Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Mar 1927

Vol. 19 No. 5

PRIVATE BUSINESS. - RAILWAYS (ROAD MOTOR SERVICES) BILL, 1927—SECOND STAGE.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Major COOPER

Before the Minister for Industry and Commerce makes his statement, I want to call attention to a point of order. I suggest, in the first place, that this is really a Private Bill. The existing powers of the railway companies are conferred on them by Acts which were promoted by Private Bills, and a measure extending those powers should also be promoted as a Private Bill in order to give an opportunity to those interests that may be affected by the measure being heard. It will be in the recollection of the Dáil that two years ago, when the Dublin United Tramways Company wished to obtain precisely similar powers to those contained in the Bill, it was necessary for them to proceed by way of Private Bill legislation. I suggest that this is an occasion on which the same procedure should be followed. Failing that, in the event of your ruling against me on that point, I want to call your further attention to Standing Order 52 in regard to Private Bill procedure, which says:—

"Where a Public Bill (not being a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order) is ordered to be read a Second Time in either House, on a day appointed, and it appears to the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil, or the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, that the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills should be applicable to the Bill, the House may refer the Bill to the Examiner, who shall examine the Bill ..."

I would like your ruling on the question as to whether this is not a Bill to which Standing Orders relative to Private Bills should apply. I have given my reasons, but I should reaffirm that this is a measure affecting many interests, that it was introduced only last week, and though only made available for the public on Friday, Deputies have already received numerous representations from various interests that will be affected by it. I suggest that it would be desirable to allow those interests to be heard by Counsel, or otherwise, according to the procedure arranged for Private Bills.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Deputy Cooper has just avoided saying that this is a Private Bill. He said that it should have been a Private Bill. If he intended to imply that this must be treated as a Private Bill, I would ask him to read the definition of a Private Bill. I think he would then see that his contention could not stand. According to Standing Order No. 1, "Every Bill promoted for the particular interest or benefit of any person, or that interferes with the private property of any person, otherwise than in the interests of the public generally and as a measure of public policy, shall be treated as a Private Bill." I think that that last phrase rules this out from being considered as a Private Bill. Deputy Cooper puts it to you that you should rule that the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills should be made applicable to this Bill. I do not know on what ground you should so rule.

Major COOPER

I asked the Ceann Comhairle to rule. I did not presume to suggest in what direction he should rule.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The Deputy urged certain considerations as an argument to sway your judgment in coming to a decision as to whether the Standing Orders referring to Private Bills should be applicable to this measure. One of these arguments was that private interests concerned should be allowed to appear. What private interest is concerned in this? The Deputy raised an analogy of the Dublin United Tramway Company's Bill. If that Bill had been introduced, not for the benefit of the Dublin tramway system alone, but for all the tramway systems in the country I doubt if it would be considered as a Private Bill. As to private interest, with regard to this measure, I know of none. I know of common rights which certain motor buses associations have in common with myself, if I liked to run a motor bus on the road.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

On the first point as to whether this is a Private Bill, I think the definition of a Private Bill is quite plain, as given in Standing Order No. 1. This is a Bill for the purpose of conferring on all railways in the State certain powers, as a measure of public policy. The procedure under the Standing Orders would appear to be that the House should be allowed to decide by taking the Second Reading in the House in the ordinary way, as to whether it agrees that policy does not dictate that certain principles should be affirmed. With regard to the applicability of Standing Order 52, it would have to be shown. I think, to the Chair that the Bill proposes to interfere with the private property of some person before that Standing Order could be made applicable. It does not appear to me that the Bill interferes with the private property of any person, but if Deputy Cooper has any point to make on that question I would be glad to hear it.

Major COOPER

I suggest that this Bill, inter alia, interferes with the private property of the Dublin United Tramways Company, who have a right to run trams between Kingsbridge and Westland Row, and this Bill would empower the railway company to place buses in competition with the trams.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Are they secured against competition?

Major COOPER

They are secured against the railway company.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The fact that the Tramways Company are allowed by statute to run trams from Westland Row to Kingsbridge does not mean that they have a private property within the meaning of Standing Order 1. They are not secured against competition and, as a matter of fact, when the Tramways Company were applying by Private Bill for power to run buses, other bus owners, against whom the company were going into competition, were not heard before the Private Bill Committee. If it were proposed in the Bill to take something from the powers already conferred on the Dublin United Tramways Company, then the question of the applicability of Standing Order 52 would arise. I do not say how it would be decided, but in this case I cannot see any such intention. At present any citizen can run buses in competition with the Tramways Company. The Bill proposes to add to these persons the railway companies. On the other hand, if the Southern Railways desired to build another line from Dublin to Greystones, say, further inland than the present line, they would have to proceed by way of Private Bill, as they would be interfering with the private property of certain persons whose lands they would have to go through. This being a measure applying to all the railways in the country, and a measure of public policy, it appears to me to be a Public Bill and not a Private Bill, not even a hybrid Bill.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The justification for this Bill can be quite simply stated. The position at the moment in regard to road transport is, that anyone can put a motor service on the road on complying with certain general conditions. These general conditions are under law, the administration of which lies either in the Department of Local Government or in the Department of Justice. There seems to be no good reason why the railway companies should not have the same rights as everybody else with regard to road transport and motor services on the road, if two conditions are safeguarded and if, in addition to that, benefit seems likely to accrue to the public. The two conditions to be safeguarded are, first, that the general intention of the Railways Act of 1924 shall be carried out, and that the intention of that Act be safeguarded by not allowing any raising of rates or any reduction of revenue by reason of motor services being entered on by the railway company, where they are not able to meet competition of services already in existence.

Secondly, there must be security that the Railway Company shall not, by virtue of their larger financial resources and their situation generally in regard to transport, secure what would amount to a monopoly detrimental to the public. Having shown that that can be done, and that benefit is likely to accrue to the public by better service by road and rail, then there is not merely no objection to the railway company getting these powers but there is a definite case in favour of these powers being given. The safeguards regarding the two points I have dealt with are contained in various sections of the Bill. The safeguard with regard to the intention of the Railways Act is contained in Section 10 of the Bill, where it is stated: "A road motor service run by a railway company under this Act shall for the purposes of the Railways Act, 1924, be deemed to be a business carried on by the company ancillary or subsidiary to its railway, the charges for which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Railway Tribunal."

That means the reaction of Section 53 of the Railways Act of 1924, on Section 10 of this Act amounts to this: that the standard revenue would have to be fixed when taking into consideration any loss accruing from badly-run motor services under the control of the railway company. The Railway Tribunal, in fixing the standard revenue and charges, would have to consider what could have been earned if the services had been properly run. The reaction of Section 53 of the Railways Act on this section ensures no entering by the railway company into competition with established road services unless they see that they can derive revenue from it. With regard to the safeguarding against monopoly, that arises in various ways through the Bill. First, through the approval of routes, and on that there are certain safeguards against lowering railway revenue and the necessity that might arise thereafter for increasing rates.

The approval of routes, with other matters, secures against any monopoly that might be apprehended from the operations of this Bill. The routes over which the service is run must be approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, after consultation, as the section stands, with the Minister for Local Government. In addition to that, there has to be a series of maximum charges placed before, and sanctioned by, first of all, the Rates Advisory Committee, and, secondly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Thirdly, there is the stipulation that once a road motor service has been instituted by the railway company, it cannot be withdrawn except with the approval of the Minister.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister explain the reason that that is put into the Bill?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is put in to prevent monopoly. The fourth point is that, if the railway company has established road motor services and the maximum rate is charged on a particular road, that rate cannot be increased without the approval of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. These last two sections, to which I have referred, are meant to have this effect. They are meant to guard against a very obvious danger, namely, that the railway company might put on the roads a service of motors to beat competition in a particular district and, having beaten it, either withdraw the road service, leaving the area no longer served, or raise the charges to the maximum, as fixed by the Rates Advisory Committee. Two points have to be guarded against, namely, a lowering of rate and running at a loss over a particular period in order to ensure the defeat of some competitor on the roads and, having secured his defeat, either withdraw the service under the auspices of the railway company or raise the rate which was at first instituted.

These two things being guarded, in addition to the approval of the rates, I do not see that there can be any apprehension as to what is being described as the monopoly that is certain to be granted to the railway companies by reason of this measure.

Professor THRIFT

Can they cut down the service so as to make it purely nominal?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I do not think that can be done either. If there is a gap in the Bill in that respect we can amend it to meet the point. Certainly our desire is to ensure that it will not be possible for railway companies to enter into a district simply for the purpose of beating competition, and having done that then to diminish the railway service or raise the rates or withdraw the service altogether.

Professor THRIFT

That is the object of the Bill.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes. I had thought that the question of the withdrawal of service altogether would have given me power to deal with such things as the nature of the service that is referred to in the section dealing with the approval of routes. There has to be given to the Minister particulars of the routes over which it is proposed to run a service as well as particulars of the nature of the service. If that section seems to be too vague and does not include such things as would be included in relation to railway companies—sometimes described as the running of a Parliamentary train with the minimum number of services per day or for a particular period—then the Bill can be made more explicit on that point. I put it, however, that both these things are safeguarded and that it is the intention to do so. If these two points are safeguarded: That the railways themselves shall not be allowed to lose money by reason of competition which they cannot meet, and secondly that the public are protected against a monopoly, then I say there is no reason whatever for refusing to allow the railway companies rights which everybody else in the country has with the solitary exception of the railway companies. If, in addition to that, the result of this Bill is to give the public a chance of a better service, either by rail or by road or both, than what they can get at the moment, then there is the positive reason why that advantage should be allowed to them.

Mr. HEWAT

Would the Minister make it clear whether the railway companies have not at present that power?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

They have very limited powers which are derived from certain old Acts. One is the Act of the old Great Southern and Western Railway, and the other an Act obtained by the Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Company—one in 1900 and the other in 1903. These Acts gave them powers to run as between their hotels and their stations and to places of interest in the neighbourhood. The Midland Great Western Railway Act of 1903 also gave those powers, and, in addition, contained a phrase to run a motor service in extension of the road service. That power has been very definitely limited. Such powers as the railway companies at present possess are old powers that came over to them, and are not sufficient to enable them to meet the competition that they are now up against.

Mr. HEWAT

Is there any prohibition in any of these Acts against the running of buses by railway companies?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, because the railway people definitely got the power only to run the buses for specific purposes and along specified roads, and until positive power was given them by some Act they were definitely precluded from the roads. It is to be observed that a proposal in the Bill under Section 12 is to bring to an end whatever existing statutory powers the railway companies have at the moment. Then there is a small point. It is in order that when instructions and orders are given with regard to the keeping of accounts in the future, the road accounts must be kept entirely separate from the railway accounts. If the present powers that the railway companies have with regard to roads were continued it would mean that the accounts could not be definitely segregated, and there would be a great deal of mixing up with the road services which were not previously allowed.

If the public get the extra benefit by reason of these powers, then there is all the greater reason why the powers should be given. There are two reasons why the powers proposed can serve the public. The first is that they will enable a district not at present served by any sort of railway, not directly connected with a railway system, to be connected hereafter with a railway system by means of a road service operated under the railway companies, so that a through rate can be given from districts now unserved as far as railway service is concerned. In that way a district can be brought closer in touch with the railway systems of the country. The second point is that giving the railways those powers will mean in the end, I do not say it will mean at the beginning, the elimination of all unnecessary overlapping. It will also take away any competition which is not advantageous to the public in the long run.

There seems to be an apprehension that the railways will be enabled to give a motor service, after getting those powers, against which the present private motor owners cannot compete. That seems to me only to indicate the fear that the railway companies will, in fact, be able to give a cheaper service under the heavier conditions laid on them under this Act—heavier conditions than any private motor owner has to submit to at present. I think that it will be able to give a service better than the private motor owners at the moment can give. If the railway companies are enabled to do that, then the public will be protected against a monopoly, while the railway companies themselves would be safeguarded against a lowering of their revenue by reason of injudicious action. The public have the right to get the benefit of the cheapest possible transport.

There are two other matters that I would like to refer to. One is the competition that is going on at the moment, competition between a system which has to finance completely the upkeep and the maintenance and repair of its own permanent highway and which cost the Great Southern Railways a sum of nearly £700,000 last year, and in competition with that particular type of service you have a road service, not having to pay the complete cost either of the building or the upkeep of its permanent way.

There was a line of policy indicated here last year which, subject to modification and according to circumstances, amounted to this: that the contribution from the general rates towards the roads was to be stabilised at a particular percentage addition over what was paid from the rates in 1914; that the expenditure on roads over and above that figure should, for the future, be met by taxation on motor vehicles, and to that extent, and only to that extent, to which roads are not subsidised by the general rates, private motor owners have to bear the cost of their highway. The amount of the subvention to the motor owners for the upkeep of their particular track is a very big thing, and it seems unfair that the railway companies should have to pay a sum amounting to £700,000 for the upkeep of their highway, and then be put in competition with people who have not to pay for the upkeep of their particular highway more than fifty per cent. of the cost of building and upkeep, and that at the same time the railway companies should be prohibited from using the highway of their rivals, towards which they pay a certain amount by way of rates. Objection may be raised that the railway companies, by running a motor service over the roads, will add to the wear and tear on the roads, and that this will involve extra cost as regards their upkeep, and that this wear and tear is going to increase road expenditure, and further that that expenditure will have to be met by motor taxation. In so far as that works out to be true, a proportion of it will fall upon whatever road vehicles the railway companies put on the roads, so that they will be given no superiority over their rivals in the matter of easy terms. On the other hand they are being bound by certain conditions which no private motor owner at present is being subjected to. You start off with certain general conditions with regard to licences, the speed per hour, and with regard to certain types of vehicles. All that is common both to the ordinary road motor vehicle and those to be used by the railway companies. Outside that the ordinary private motor owner is free from restrictions. The railway company is being put in a freer position than it exists in at the moment, where it is entirely prohibited from the road.

It is given power to compete with the others, subject to these conditions: approval of routes, maximum charges, rates once charged not to be raised without the approval of the Minister, and a service once instituted not to be withdrawn without the approval of the Minister. They are onerous conditions, but are put in to prevent any monopoly accruing to the railway companies on account of their big financial resources, their terminals and their general services. I think it is a matter of most elementary justice that the railway companies should be given this right, particularly at a period when they are subject to such keen competition from road motor users, and if there is not sufficient safeguarding in this measure with regard to the thing that seems to be feared and ought to be protected against, that is the question of monopoly. I would be very satisfied to have any further checks pointed out which can, with reason, be put on the railway companies. I ask those who are afraid of monopoly to take into account and to look at the other side of the question, and that is, what position the railway companies will be put in in comparison with their rivals, having those conditions imposed upon them, and to see if the conditions imposed do not go as far as is practicable to remove the fear generally expressed with regard to monopoly.

Major COOPER

I do not think any Deputy will complain if we are asked to take into consideration the position of these railway companies. I quite agree it is a serious one which requires to be met, but I am not going to suggest, and I have no hope of suggesting anything convincingly to the Minister that would make him believe that this is the wrong way of dealing with the situation. It was, and is, unjust that railway companies should be compelled to pay rates to support roads which are being used by their competitors and from which they derive no benefit. If the Minister proposed to relieve them of that liability I would support him.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is not very heavy.

Major COOPER

It is frequently complained of if it is not very heavy. If the Minister proposes to compel the other companies, who are using the roads regularly, by placing motor services on the roads, to pay by increased taxation, and I think petrol taxation would be the best way to make them pay, I would support that. But I suggest we should not be too quick to give the measure a Second Reading. The implications are greater than one would gather from the Minister's speech. To begin with, many more interests are affected than those suggested by the Minister. For instance, apprehension is being created in the minds of those who, either for pleasure or profit, remove furniture. They anticipate that the railway companies will place on the roads a fleet of motor furniture vans and compete with the ordinary furniture remover, whose capital is comparatively small. That is a question which requires looking into, and I have not had time to look into it. As Deputies know, this Bill was only printed on Friday, has been available to the public only for two days, and they have already begun to shower protests on it. Other bodies have to be considered when we are making provision for increased motor traffic, and those are the county councils and local authorities. When the Dublin United Tramways Company were promoting a Bill in order to enable them to run motor buses, the county councils of Dublin and Wicklow both appeared before the Private Bill Committee and secured concessions, but by legislating in this manner it is not open to the county councils to make any representations. They have to shoulder the burden of increased motor traffic, because otherwise it will be ineffective and nugatory, without any power of placing their views.

The Minister dealt with safeguards. I think he has been so anxious to safeguard that he has made the Bill a dangerous gift to the railway companies, for some of those safeguards imposed in the Bill may be used by a Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce, and some day there will be a Labour Minister for Industry and Commerce, as a means of exercising pressure on the railway companies for concessions as regards wages and conditions of labour. The Minister can, if he chooses, without any appeal whatever, compel railway companies to continue to run services that are not paying at rates that are not economic. There is no provision to prevent that. Of course, I know Ministers assume, as Ministers always assume, that their official life is eternal. In this case we are legislating for all time, and we must make allowance for possible changes in the Executive Council. I think railway companies themselves would be well advised to reflect whether it is wise to accept this gift, shackled down by these provisions.

Finally, I am anxious if possible that we should have a little more consideration before we come finally to a decision on this subject. What is the most trouble in the Saorstát to-day is lack of business enterprise, that people will not invest their capital in new enterprises in their own country. It is necessary, therefore, for the State to step in by subsidy in one or another case which ought to be left to the normal working of private enterprise. One of the few directions in which business enterprise has been exemplified is in the matter of the owners of lorries and motor buses. They have invested their capital. They have struck out in a new direction, and now this is the State's reply to them. I admit that not a great deal has been done, and that motor road transport is in its infancy here compared with Northern Ireland. I do not know Northern Ireland as well as the Minister, but I was very much impressed the last time I was in Belfast with the number of motor buses and char-a-bancs going to all parts of the country. So far as I know no similar measure has been introduced in Northern Ireland where, undoubtedly, motor competition is much keener. The same state of affairs exists in Italy. I think it exists in France, and yet we alone, where motor transport is comparatively in its infancy, are legislating to set up and to allow competition of a powerfully endowed competitor. I want to impress on the Dáil, not only in this specific instance, but as a principle, that government interference with private enterprise is going eventually to kill private enterprise. How are you going to overcome the reluctance of capital to come forward and of Irishmen to invest money in their own country when there is an impression abroad that the Government is ready, without adequate consideration, to interfere with and alter the conditions under which that capital was invested? It is a real danger, and I think the Ministers, in their desire to do well, for I have always credited them with the desire to do well, are sometimes slow to realise that their rebukes of Irish investors and Irish business men are not fully justified because they themselves are contributors to the state of affairs in which the investor of capital or promoter of industry is bound to think, not once or twice, but half a dozen times before he takes a decisive step.

Mr. DAVIN

Deputy Cooper seems to have got the impression that this measure is making provision for railway legislation for all time. I sincerely hope and believe that that is not the intention, for the reason that the Government do not appear to have given that amount of consideration to this or any other measure dealing with the transport problem which would lead one to think that they were legislating for all time. I may say, for Deputy Cooper's information, that this is the fourth measure dealing with railways and introduced since 1924. In addition to that, the Minister for Justice stated the other day that there was an inter-Departmental Committee at present dealing with the traffic problem as a whole. Therefore we may anticipate that if the Minister for Justice remains here until the report of that Committee appears we shall have another measure introduced. I believe that this measure is merely fooling with the problem of regulating the development of road motor services and, generally speaking, is only tinkering with the general transport problem. In my opinion the Bill will lead to more chaos in the transport industry. You have here a Bill that, generally speaking, is necessary, giving authority and power to the railway companies to run bus services in order to meet competition brought about by modern transport requirements. Very extensive and autocratic powers are being sought in this measure by the Minister fixing maximum charges and regulating approved routes, but the people who will compete with the railway companies in the future may run buses without any of the restrictions laid down for the railway companies in this Bill. I want to know if the Minister or his Department have given any consideration— perhaps the Minister for Local Government might be interested in this too—to the problem of transport as a whole. The Department of Industry and Commerce, more than any other, should be responsible for this. I should like to know why the railway companies in the consultations which they must have had with the Minister and his officials in 1924 did not then seek the powers now being sought by the Minister on their behalf.

Did this question arise when the whole problem of railway legislation was under consideration in 1924? Did the railway companies previous to this make any representations to the Minister on the matter? Why has he delayed so long in view of the growing competition from private bus services before bringing in a measure of this kind? I believe, and it is the general opinion of experienced railway men, that the railway managements have not given that careful consideration to modern transport requirements which they should have given in view of the growing problem that faces them. There may be some reason for it. We all know that previous to 1924, there was a certain amount of domestic disturbance within the various railway boards which made them think more about the pending railway legislation than about the growing competition with which they were faced as a result of the increase in motor bus services which has been gradually decreasing the revenue of the railways for the last four or five years. The fault to a great extent for the position as it exists to-day and as it concerns the railway companies lies with the railway boards, but the Minister has a responsibility which he cannot disclaim. As I said, this measure is only one of four introduced since 1924, and perhaps we will have a fifth later on, and is leading to more chaos which shows clearly that the Minister's Department has not given any careful consideration to the whole transport problem, and the problem as a whole is bound up with the rights and powers sought in this Bill.

The Bill, as I have stated, is singularly autocratic. The Minister is to decide whether or not a particular railway motor service is to be run. He is to consult, but he need not secure the agreement of the Minister for Local Government. He need not consult anybody else. How is it that words are put into the Bill which mean nothing: "in consultation with the Minister for Local Government"? The Minister himself is the final authority in deciding what is to be the approved route.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Is not all the Deputy wants stated?

Mr. DAVIN

Why go to the trouble of consulting the Minister for Local Government without imposing upon the Minister for Industry and Commerce or his Department the obligation of agreeing with the Minister for Local Government?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It does not deceive anybody—the Deputy has found it out.

Mr. DAVIN

The Minister himself is the final and decisive authority.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Exactly.

Mr. DAVIN

I object to that. I believe that if the Minister is to come to proper decisions in regard to matters of transport—and this is only one side of the whole question—that he himself or some other Department in conjunction with him should be responsible for setting up an authoritative body whom he might consult in regard to the question of approved routes or even of rates for railway-owned bus services or privately-owned ones.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Consult them?

Mr. DAVIN

An advisory body.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Only to consult them?

Mr. DAVIN

Personally, I would go further and say that there should be a statutory authority to deal with the whole question of transport requirements in the country. I believe the position to-day would justify the establishment of some such body, at least in an advisory capacity. Personally, I believe that a small representative body, with or without direct interests in the question of transport, would be more competent to give consideration to the matter than the Minister would. I want to know definitely from the Minister whether he is prepared to admit that a railway company has under its existing powers the right to close down a section of the line if it is not paying.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Not under this Bill.

Mr. DAVIN

Have they not, under their present powers, the right to close down any section of the Great Southern Railways? Is that the reason why the Minister puts into the Bill a section to the effect that a railway company running a bus service over an approved route cannot withdraw that bus service without certain penalties being imposed on them by the Minister? If the railway company can make use of that for the purpose of closing down a branch of its line and substitute a bus service, what provision is the Minister making for the staff who may be displaced or become redundant as a result of such decision on the part of the company? I believe the company have power to do that. If they have not, the Minister can contradict me. This Bill makes provision for buses to be run under the supervision of the railway companies. I want to know why a section has not been inserted making it obligatory on the part of a railway company proposing to run a bus service to have the buses built in this country. Questions have been brought up here from time to time regarding the importation of railway material and the Minister declined to interfere with the railway companies in importing rolling stock. I understand the Dublin Tramways Company have built buses here and have found it profitable to do so. Therefore, there is no justification for the railway companies importing buses into the country. The Minister may be aware—he can find it out if he is not—that the workmen in the workshops at Inchicore have only been working four days per week for a considerable time past. I want to know if the Minister is going to allow the railway companies to import those buses while three or four thousand men have been working short time over a long period. I should like to know if the Minister is prepared to introduce an amendment to provide against that, and thereby provide employment for the railway employees who are at present working short time.

I should also like to have an explanation with regard to sub-section (7) of Section 4, which reads:—

Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, a railway company shall not, without the permission of the Minister, demand or take in respect of a road motor service run by it under this Act any charges for any traffic exceeding the lowest charges theretofore demanded and taken by such company for such traffic on such services.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I gave that. That was one of the sections I explained.

Mr. DAVIN

I suppose all Deputies have received some of the propagandist literature in connection with this Bill.

Mr. GOREY

We are getting it by degrees. It is coming in.

Mr. DAVIN

I have from the Motor Union a document styled "monopoly broken up," and it quotes railway rates in operation from Dublin to Cavan previous to the introduction of a Cavan-Dublin bus service. These rates in operation when the introduction of this bus service took place were, for third-class return fare from Cavan to Dublin, 27/8, and 14 days after the introduction of the bus service this was reduced to 10/-. I want to know from the Minister whether the railway company will be prevented from reverting to a rate other than the 10/- here for Dublin to Cavan as a result of the powers sought under this particular sub-section of the Bill? The fares referred to are not properly understood by ordinary persons. The fare of 10/- that came into operation as a result of the Dublin to Cavan bus service being instituted, and which is referred to in this particular document, is only a temporary railway fare, a one day rate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It is a railway fare.

Mr. DAVIN

Whereas the third class fare quoted in the document, which was in force previous to the coming into operation of the bus service, is a railway fare that would enable a passenger to return within one month or six months and, to that extent, misrepresents the position that the motor people put before Deputies. Will the Minister examine this matter?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This Bill has nothing to do with railway fares. The Deputy is referring to railway fares, but this Bill has no effect on railway fares.

Mr. DAVIN

I am referring to a temporary railway fare reduced as a result of the introduction of the bus service.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Would the Deputy read the sub-section he wants to have explained?

Mr. DAVIN

I have read it.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Has it anything to do with railway fares?

Mr. DAVIN

It has, to this extent: the railway companies are running bus services; as far as I know they are hired services under agreement with certain people who have motor buses in certain parts of the country. The Minister is well aware of that. I want to know from him what effect this particular section will have upon the rates and fares now in existence on those bus services subsidised by the railway companies?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is a different question.

Mr. DAVIN

Perhaps the Minister will answer it. The Minister has referred to the fact that the railway companies spent upon maintenance works last year the sum of £710,000. He is also aware that, in addition to that, they had to pay rates for the upkeep of the roads used by the bus services in competition with the railways to the extent of £150,000—I am speaking here from memory—and that includes rates on buildings as well as rates for the upkeep of the roads.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

The rates applicable to roads are very much less. The amount is under £45,000.

Mr. DAVIN

I understand also the amount of money set aside for construction and maintenance of roads in the Free State for the financial year ending on the 31st March this year is £1,250,000 from rates and £1,250,000 from State sources. Therefore Deputies will quite clearly see the huge amount of expenditure that has to be provided in present circumstances for the construction and maintenance of roads, and that amount has largely increased during the past three or four years by reason of the abuse of the roads by heavy motor lorries, and also by the increased number of motor cars.

I believe personally this measure is only tinkering with the whole problem; that the Minister himself or some other Minister or Executive Council in the near future will have to sit down and grapple with this transport problem in a much more careful manner than it has been dealt with.

I am not personally opposing this measure, because I believe the railway companies at any rate are at least entitled to the same powers to use the roads for which they have to provide a certain amount of money for upkeep in the same way as the motor people are entitled to use them without restriction of any kind. The fact is that if this Bill passes bus services can be instituted by private companies or individuals without any restrictions as to routes or any limitation as to maximum fares. But here in this Bill the Minister imposes on railway companies that intend to run bus services in future very severe restrictions with regard to routes as well as maximum fares. Why does not the Minister face the whole situation and take control of the fares and routes at present used by private companies? If he did that he would give some indication that he was making an honest attempt to deal with the transport problem as a whole, and not impose severe restrictions on railway companies proposing to run buses, while having practically no restrictions whatever upon other companies at present using the roads without any limitation with regard to maximum fares and, further, no supervision as regards the routes being used.

Mr. NORTON

I move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.

Ordered accordingly.

The Dáil adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until to-morrow (Wednesday), 30th March, 1927.