy that he is going outside the scope of the amendment.
I have to thank Leas-Cheann Comhairle for reminding me that I have left the railways and got on to the roadways. In this case I do not think that the Minister has any option but to refuse the amendment, because in the case of this and every other country there is and can be no such thing as competition amongst the railways. The railways are a monopoly, and, if not owned and managed, should be at least controlled and regulated by the State.
At the start I indicated that I was in no way an obstructionist. The feeling of the Dáil is obviously against this amendment. The principle in the amendment was that the grouping system should be left open in the meantime. I think as the various amendments come on for discussion at a later stage they will be more in favour of my amendment in some other form than they are at present. Therefore, I do not propose to divide the Dáil on it. Deputy Egan, a business man on the Government Benches, said I was not very convincing. I can only return the compliment. I am afraid he was not very convincing. He says there is no competition on the railways, and inferentially he says, unless you differentiate between railways and other businesses, all business men should come together and pool their businesses. Very well; I as a business man——
Agree.
If it was going to pay perhaps I would, but I do not think it would pay. Deputy McKenna is not very favourable to this amendment. His main reason is that agriculture cannot pay the present rates. My contention is that the Bill is not going to help in any way in that direction. Deputy Davin asked me if I was speaking on behalf of the railways. I have not been approached by the railways, and have not discussed it with them. As I say, I do not stand by the amendment as being ideal. It merely establishes a principle which I believe to be a right principle, and an improvement on the Bill. I do not think I need take up the time of the Dáil in connection with the various other things that have been said. I say that business generally, including railways, is the better of competition, not necessarily cutthroat competition. Differential rates could be got from separate companies that they would not get from an amalgamated company. Deputy O'Mara let the cat out of the bag.
After all, the basis of discussion today is very much the basis of the discussion that took place in connection with the Budget proposals—nationalisation of the railways, Protection for the country. These are two very fine political stunts to seek election on, but the people themselves have to settle these things. The only thing that struck me as particularly necessary to comment on in connection with Deputy Corish's remarks is that he gave an instance of coal from Rosslare to Ferns, and coal from Wexford to Ferns, a longer distance at the smaller rate. I think I know Wexford. I know the neighbourhood of the line between Rosslare and Wexford is operated by the Great Southern and Western Railway, and the line from Wexford to Ferns is operated by the Dublin and South Eastern Railway. I do not think that the Great Western Railway comes very much into the question at all, but here you have a particular case where, I suppose, the man in Ferns gets his coal a little cheaper through competition. There is not very much in the argument, but if there is anything in it it is in my favour, I think. I say I do not propose to divide the Dáil. Of course I do not mean to say if I did divide I would win. I think quite the contrary, and for that reason I will not divide the Dáil.
There is one matter I would like to refer to in connection with what Deputy Hewat has said. He gave the Dáil to understand that my attitude on the Bill was that opposition to the Government's proposals, as far as I was concerned, was something like hostility to myself, or to the Executive Council. I do not share Deputy Hewat's apprehension with regard to that. I think the Dáil is entitled, either now or at any other time, to elect an Executive Council which will respond to its wish, and we do not regard these matters in the peculiar way he has described. I have said to many people, both inside and outside this country, that there are possibilities for the formation of many Governments within the Dáil. It would be a sad thing for the country if it had only one Government to depend on.
I move:
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "Act," line 42, to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the following words:—"by the amalgamation of two or more of the companies set out in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and by the absorption by the amalgamated company of one or more of the companies set out in the second column of that Schedule."
This amendment differs from the preceding amendment in one very vital respect, in that it is not mandatory on the part of all the four companies named in the Schedule to amalgamate. If one is unwilling to amalgamate with the other three, or if two are unwilling to amalgamate with the other two, this amendment does not propose to force the amalgamation through. It has been pointed out in the discussion on the previous amendment that there is really no desire or no necessity for grouping in connection with our railways. Deputy Gorey has gone as far as to ask Deputy Hewat to name some commercial man of note who is in favour of his proposal. Though I happen to be a representative of the commercial community, I do not claim that commercial men are the best authorities on the railway question. But I think there are authorities that we will all recognise. They are the Chairmen of the various railway companies, the Managers of the railway companies. I think we will all recognise an expression of opinion from them, as coming from people who are competent to speak on this question. That being so, may I read, for the information of the Deputies, what was said by the Chairmen and General Managers of these companies on November the 22nd last?—
"The companies are confirmed in their opinion that the formation of two groups—speaking of the railways in Ireland—is preferable to unification."
That comes from a body of men speaking with authority that will not be questioned, I am sure, in any portion of this House. There we have an expression of opinion from men who are competent to speak on the subject of the railways in the Free State, that two groups are preferable to unification. The scheme before the House is a scheme of unification. As I said, these specialists are in favour of two groups, so that, I think, if business men have endeavoured, and are endeavouring, to shape this Bill in accordance with the views of those who can speak with authority on the railway question, they are following the lead of men whose wisdom cannot be questioned. Doubtless there are objections, and objections have been lodged to the previous amendment. But this amendment of mine, as I said, differs in a very material sense from the previous amendment in that it does not force amalgamation between these various companies, if they should express themselves as unwilling to amalgamate. Certainly it would be a mistake in ordinary business to force amalgamation between businesses which were unwilling to amalgamate, and I think the same principle is true even of an amalgamation of companies. I think the Government would be well advised to consider this aspect of the question before they force amalgamation between companies, two of whom are not willing to amalgamate. Therefore, I say that in the national interest it would be better that the Bill should take this form rather than the form in which it has been sent to us. The second part of this amendment deals with a question that was not fully discussed on the previous amendment. In fact, it has been scareely touched upon at all. You will notice the second part of the amendment states that the companies to be absorbed are only to be one or more of the companies as set out in the schedule attached to the Bill. There are twenty-one companies to be absorbed by the Amalgamated Company under the proposals in the Bill and the absorbed companies might approximately or generally be divided into three classes. You have what might be called economic railways; you have also uneconomic railways, and you have baronially-guaranteed railways. No objection will be raised generally to the absorption by this Amalgamated Company of economic lines, but strong exception will be taken to the absorption by the Amalgamated Company of uneconomic lines. In fact, the amalgamating companies themselves, in their statement—three of them, I think, at least, have jointly signed a protest against having to carry the burthen of these uneconomic lines— say:
"The railway companies were quite willing to undertake the operation of these lines as part of the amalgamated system on behalf of the Government, and without profits"—
they are speaking of economic lines—
"but they contend, and still urge strongly, that in the public interest, as well as that of their shareholders, they should not be called upon to shoulder an actual loss."
Then they proceed further to protest against having to carry the burthen of the baronial lines. Now, I have yet to see what the advantage is of imposing on the amalgamated group these uneconomic railways. I will not go into the details of that, but one of them I saw referred to in a statement a few days ago as having made a loss of something like £2,500 in the past year. It had not paid any dividend to its shareholders for a considerable number of years, and the interest on its debentures had not been paid since 1913. Now, as business men, what is the use of forcing an uneconomic proposition of that kind on to the amalgamated group? Take that as an example. It is only burthening the group in a way that they properly protest they should not be burthened.
Let us pass on to the other section— the baronially-guaranteed lines. The accumulated loss, according to a recognised authority on the baronial lines, amounts to £90,000 per annum. Of that loss of £90,000 per annum, which it is proposed to transfer to the amalgamated group, the Government propose to contribute to the amalgamated group a sum of practically £49,000 per annum, leaving the additional burthen of £41,000 to be carried by the Amalgamated Company. But it is even worse than that, because that contribution on the part of the Government to the Amalgamated Company is limited to a period of ten years. At the expiration of the ten years, the Amalgamated Company will have to carry the whole burthen of the loss on the baronial railways. Now, several questions arise out of this proposal in connection with the baronial railways. The first and real question that arises is: Why should these liabilities be transferred from the backs of the barony on to the backs of the Amalgamated Company? If the baronies, like any other local authorities, have made bad contracts in the past, are the results of these bad contracts to be transferred to the commercial community? Is that the proposition? If that is to be the proposition on behalf of the Government, I am quite sure they will get a good many applications from local authorities who are suffering from the liabilities of bad contracts made in the past, seeking to have them transferred from the backs of those who should carry them. That, I think, is an exceedingly unwise principle. It is not one that one would like to spend more time upon than is absolutely necessary at the moment. But it is a principle that the Government ought to be exceedingly slow to adopt —the removal of a burthen from a local authority on to the backs of the commercial community in the manner proposed.
What will be the effect of the transfer of this burthen? We have been told that economics will be effected by this amalgamation. I want to be quite fair and candid with the Dáil. I have yet to see where these economies are to come from. We have been told on the one hand that we will get rid of a number of managers, get rid of a number of engineers, get rid of a number of directors, and get rid of a number of chairmen. But I am somewhat sceptical about it. You may get rid of the directors, but I still think you will have to retain most of the managers and most of the engineers if you have not got to retire them on fairly liberal pensions. The lines will still have to be carried on—they will have to be efficiently carried on—there will have to be men to carry them on and, as against any saving in that direction, you have the setting up of this tribunal. If my experience of the setting up of Government departments is of any use at all, I do not look upon them as inexpensive commodities. I am afraid you will find that this new tribunal will require a pretty big house, a large number of offices, and a very considerable staff to run it. I think in ten years, if we are alive to make a comparison between the Railway Tribunal and its staff as we will then find it—if it does not take some other form in the meantime— nationalisation—with the economies which will be effected by this Bill, we will find that the economies will go a very short way towards meeting the expenses of that large and growing Department.
But the real question for us to consider in connection with this proposal is as to how it is going to affect the trade of the Free State. I would like to see a little more attention given to this aspect, because it is the really important aspect of this question. It has been pointed out here on many occasions that agriculture is our staple industry and that if agriculture is in a bad way most of the other industries in the Free State will be in a similar condition. Agriculture depends very largely for its existence on its exports. Seventy-five per cent., if not more, of our exports to-day are agricultural products. If there is one thing that agriculture needs to enable it to compete successfully in Great Britain against the produce of Continental countries, it is cheap production and cheap transit. Is this amalgamation going to give us cheap transit? We are told that we are paying at the present moment for our transit in the Free State anything from 120 per cent. to 150 per cent. over pre-war rates. We are told that in Northern Ireland the rates are 75 per cent. over pre-war standard. Yet the Ministers, knowing these facts, stand up and tell us in this House that there is no competition as between the railways. One railway is charging from 125 to 150 per cent. over pre-war rates and another railway, competing for the same traffic, is charging only 75 per cent. over pre-war rates, and Ministers stand up and tell us there is no railway competition.
That, however, is not the point I am on at the moment. In addition to what I have said about charges on railways in this country, the rates on the other side for carrying agricultural produce —the farmers in the Free State have to compete against that produce in the markets on the other side—are 50 per cent. over pre-war rates. I think from these figures that it will be apparent that the rates to be paid on our railways, in other words, the charges for traffic, are the most important factors that we have to guard against at the moment. If our staple industry of agriculture is to be maintained, if it is to prosper, its produce must be carried at the lowest possible rate. We see it suffering at the moment. Part of that suffering is due to the rates I have mentioned. Part of the burden that agriculture is suffering from at the moment is caused by excessive railway rates. There are other burdens of taxation about which we have been complaining for the past few days, but part of the burden is railway charges.
Internal.
Will anybody show me, under this Bill, how they propose seriously to lighten that burden? I see the transfer of the uneconomic lines and their loss on to the back of the main lines. I see the transfer of baronial lines on to the main lines in order that they may be a charge on agricultural and other produce, which thereby carries a burden it should not be called upon to carry. Is that likely to reduce these rates? It there was one thing that surprised me more than another when this Bill was introduced, it was the action of the Farmers' Party. They approved of the Bill, but will they tell us in their approval how they hope to get these charges down, because after all this is a business question, so that they can compete on fair and equitable terms with their competitors in the markets on the other side? My view of this Bill is that it will stabilise these high rates. I would like to see these high rates coming down, but I am afraid the Bill will go through in spite of what we say. I have examined the proposition in every way, but I cannot see any hope of getting these charges down. We have had rather serious statements made in the last few days at a meeting of the Railway Tribunal. We have been told that except we can cut down expenses on one side there is no chance of cutting the charges down. That proposition is put to Labour, as it is a considerable factor in the expenses, but Labour says. "No, we will not accept anything less." Is the Tribunal which you hope to set up more likely to be affected by Labour than by the various companies? Possibly Deputy Johnson or Deputy Davin could tell us. Both are wise men. They would be able to tell us if this Tribunal is likely to be more influenced by them than by the railway companies. I am inclined to take the view, from the attitude of the Labour Party in supporting the Bill, that they would much prefer to have a new Tribunal to deal with than the existing companies or any group of existing companies. They are wise men, and if that be their view we cannot hope for much reduction in expenses in that direction. If we cannot get it in that direction possibly some wise men on the Government benches will tell us where we are to get that reduction in order to help industry in the country. These are factors on which I would like to have information from the Government benches, from the Farmers, and from others. There were a number of other matters one would like to touch upon, but if we try and concentrate discussion on this question I have referred to, it might lead to a more practical and useful result.
I am always very unhappy after listening to a wise man's wise speech, and I am more than ever puzzled now to know whether it was a second reading speech or a speech dealing with this amendment. All the evil that has been described, all the infirmities that have been laid at the door of the Farmers, the Labour Party, and this Party here on the Government Benches—every single one of them exists in this amendment. But the amendment is apparently so futile that the less said about it the better, and we should proceed to deal with other matters. Everyone of us, apparently, is incompetent to grasp railway problems, and we should listen to the wise men's explanation of what we should do. What are we to do? Nothing. Groan on under the rates under which we are suffering, suffer on under the experts whose opinions have been read out to us. There is this particular reservation, however, that the experts do not speak of two groups in the Free State, but of two groups in Ireland, which is a very different proposition to the proposition in this particular amendment. The amendment comes to this in substance, that the railway companies who wish to amalgamate may amalgamate.
They have already done so.
And those who do not wish to come in need not. The real case is that the Dublin and South Eastern Company must not be touched. It is an institution above reproach. All other companies can bear what we call the lumped tax and the burdens of the lumped tax, but the Dublin and South Eastern Company must be left absolutely free from any control, from any re-organisation, and, I suppose, eventually from the Railway Tribunal which we are setting up in order to see whether or not there is a possibility for reducing rates. I am not satisfied that a case has been made for the amendment. I am not satisfied that we have been given any reasons that the amendment, if passed, would present these companies with a better Bill than that which we have here. I think the Dáil is entitled to know the reasons behind this particular amendment rather than the infirmities we are all suffering from. We gratefully acknowledge them, and we are waiting for the wise men to show us the way out of them.
"For ways that are dark the heathen Chinee is peculiar." The amendment which Deputy Good has spoken to, but not spoken about, has at least come under a very lenient ruling, and gave an opportunity to him to state the case against the Bill. He has spoken of the disbelief he has in the efficacy of the Bill to bring down railway rates. I agree with him in that, but I am not able to understand how any improvement in that respect is going to be made by the adoption of this amendment.
If his amendment were carried the Bill would provide for the amalgamation of two or more of the following companies—a certain number of companies are mentioned—including the Great Southern and Western Railway and the Cork, Bandon & South Coast Railway, which two companies are amalgamated, so that there is no benefit coming to the trading community in consequence of the passing of this amendment, but those companies when amalgamated may absorb one or more of the following other companies. Then we have a long list of companies, including the Clonakilty extension, the Cork and Macroom, the Cork and Muskerry and the Timoleague and Courtmacsherry Railway. When the Great Southern and Western Railway Company have amalgamated with the Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway, as they have already done in effect, and then absorb the Clonakilty extension, the Deputy knows his amendment would have been fulfilled and the Bill would leave us exactly where we are so far as amalgamation goes. On that basis Deputy Good has made a speech in favour of this amendment, saying that all the evils that at present exist would he cured and that none of the evils, which he believes would come from amalgamation, would be suffered from. I, therefore, oppose the amendment. I do not think it is going to be an amendment at all. As the Dáil has passed the Second Reading of this Bill, and as it is decided there shall be an amalgamation, let us have an amalgamation. Do not let us have a mere continuation of the present state of things. The fear that Deputy Good has is that the Railway Tribunal, which presumably would continue to exist if his amendment is passed, will be specially favourable to labour interests. I cannot say anything about that. I do not know of whom the tribunal will consist. If the railways are not able to put a better case before that tribunal than they put before the last then undoubtedly labour will benefit.
I thought the case was a strong one on behalf of the companies.
Deputy Good is entitled to his judgment, but so far as the amendment goes I can see nothing for it but remain as we are.
Deputy Good is anxious to know why the farmers supported the Bill, and on his amendment, which he did not give us a good reason for supporting, he has put questions which we must answer. Our reasons are these. We are not satisfied with the present railway charges, and we feel that any change cannot make us worse off than we are to-day. I would like to have heard from Deputy Good how he proposes to reduce the charges that we are paying. The railways have had an opportunity in the Saorstát to reducetheir charges. Why have they not done so?
Because of the coming of this Bill.
Well, it has not come too soon, and the changes it will and must bring will be very much welcomed by the agricultural community. Deputy Good's arguments for the amendment were not sufficient to make anyone even understand his amendment and those about the burdens that would have to be borne by some of the railways, especially the baronially guaranteed railways, are very weak arguments. As I know some of the baronially guaranteed lines, there are great possibilities for development. I know baronially guaranteed lines where wide gauges touch at both ends and I cannot see how the bigger railways are going to lose anything by taking over those lines at all. If Deputy Good's sympathy for agriculture is to be understood by this amendment, and if he expects that the Deputies here should support the amendment because of the arguments he advances, he misunderstands the position of agriculture altogether, because he would want to have shown us that the railway companies meant to have made a change in their charges or that, under the system he advocates, a change would come that has not come, or that the railway companies had no intention of bringing about. I think they are satisfied as they are, but we are not satisfied, and that is why we want to change.
I am rather surprised at the last speech of Deputy Baxter, because I was inclined to think that when Deputy Good sat down he would have moved over to the Farmers' benches on account of the plea he made on behalf of the agricultural community. Certain statements have been made by Deputy Good in moving his amendment which give the House the impression that he was under a certain amount of ignorance in regard to the operation of railway charges. I do not altogether believe that he is. I know, at any rate, that if he were inspired and prompted by the railway companies' representatives as to the things he was to say with regard, to the amendment, he would not have made some of the ridiculous statements he made. Deputy Good talks about labour getting something out of the tribunal. I do not see what bearing the operation of the tribunal, which is a rates revisionary body, has on labour. I ask Deputy Good to tell the House what the Irish railway companies have done with the money they saved as a result of the reduction in wages, in coal, and other materials. They saved one million, five hundred thousand pounds in railwaymen's wages as a result of the sliding scale agreement which was entered into between the associated railway companies and the trades unions acting for the railway staffs. Also, in the case of coal and the cutting down of materials, as a result of the combination they saved another one million, five hundred thousand pounds. Will he tell the House where that saving went to, or how much was used to reduce rates? That would be information for me and for other members of the Dáil. Deputy Good complained also that the rates in Ireland were very much higher than they were in England. He said they were 50 per cent. over pre-war in England and 130 per cent. in Ireland. Everyone knows that most of the traffic carried from a point in Ireland to a market town in England is carried by means of the operation of a through rate. That is based on the rate in operation between the station from which it is carried in Ireland to the port, and also from the port, especially where the shipping company is run under the auspices of a railway company, to whatever market town the traffic is sent in England. I know that Deputy Good has as much knowledge of this matter as a business man as I have. Whatever reduction came into operation as a result of the reduction of rates in England the agricultural community derived the benefit of that reduction in the operation of a through rate. The reason that the through rate is so high to-day is because there were no reductions on the Irish side.
Reductions on the other side, but no reductions on this side.
That is the case in support of the Bill. If as a result of reorganisation of the railways and the operation of the Bill there is a saving in the working expenses of the railways, I hope that the saving effected will go to the trading community who are suffering in the way Deputy Good has indicated.
Deputy Johnson is not so optimistic.
I will not deal with the question of rates any further, because I know Deputy Good has deliberately put a wrong construction upon the whole question of the rates in Ireland and in England. If the Deputy insists upon this amendment, I would like him to tell the Dáil frankly and fairly, if he has the information, how the railways have disposed of the £3,000,000 which they have saved as a result of the reduction in wages (which amounted to £1,500,000) and the reduction in the cost of coal and materials (which amounted to another £1,500,000).
There are just one or two points I wish to draw attention to. I think really the truth was expressed by Deputy Johnson, and I have referred to him as one of the wise men. I do not think anyone in the Dáil will doubt the truth of the statement that he does not expect to see any reduction in railway rates as a result of the passing of this Bill.
Nor from the amendment.
Nor from the passing of the amendment. That certainly represents the opinion of a great many. If we are not going to get any reduction as a result of this Bill, might I ask those in charge of the Bill what is the use of it? I have put up the figures as to the present position. I have told the Dáil what trade and commerce are suffering at the moment by reason of these high rates. If the Bill is not going to bring down these rates and help us in the competition that we have to face, what good is it going to do? Deputy Baxter is not very hopeful about it. He said we are about as bad as we could be and that this Bill cannot make the situation any worse. That is the best blessing he could give us. It is a poor blessing. If this Bill is not going to make us any better, what is the use of passing it? It is obvious that we cannot continue on the lines in which we are going. Trade and commerce must get some relief from the burdens that they are trying to carry if we are to find employment for our unemployed. This Bill is put forward as one of the reliefs. If, in the opinion of the Dáil, it is going to afford no relief, what is the use of pressing it? The President says that we do not want to do anything. If we are not going to do something that will do us good, I think it is better to do nothing until we see that we can do some good.
My view is—I have expressed it on more than one occasion—that the moment is not opportune, conditions are not normal in Southern Ireland, and that, therefore, it would be much better if the advice had been taken that was tendered to the President, not from this part of Ireland at all, but from another part of Ireland. It would be much better to hold up the Bill until conditions become more normal. We can then possibly look to a different situation than we have to-day, and possibly would come to different conclusions than those we are likely to come to to-day. If that opinion had been accepted I am rather inclined to think it might have been the wiser thing. But, in the absence of that opinion prevailing, I take what I consider is the next best opinion I can get, and that is the opinion of the chairmen and the managers of the railways. They have told us, as I have already stated, that in their opinion two groups are preferable to unification. My amendment secures two groups. Those two groups may not be amalgamated groups. That is, one or two companies may say they will stand out from the amalgamation. If they continue of that opinion this amendment will not force them in. I cannot see any further explanation that is necessary in connection with the amendment. It states specifically that the amalgamated company shall consist of two or more of the companies mentioned in the Schedule.
Might I ask the Deputy, suppose the G.S.W.R. amalgamates with the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway, and neither of the other two companies amalgamate, how many companies will there be, apart from the smaller companies? There are three groups then.
I do not pretend to be a prophet either in the Dáil or elsewhere. Deputy Johnson has told us that an amalgamation already has taken place between the G.S.W.R. and the Cork and Bandon line. A director of the G.S.W.R. told us that if amalgamations have taken place they have not been what you call free amalgamations. They would be amalgamations taken under the direction of the Government. I do not look upon these as amalgamations at all. Deputy Johnson has told us that that amalgamation has taken place. If the negotiations have taken place in these circumstances, and if pressure is withdrawn, I doubt if the amalgamation will go through.
All I know about it is what I read in the newspapers of the meetings of the companies concerned.
We have been told, and I repeat it, that these amalgamation talks have been brought about, not in the ordinary course of business, but by reason of pressure from the Government. We have that from more than one source.
May I ask Deputy Good if there has been no Government pressure why the agreement has taken place between the Great Southern and Western and the Cork and Bandon Railway?
I am not in the confidence of the Great Southern and Western Railway or the Cork and Bandon Railway Companies, and therefore I cannot answer the further conundrum put to me by Deputy Davin. I would refer him to the railway companies concerned. A doubt was expressed as to the meaning of this amendment. I think the amendment is as clear as language could make it. There are four companies mentioned in the Schedule. Under this amendment, of the four companies, any two or more can amalgamate and form an amalgamated company, or any three of them can form an amalgamated company. If one or two companies wish to stand out under the amendment they can stand out, and the amalgamated company will still be formed.
One point made by Deputy Good which I disputed on the last day was that the losses on the baronial lines would amount to £90,000. The losses, as I said, apart from contributions we were going to give last year-apart from the guarantees of interest and principal—were £31,000. It is anticipated that there should be only about £20,000 this year. Deputy Good has referred to a statement of one railway director who said that the railway companies were not free agents in the amalgamation. That railway director is, I presume, one who now takes the place his father held on that Board, and has probably five or six years' experience of railway work. If we are to be guided by people like that I think it is not a business proposition.
The statement I made with reference to the baronial railways is taken from a statement issued on behalf of the Great Southern and Western Railway, the Midland and Great Western Railway, the Cork and Bandon Railway, and South Coast Railway Companies.
And it might be added that the exact words used in the statement—because we might as well be exact about those things—are:—"The annual liability, including interest on capital and loss on working, involved in ownership of the nineteen undertakings in question amounts, according to a careful estimate"—I have seen very careful estimates in my time. That is a very careful estimate, but it is not a correct one.
The statement I have read from refers to the nineteen baronial guaranteed railways, and is issued on behalf of the railway companies I have mentioned.
Perhaps Deputy Good will correct me if I have read it wrongly. I read from the Report: "according to a careful estimate to approximately £90,000." If I am reading correctly I make the Deputy a present of the point.
I think the railways I have mentioned, with all respect, ought to be in a position to make a careful and accurate estimate of the losses on the baronial guaranteed railways.
Deputy Good rather inferred that the Labour Party were absolutely committed to every line of this Bill. That is not so. The Labour Party, having failed to persuade the Dáil on a previous occasion to adopt, what, in their opinion, was a better measure with a better principle involved, are trying to do the best they can in the way of amending this Bill so that it will be helpful. When amendments are moved by those of us who speak on behalf of the Labour Party. we hope we will give better reasons than those given by Deputy Good in moving this amendment. Deputy Good sat down without accepting the invitation to explain how the £3,000,000 saved on the railways have been disposed of. He should be in a position to give us some enlightenment on that question. So far as railwaymen are concerned, they have nothing pleasant to look forward to under the operation of the Bill or under any Bill that means nationalisation of the railways. The numbers of men employed are likely to be reduced, and the prospects of promotion are likely to be fewer and less profitable than now, when the men are employed by a number of companies now carrying on the transport services in the Free State area. As I have said, the reason the Labour Party is supporting the Bill is that it is the easiest way to the adoption of a policy of nationalisation, an achievement which Deputy Good's amendment is likely to hinder. That is the reason, and not for any selfish one, or for anything that may be gained from the Bill, that we desire the section as it stands in preference to the amendment moved by Deputy Good.
I do not want to prolong the discussion, except that I would like to make the Government a present of Deputy Davin's support. He asked a specific question, and perhaps he would accept an answer from me, as I heard the railway companies explaining about that £3,000,000 in the last few days.
Do you admit it?
The £3,000,000 given to the railway companies was a lump sum for compensation.
That is another £3,000,000.
I beg your pardon.
It is the saving on coal that the Deputy refers to.
Tá
- John J. Cole.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Ailfrid O Bróin.
Níl
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- John Conlan.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- David Hall.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Seosamh Mag Craith.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- John T. Nolan.
- Críostór O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
- Tomas O Conaill.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar S. O Duohghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh S. O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hlfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
- Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
I desire to move amendment No. 13 standing in my name. I think No. 14 is consequential upon No. 13, so I presume that the two will be taken together. No. 13 reads as follows: "In Section 2, Sub-section (1), after the word ‘Act,' line 44. to insert the words ‘other than the Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company, City of Dublin Junction Railways, and New Ross and Waterford Extension Railways." The subsequent amendment deals with the Dublin and Kingstown Railway. I do not think there is any Deputy who can doubt the meaning of this amendment. It is merely to exclude the Dublin and South Eastern Railway and its various connections from the operation of this Bill. My main object in making this proposal is that, as I stated upon the Second Reading, I am personally opposed to monopolies, and this Bill proposes to create a complete monopoly in railways in the Saorstát. But if there is to be a monopoly I say let it be a State monopoly. I would prefer that this Bill should be a complete nationalisation scheme than the scheme as proposed, which may be only a cloak for that term. The immediate effect of the exclusion of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway is perfectly apparent. What I hope would be the ultimate effect is that instead of having one huge amalgamated monopoly, we would then have been able to have the two-group system consisting of the remaining railways as mentioned in this Bill forming one group, and the Dublin South-Eastern, and possibly the Great Northern Railway of Ireland forming the other group. The Great Northern Railway has not been dealt with in this Bill. No reason, or, at least, no adequate reason has, to my mind, been given why it has not been dealt with in the Bill, but there the fact remains. The Great Northern Railway, as I understand, is a registered Railway Company, with its place of registration in Dublin, and there may be reasons, and possibly adequate ones. Perhaps the conditions in regard to the Boundary, which is not yet quite settled, may be one reason, but at any rate not having dealt with the Great Northern Railway, I contend that the Dublin and South Eastern should be left out for the moment.
Let us hope that it will only be for the moment, or until the boundary question is settled to such an extent that we shall know how much of the Great Northern is to be in the Free State, and how much is to be outside it, and then enable the Government to bring about what, to my mind, would be preferable to this one monopoly, namely, a system on the lines of that which has been adopted in Great Britain, namely, the grouping system. I have heard it fall from the lips of several Deputies this afternoon that the grouping system in Great Britain has brought about a reduction in rates. If that is so it is all to its credit. It is stated that it is hoped that this proposal contained in this Bill will bring about a reduction in rates. But here we have an example across the water where the grouping system instead of doing away with competition has stimulated it, and which instead of leaving things as they were or indeed of increasing rates, has actually and admittedly brought about a reduction in rates. I can see no reason why we should not adopt, therefore, what is known now as the two-group system, and if we adopt the two-group system the proper and more appropriate form of grouping Irish railways would be along the coast from the North down as far as Waterford on the one side, as against the Great Southern and Western and the Midland Great Western system on the other. It has been stated over and over again, almost ad nauseam, and I am not going to weary the Committee by going very much into it, that there is no such thing as competition in Ireland to-day. That statement, I am glad to say, has been contradicted by some of the Deputies here who should know something, and who, I think, are generally credited with knowing a great deal about railway conditions, but again I beg to enter my protest against the statement as being an inaccurate one. It is perfectly true that there has not been the competition in Ireland in regard to railways that there might have been.
There has not been competition here in the past, such competition as there has been in Great Britain or elsewhere. But there are certainly two distinct systems in Ireland—the Great Southern and Western on the one hand, and the Dublin and South Eastern on the other hand, both emanating from Dublin and both terminating in Waterford, which have been, and I say still are, competitors. The rates may be the same, but there is no question that there is competition. Anybody living in the locality of Waterford will tell you that there is still competition, and fierce competition, too, for accommodation and for facilities. What are the number of canvassers doing for both railway companies in the City of Waterford to-day? I can say from my personal experience there that there is a stimulated competition there, and that the business interests, the shipping interests, and also the working class interests in Waterford are all in favour of keeping up a form of competition, and would not welcome a system of monopoly. I think it was Deputy Johnson stated that in his opinion competition did not increase traffic. Now I beg to differ with him on that point. I think competition does stimulate traffic, because I think that it facilitates producers in getting their produce to the markets and that it holds out inducements which would not be present to the mind and would not accelerate the efforts or energies of producers or manufacturers or traders in any respect if the competition were not there. It has also been stated that there has been a great deal of talk about English railway companies and their competition for Irish trade. Well, after all, when one considers the fact, as we have all seen once more announced in to-day's newspapers, that 90 per cent. of the exports of this country are sent to Great Britain, it is only natural that British railway companies should be interested in the carriage of Irish goods.
But, furthermore, it is only natural that we here in Ireland should be interested in the facilities that the British railway companies will afford us in the carriage of our goods. Various speakers have supported this Bill and opposed these amendments on the ground that we could not be in a worse position than we are. My reply to that is that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know, and, that, bad as we are, we do not know where we will be, certainly not from the deductions to be drawn from the arguments of the supporters of this proposed hybrid monopoly. The question of groups, as against a monopoly, has been almost worn out to a shred by the speeches of the Deputies in the Dáil this afternoon. I would especially like to impress upon the Committee that this amendment is in no sense a wrecking one. The Dublin and South Eastern Railway Company do not desire to join in this amalgamation, but even more so the other railway companies, as far as I understand, do not desire the Dublin and South Eastern to join them. What harm, therefore, would it be for us to leave the Dublin and South Eastern aside until we are in a position which the President, I presume, and the Executive Council, think they arc not in to-day, to deal properly with the Great Northern Railway, which is, and should be, and must in the future be considered as a Free State railway company.
at this stage resumed the Chair.
I think, therefore, that this amendment does not ask too much of the Government or of the Dáil, and it will not be inflicting a hardship on anybody. It will not be depriving the railway companies of what they consider to be their rights. It will not be depriving the other companies of the pleasure of being associated with the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, and I am afraid it will not be depriving the State of any great revenue. I can see, therefore, no reason why the Dáil and the Government could not accede to this request. When the time comes for the Great Northern and the Donegal Railways, which are also excluded from this Bill, to be placed along with the other Irish railway companies in whatever scheme is to be propounded for the future government of the Irish railways, then, I say, will be the time to consider the position also of the Dublin and South Eastern. Then we shall be able to build up a group system which at any rate has got this advantage, that it has succeeded elsewhere. I desire to move my amendment.
Before Deputy Redmond loses the thread of his argument, would he oblige the Dáil by explaining in some fullness the advantage of this East Coast amalgamation to the country. I have heard his argument for at least twelve months, and I have heard references as to the desirability of it, but I have never heard any arguments put up in favour of it except that it would fit in with the requirements of the L.M. and S. I would like if Deputy Redmond would enlarge on the benefits of this East Coast amalgamation, and quite honestly I say that I am open to conviction on the merits of this proposition.
The whole basis of Deputy Redmond's argument lies in the fact that it will perhaps eventually lead to what he would consider an East Coast group system in opposition to the rest of the railways in Ireland. He says that because the group system in England has been successful, that, therefore, the group system in Ireland will be the very thing for this country. Deputy Hewat brought forth a map to-day. Anyone that looks at that map can see that the railways in Ireland are each built in separate districts, and that with the exception of Waterford there is no real competition at all. I want to put to him this proposition. Does he mean that the farmers living in proximity to the Dublin and South Eastern Railway are to be continued in misery and to be left for ever to pay rates of 120 per cent. above pre-war? The rates for agricultural produce on the Dublin and South Eastern Railway, as given by an official of the Department of Agriculture before the Commission on Agriculture, varied up to 475 per cent. in excess of the pre-war rates. At the present time, instead of being 120 per cent. which is the supposed figure above the pre-war rate, I know that on that particular railway some articles are being charged 300 per cent. above the pre-war rate. I put it to Deputy Redmond: Does he mean to perpetuate that state of affairs, and how is he going to get it remedied? Does he imagine that the people in the districts served by the Dublin South Eastern Railway would be satisfied with the existing state of affairs?
Can the Deputy tell us on what class of traffic the rates on the Dublin South-Eastern Railway are, as he alleges, 450 per cent. above the pre-war rate?
I am quoting the figures which were given by an official of the Department of Agriculture before the Agricultural Commission. I know, as a fact, that the rates on potatoes from one station at the present time are so prohibitive that people could not possibly send them to Dublin, and the people in the City of Dublin are suffering as a result of that. No one in the districts served by that railway can send potatoes to Dublin, because the rates charged for their carriage would not pay for them. Take milk, which is an essential article of food for people in the city. The pre-war rate for the carriage of milk up to 50 miles on the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway was ½d. per gallon, and to-day it is 1½d. The only chance we have of reducing rates on that particular railway system is by road traffic. Deputy Redmond says he is in favour of nationalisation.
In preference to this scheme.
Well, now, what does this scheme mean? The scheme means to pay people 4.12 per cent. on their capital, and I take it that that is not an unreasonable rate of interest. If you have nationalisation, and capital is invested, you will have to pay that interest on the money you require. You will not get money for that rate of interest, and if there is loss on the railways that percentage of interest will have to be borrowed to pay for the running of the railways. Do you follow that argument?
The Deputy will have to keep on to the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway Co.
This matter of nationalisation was brought into the discussion. Another reason given why the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway is not to be coalesced with the remaining lot of railways is because there is a mutual aversion between the directors of the Dublin and South-Eastern Railway and the directors of the other Irish railways. That is one of the reasons why Deputy Redmond comes forward with his argument in favour of leaving out this railway; but, I ask, are we, as honest business people, to consider the aversions of one set of railway directors to another? Are we not here rather to get the best results we can for the people, and to do our best to ameliorate the position in which they now find themselves. We want cheaper railway rates. The farmers believe that perhaps cheaper rates may come as a result of this amalgamation. If you eliminate waste in the management of the railways there must be a saving. If you do so by combination and by an elimination of that waste the saving must eventually come back to us in cheaper rates
And in higher dividends.
No, because they are based on a certain standard. However, no case has been made for the elimination of the Dublin and South Eastern Railway. I believe that Deputy Johnson is right. The case is put forward by some people that if this railway were free you would have the British interests operating in such a way in connection with that railway that you would have competition. That is the only case I heard put forward for this railway, that the L.M. and S. would bring tourists and other traffic to that railway and to Ireland generally. But that is not the case. That particular traffic will come, and there is nothing to prevent that traffic coming by this unification scheme. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, and taking it as the best of a bad job, because it is a bad job, we see no way out of the difficulty except by amalgamating the companies, eliminating waste, and hoping for better relations between labour and the governing powers, and that we will eventually receive that which we so earnestly desire.
I think that Deputy Redmond will have been convinced from the atmosphere of the Dáil that even his eloquence is not going to alter the scope of this Bill. I simply rise to criticise the attitude of the farmers in this matter, as expressed by Deputy Wilson. What is the particular interest of the farmers in this matter? I think it is hereditary. It is their interests to avoid paying anything that they can help paying. It is obvious that under certain baronially guaranteed railways the farmers have to pay up certain moneys on these railways. If they put their attitude honestly before us in that way, I think they would be giving a very good reason for opposing the Bill, but, taking the country as a whole, it is quite another matter. As far as the Dublin and South Eastern Railway is concerned, what is the value of amalgamation? Deputy Wilson may find when he is coming up to the Dáil from the neighbourhood of Rathdrum that the amalgamated company has shut up that line altogether, and that he will have to come around by Waterford.
My attitude with regard to this amendment is this: that I do not think Deputy Redmond has put forward any argument that calls for any reply.
I wish to say that in the best interests of the Dublin South Eastern this amendment has to be opposed. If accepted it would prevent traders on this line receiving the full effect of the economies and reductions of rates that we hope will follow from this scheme. One group will secure maximum economies, and there would be lessening of these from any splitting up of the group. There is also the point that Deputy Redmond's amendment makes no provision with regard to the charges of the company and takes no power of supervision over the rates. They are simply left to extend or modify the charges as they please.
I do not desire to detain the Committee much longer, but I must say I cannot follow the argument of the Minister when he says that it is in the interests of the company that they should be amalgamated as proposed. At any rate that is not the company's own view. Of course we may all have our own opinions. The Minister has his opinion, and he may have his opinion about the interests of the company even though they do not think that his proposal would be in the interest of their shareholders. But passing from that, I do not see what economies there are to be effected in regard to the Dublin South Eastern. I am afraid the Dublin South Eastern is in a position at present that it is not economies it wants but a good deal more money spent upon it to make if an effective railway system.
Now in regard to the question put to me by Deputy Johnson. I think he asked what benefit it would be to have a coastal service as one group as against the other. My answer to that is this: That when the time comes for amalgamating the Great Northern or joining up the Great Northern with the Free State some provision will have to be made for that and that it would be most advantageous to have one line from the North to the South connecting the industrial North with the agricultural South, and we hope some fine day—it may be rather remote, or it may not— that Belfast will be within the Saorstát, and that being so, I think it would be well at any rate to keep open a door whereby the Great Northern could be linked up with the railways in the South of Ireland and thereby join up Belfast, through Dublin, with Waterford.
That may be admitted, but why the Dublin and South Eastern?
Because that would bring about the two group system. The Dublin and South Eastern itself could not form one group, but the Great Northern, with the Dublin and South Eastern, would be able to form a group, which would be a strong competitor with the other group, and would thereby endeavour to bring about a reduction of rates which we all wish.
There is another point to that question which, I think, is rather of interest, and it is this. A good deal of the shipping between the principal ports in Ireland is upon the East Coast, ranging from Belfast in the North, to Dundalk, Drogheda, Dublin. Waterford and Cork, and a railway system stretching along that coast would be in competition with those coastal lines, and thereby again endeavour to bring about a reduction of rates.
The main purpose that I had in proposing that the Dublin South-Eastern should be excluded was because I hope that at some future date it may be amalgamated with the Great Northern and thus set up a two-group system which would be, at any rate, better, and certainly has proved up to this to be more efficacious in bringing about a reduction of rates than a one-group system. Deputy Wilson spoke about a reduction of rates, and he said that that was his object. That is our common object. Perhaps he may not have been in the Dáil at the time, but if he was he will bear me out when I say that Deputy Johnson said that in his opinion this Bill would not necessarily bring about a reduction of rates. That being so, why, then, should Deputy Wilson be so keen on supporting this proposal if the reduction of rates is his object? I would like Deputies, before they absolutely reject this amendment. to regard it in all seriousness as a means for keeping the door open between the North and the South, and finally linking up the industrial North and the agricultural South.
I am disappointed with the reason given by Deputy Redmond for advocating this east coast linking-up. As I said earlier, I heard the suggestion a year ago that this was likely to be the best grouping, to form two groups for Ireland, one of which would be the Great Northern, Midland (Northern Counties), which is now part of the London, Midland and Scottish system, the Co. Down, and the Dublin & South-Eastern. I have heard or read of several suggestions since of the same kind, and I have been waiting to hear somebody explain what advantage there would be in that particular kind of grouping as contrasted with any other kind. Let us assume for the moment that two groups are desirable: Deputy Redmond plumps for this grouping of the Great Northern and the Dublin & South-Eastern Railway. Surely there are some reasons to be advanced in favour of it besides the one that he has put forward, that it would enable the communication between North and South to be maintained? Well, the connection between North and South or between North and Midlands could be obtained if there was a grouping of the Great Northern and the Midland Great Western. There could even be a possibility of the grouping of the Great Northern and the Great Southern and Western. but no good reason has been given, to my satisfaction at any rate, why on any count the Dublin & South-Eastern should be amalgamated with the Great Northern. I cannot see that they have a community of interests more than any other two railways, except that they both come to Dublin.
There is no regular traffic between Wicklow or Wexford and Belfast; there is no traffic between Dundalk and Arklow, and there is no present connection, except the connection from the Dun Laoghaire line. As between Dun Laoghaire and the North a case could be made; I could understand that case, but so far no case has been made to the advantage of Ireland, or Ireland's railway system, in favour of the linking-up of the Dublin South-Eastern and the Great Northern, and I am forced to the conclusion that the advantage that is to lie, if there be any advantage at all, is not to the Irish railway system or the Irish community but to a British railway company, inasmuch as the railway services connecting those ports of the east coast which Deputy Redmond has spoken of will be subject somewhat to the control or be influenced considerably by that cross-Channel railway company. If there is no better argument than that which Deputy Redmond has put forward in favour of this suggested future combination, I am afraid that it is not worthy of any support whatever. I agree with Deputy Redmond that It is an unfortunate fact that the Bill does not contemplate, even at any future date, the inclusion of the Great Northern Railway. I hope that the Dáil will be persuaded to amend the Bill in that direction before we dispose of it. We shall provide an opportunity for that, I hope, and I will ask the Dáil then to consider that whole matter, probably in relation also to this proposal of the Dublin South Eastern. By that time we may get more information. Perhaps Deputy Redmond will fortify himself with some arguments better than those he has now adduced in favour of this proposal.
Amendment 15 falls consequential on amendment 11. Amendment 16 is the same idea as amendment 12, but it does not necessarily fall if Deputy Good cares to move it.
I move: To delete sub-section (2) and to substitute therefor the following new sub-section:—
For the purpose of this Act the Arigna Colliery Extension Railway, the Athy-Wolfhill Colliery Railway and the Castlecomer Railway, or any one or more of them may, with the consent of the Minister, be absorbed by the amalgamated company on terms to be agreed with the owner of such railway or railways so to be absorbed."
The difference in connection with this amendment is that these three lines which it is supposed to absorb have each shown a heavy deficit in working. According to the White Paper, the first of them shows a loss of £471 in 1922 and £527 in 1923; the next, a loss of £3,371 in 1922 and of £2,413 in 1923; the third line shows a loss of £325 in 1922 and £398 in 1923. The amendment gives to the tribunal the option of deciding whether these lines should be absorbed or not. If we pass the Bill as it stands they will be compulsorily absorbed. If the amendment be adopted it will mean that the matter will be considered by the tribunal and settled by them in consultation with these companies as to what terms they may absorb them on, if at all; so that I think the adoption of the amendment would give a very useful authority to the tribunal, and possibly might avoid the placing of an unnecessary burden on the amalgamated company, because of course it is obvious that the greater the burden that is placed on the back of the amalgamated company the more difficult it will be to get these rates reduced that we are all so anxious about. Therefore, I would suggest to the Minister that, assuming it would be the desire of the tribunal to absorb these companies, the adoption of this amendment does not prevent them from doing so. If, on the other hand, they decide not to absorb all or any of them they are at liberty to do so.
The purpose of this amendment apparently is to leave it optional for the absorption by the amalgamated company of one or other of these lines. The amendment states, however, "on terms to be agreed with the owner of such railway or railways." The owner of these railways is, of course, the Government, and while it is true to say that the lines have been worked at a loss of over £3,000 last year, the fact is that these lines were constructed by the Government at a total cost of about £345,000, and it is the wish of the owner of these lines to have them absorbed by the amalgamating company. Any objection to the taking over of these lines, and working at a loss, should be offset by the fact that they are getting in return a big amount of capital money sunk in the construction of these lines, and no demand is made for payment of dividends.
This gives an instance of what we are entering on, and indicates in what direction we are proceeding. These lines were built at the Government expense under pressure, and with the full and complete knowledge that they would be a total loss. Two short distance lines were built under what I might call political pressure, not exactly political pressure in the sense we know it, but it was pressure brought to bear on the Government to spend this money. It was an absolute waste, so far as any economic proposition was concerned. That is what you may expect under what some of the Deputies are advocating in the nature of State ownership of the railways. That is one of our main and very important objections to the road you are entering upon in connection with this Bill. You are marching towards nationalisation. Here is an instance of nationalisation—two railways, that never should have been built as far as any economic proposition is concerned, and now the Government come along and say: "We want to bring them in; we do not want to bear this loss; in the same way as the baronially guaranteed railways, we want to hide it away in an amalgamation or nationalisation scheme." And all this money in ordinary book-keeping would be shown to be a loss on the railways. You are going to be hoodwinked, for it is to be put into that pool.
Do I understand from the Minister that there is an annual loss of £3,000 on these three railways?
That was last year.
My idea is that the loss would be on two of the railways, and not a loss on the three. I think one would be paying for three. Is there a loss on the two?
On the three. The loss on the Castlecomer line was £2,413, and on the Athy and Wolfhill line £398, and on the other one, £527
Is the loss on the Castlecomer line caused by reason of running a passenger service?
That is the loss simply on the three lines.
It is in the White Paper. The total loss on the three lines was £3,378 in 1923.
Might we adjourn now?
I could not take a motion to report progress at this stage except from the Minister.
I would like to get this list of amendments cleared up now. We have got to Section 3.
We have not got to Section 3. Does Deputy Good want to report progress before we pass Section 2?
No, I am satisfied that we should pass Section 2.
Question: ‘That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed.
I would like if I could have an understanding as to the amendment consequential to Section 2.
Amendment 19 disappears with amendment 11. Amendment 26 disappears also; it is consequential. So does amendment 29, and so do amendments 55 and 56 on page 7; that is to say all the consequential amendments of Deputy Hewat consequential on the proposal to establish two groups instead of one.
How does 33 stand?
Yes, 33 also. That is consequential on the defeat of amendment 11. Consequential on the passing of Section 2 amendment 17 would be defeated, because the passing of Section 2 involves the adoption of the proposal for one amalgamated company, and amendment 17 is contrary to that idea, so that amendment 17 would, therefore, also go.