I am not sure if Deputy Dillon was in the House at the time or whether he cheered the Minister when he was making that prophecy, but he is here now to see that the Minister's prophecy in that respect has not been fulfilled, and the proof of that is the Minister's proposal here this evening to set up a tribunal to give to himself, his Ministerial colleagues, and the members of his Party, who were supposed to have a policy in 1931, advice as to the road to go on, now that they are in a mess and are responsible for making a mess of the transport industry of this country. I was glad to hear from the Minister that he has a hope that the tribunal will be in a position to report before the House resumes its sittings on the 8th February. I must admit that I was assuming that the tribunal, or commission, proposed to be set up would take a much longer period in which to do its job efficiently. I am expressing surprise now that any tribunal the Minister may set up to make final and definite proposals as to the solution of the chaos in the transport industry to-day could possibly make a final and satisfactory report inside such a short period.
The Minister, I think, said that it was not proposed to appoint any transport experts on this tribunal. Well, I do not know what the Minister's idea would be of transport experts or of those people, either inside or outside the country, who designate themselves as transport experts, but I think he would be ill-advised, at any rate, to constitute this tribunal from amongst a set of individuals who know nothing whatsoever about the transport industry, and that he would be well advised to get some experts, or so called experts, or somebody in the transport industry who has a technical knowledge of the business which is in such a mess at the moment. Deputy Corry pleaded for representation of the agricultural community on this tribunal, and I daresay he knows much more about the Minister's intentions in this matter than I do. If you are going to have sectional interests represented on a tribunal of this kind, it will take more than five or six weeks to enable them to make their report. If one interest is to be entitled to seek and get representation on the tribunal, many other interests, I daresay, would be entitled also. However, I am sure the House would welcome a more detailed statement from the Minister, when he is replying, as to the constitution of the proposed tribunal. I should particularly like to know whether the Chairman is likely to be a High Court judge or a judge with some knowledge of the business with which it is proposed to deal. The very fact that this is entitled a tribunal gives one the impression, from reading the matter the right way, that a judge is likely to be the person intended to preside over it. However, I should like to hear the Minister say something on that matter.
The Minister also referred, and rather in a passing way, to statements and proposals which were put before him by the joint railway companies some time ago. I have reason to believe that such proposals were in the hands of the Minister more than five months ago, and it has taken him over five months to make up his mind as to whether or not the serious statements contained in these proposals were worthy even of reference to the tribunal which it is now proposed to set up. I have heard some of the railway people discuss the present position of the railway and transport industry, and I have sufficient information at my disposal to know that they proposed that the Government should advance them a considerable amount of money—sufficient at any rate to enable them to carry out a considerable amount of improvement of the existing railway services by improving the permanent way, making provision for better and more up-to-date rolling stock, and also sufficient money to buy out all the existing competing services now on the road. They also indicated in their proposals their desire, with the consent of the Minister, to close down about 41 branch lines or sections of branch lines in this country. As long as I remain a member of this House, I shall oppose with all the influence at my disposal and with all the strength I can command any proposal to close down any of the railway branch lines until, at any rate, the road transport service of this country has been regulated in such a way as to prove that there is no further necessity for carrying on these branch lines.
If the Minister has, as he undoubtedly has, authorised the closing down of 120 miles, or thereabouts, of branch lines, and if the Great Southern Railways Company has asked him now to consent to the closing down of 41 more branch lines, it is because of the unregulated road transport system of this country which has not given the branch line railways any chance to survive. I wonder, for instance, what the great River Shannon and the great River Barrow would be, or would they be the great rivers they are to-day, if they had not tributaries to make them great rivers. In the same way, I think you can say that you cannot have a great trunk-line railway in this country unless it is fed by the branch lines. Can anyone imagine some of the provincial towns in this country, where big fairs are held every month or every six months or every three months, being able to carry on without the assistance of the branch lines?
Would anybody with even a nodding acquaintance of the branch line railways suggest that the large number of cattle and other produce sold at some of these monthly or three-monthly fairs could ever be efficiently served by road transport as compared with the efficient way in which they are served by rail? If that kind of business is going to be carried on by road, and if the heavy mineral and other traffic of the country is going to be carried on by road, under any policy of the Minister, who is going to pay for the upkeep of these roads and for their maintenance in the future? I can assure the House, from information that I have from people who know more than I do about rail transport, that one-sixth of the revenue of the railway companies is paid for the maintenance of the permanent way, whereas, in the case of road transport, the expenditure amounts to only one-twentieth of the revenue spent in the same way. Why is that? It is because the ratepayers and the taxpayers, but particularly the ratepayers of this country, are subsidising the roads in order to enable private carrying companies to operate profitably for private purposes. These are things to which the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the members of this House will have to give careful consideration.
What this country is suffering from to-day is a surplus of transport. We have too much transport to carry the amount of agricultural and other produce which has to be carried over the rails and the roads. Deputy Corry talked about mismanagement of the railway company. All I would suggest to him is that at the earliest opportunity he should have a friendly conversation with the local people who are responsible for the alleged mismanagement. He did not give any proof in support of the case which he quoted in connection with the quays in Cork. For instance, if he wanted to prove his case he should have communicated to the Minister, and to all those who want to listen to that kind of case, the date or dates on which the railway company requested the supply of wagons for the carriage of coal from the quays in Cork to somewhere else. He took good care that he did not give that side of the case at all, but if he wants to justify that kind of allegation he will have to state the whole of the case; he stated only half of it.
I am aware—and so is every other Deputy in this House—of the fact that road transport service, and particularly the cruisers and wholesalers that run around this country without any regulation or control whatever, are carrying the necessaries of life from the port to the town in the country. I suggested to certain traders on certain occasions that they were, as it were, black-balling the railway service and that it was very unfair in this way: the traders in provincial towns are people who get cheaper transport by road than they can get from the railway service, but are those traders passing on the reduced road rate to the community by way of reduced prices for the articles that are carried cheaper by road than by rail? If not, what is the benefit to the community of having this service of cheap road transport which everybody knows exists in the country? I agree with the Minister on that famous statement which he made here in this House in 1931, and time will prove whether it was justified or not. The Minister said, and I agree with him, that the railways are essential to the preservation of existing industries and to the development of industry in this country. If they are essential to the preservation and development of industry in this country, all that those who have a financial interest in the railways ask this Parliament to do is to give the railway company a fair chance of competing with their competitors. Do not have one set of people engaged in the transport industry bound by red tape regulations, bound by rules and regulations made by the Minister, and the other side allowed to go scot free all over the country, pretending that they are wholesalers. Even the miserable transport legislation which was brought into existence in 1933 has not been administered by the powers that be. There are many cases in which leniency of a type which should not be given has been given to some of those cruisers and wholesalers. They have been allowed to break the law not alone by the failure of the Guards to watch them but by the failure of other people to deal with them under the terms of the Transport Act, 1933.
Now the Minister can get a tribunal, and there is no doubt about it they will be scholarly men and prove to be real experts if they can bring in a report to him before 8th February. If they can do so, then I will give them my blessing as far as I am concerned because they have a big job to undertake, and it is doubtful if they can discharge their duties to the satisfaction of the Minister in that short time. While I say that, naturally I do not want to prolong unduly the period of their inquiry. I want an assurance from the Minister, however, that in the meantime he will not listen if the railway company again pleads for further power to close down any of those branch lines—pleadings such as have been put forward in the proposal submitted to the Minister by the railway company over five months ago. When moving this motion the Minister talked about the justification for taking major decisions. The Government of which he is a Minister, and the Party of which he was a member in this House in 1931 and on whose behalf he spoke on the occasion referred to, now tells us almost nine years afterwards that the railway company is in a bankrupt state, that the transport industry is in a chaotic condition, and that the Government is up against taking major decisions. The only major decision they have taken so far is to refer the issue upon which they said they had a clear-cut policy to a body of people who will not be experts to advise them upon it.