Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1938

Vol. 73 No. 9

Public Transport—Establishment of Tribunal—Motion.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:—

That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for enquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say:—

(a) the present position of public transport (other than air transport) within the area of jurisdiction of the Irish Government, and

(b) in particular, the circumstances which have led or contributed to the present unfavourable financial position of the Great Southern Railways and of the other railway companies operating within the said area, and

(c) whether any and, if so, what measures are necessary or desirable in order to secure efficient and progressive public transport (other than air transport) in the said area, and

(d) in particular, whether—

(i) any further transport legislation,

or

(ii) any changes in the ownership or in the methods of administration or both in the ownership and in the methods of administration of existing transport undertakings,

are necessary or desirable.

I am sure Deputies will agree that it is hardly desirable that I should speak at any length upon the transport position, either for the purpose of expressing an opinion as to how the position has arisen, or the lines upon which a solution for it should be sought. It would, probably, serve and fulfil my duty if I said enough to indicate that the matters set out in the motion are matters of urgent public importance. Some time ago I received from the Great Southern Railways Company, and from the Great Northern Railway Company, representations to the effect that they have reached positions of acute financial stringency, in which they claimed that Government action for their assistance was urgently necessary, if they were to carry on. The Great Southern Company informed me that the estimated net income from the entire undertaking, for the present year, would fall short of the amount required to pay interest on debenture stock by a very substantial amount. A similar intimation was received from the Great Northern Company, that it also estimated it would not earn its working expenses in the current year. Both companies informed me that their liquid assets are exhausted, except for the amount hypothecated to secure loans raised in recent years to meet capital expenditure, and that their position in the matter of cash resources, to carry on the day-to-day work of the undertakings, was precarious. In each case, also, fresh capital expenditure was urgent. In the case of the Great Southern Company a very substantial figure was mentioned as representing the new capital required by it, to enable it to meet expenditure involved in the closing of uneconomic sections of the line, and developing road transport. It is clear to everybody, I think, that the company could not hope to raise, in the ordinary way, any new capital at the present time without Government assistance or Government guarantee and, in these circumstances, the Government are satisfied that a major decision on transport policy must now be taken.

It considers, however, before decisions are made, that a review by a tribunal, established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, should be made, for the purpose of getting a complete picture of the position, and obtaining the recommendations of such a tribunal as to the line of action to be followed.

Therefore we propose that such a tribunal should be set up. We are doing that under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, because a tribunal established under that Act has very definite rights and powers. It has the powers, rights and privileges of a High Court in the matter of securing the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Whether the inquiry will be public or private is at the discretion of the tribunal. That is to say, the Act, in relation to such a tribunal, provides that "it shall not refuse to allow the public, or any portion of the public, to be present at any of its proceedings, unless, in the opinion of the tribunal, it is in the public interest inexpedient to do so, for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given". I am unable, as yet, to give an indication of the personnel of the tribunal. I do not think the inquiry we need here is one to be undertaken by transport experts, but rather do we require general consideration of the whole transport position of the country, by people who are concerned, not so much with the technical problems involved as with the difficulties of the problem of providing an efficient transport system in our circumstances which, as Deputies are aware, are somewhat unusual, and present many difficult features from the point of view of carrying on transport undertakings. I should say that I hope the inquiry to be undertaken will be completed as soon as possible. Certainly, it is my expectation that we should have the report of the tribunal before us when we meet again after the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Dillon

The members of this Government have a very odd policy, and a very enviable policy. They can perpetrate the most astounding follies, and be saluted by the public as geniuses. When the birds of their folly come home to roost, they can get up and, with a white sheet, repudiate themselves as having been guilty of grave folly, by announcing that the problem has become altogether too much for them to grapple with, and they pass it over to some one else to solve, and enjoy precisely the same applause that greeted their first folly. I have no doubt that the Irish Times will ring with praise of this far-seeing young Minister who has come to realise his own limitations and who has at last called in competent experts to clean up the mess he made. But the same newspaper described him at one time as a young Lochinvar coming out of the West to save the transport system of Ireland. “Thank God we have a strong hand at the helm”—that was five years ago. Every pious head in Pembroke shook in grief because the Fine Gael Party warned the Minister that his 1933 Railway Bill was a cod.

Mr. Lemass

When?

Mr. Dillon

It is in the Official Reports and I remember telling the Minister that that Bill was a preliminary to the Minister coming back to this House to ask for powers to nationalise the railways and to pass the losses over to the taxpayer. I will direct attention to paragraph (d) (2) of the terms of reference of this commission, which reads: "any changes in the ownership or in the methods of administration or both in the ownership and in the methods of administration of existing transport undertakings." Does this House forget so soon the proceedings that went on here when we were discussing the 1933 Road Transport and Railway Acts? We were told they were radical and revolutionary, but that they were the children of a brilliant mind determined to cut the Gordian knot at one stroke and restore prosperity to the railway industry.

Having cut the property of every shareholder by a very large percentage, the railways have gone bum, as has almost every enterprise upon which the Minister for Industry and Commerce has laid the hand of a young Lochinvar. The beet factories are going bum; the railways are going bum; every other scheme to which he has put his hand in the last six years has gone bum, the Minister having spent more money on them than the most extravagant speculator in the history of Threadneedle Street. They all peacefully collapsed, with the taxpayers' money poured into them, and we are now invited to pass the whole problem over, not to the Parliament— the Parliament having, under the Minister's guidance, made a complete fool of itself—but to some outside body, with a request to them for God's sake to tell us what we are to do.

I seldom find myself in the position of congratulating the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I congratulate him on this resolution. In the circumstances, the very best thing he could do is to pass this problem out of his own hands into those of competent men, just as his colleague, Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Agriculture, adopted that very prudent course in regard to the whole subject of the agricultural industry. He never did a better day's work for agriculture. I have no hesitation in saying that the present Minister who is responsible for the transport of this country could not do a better day's work for the transport system than when he disowns all responsibility for remedying the appalling situation into which that system has drifted under his administration. Of course, immense damage has been done, as we all know, not only to the railway system itself, but to the towns which that system served.

In the panicky, futile, fluthering policy that has obtained for the last five years the railway has been closed down which supplied a large number of small towns. We were told it was necessary and that the Minister was satisfied adequate transport facilities of an alternative character had been supplied. Those of us who live near the small towns saw them deteriorate, saw men thrown out of their jobs and thrown into chronic unemployment, simply because the Minister for Industry and Commerce was floundering along through his six weary years of incompetency which now, albeit very late, have come to an end. Will anybody saddle him with the blame? Not at all. The Opposition will be described as factious for having criticised them. Will anybody recall the fact that the very evil which has brought disaster upon the railways now was explained in detail to the Minister when he was discussing the Road Transport Bill or the Railway Bill in 1933?

What has brought the railways down? Under the Act of Parliament carried through this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, hundreds of thousands of pounds were taken out of the railways' treasury and paid out to public carriers, buying them out in order to concentrate the traffic back on the railways. I remember the Minister being told from these benches, that if he did that, the only result would be that all these carriers would but lorries and turn into merchants and, instead of charging freight upon what they carried, they would buy the freight at one end of the hall, add the carriage on by way of profit, and sell the freight at the other end of the hall, which they probably did. I know of one case where a warrior sold two battered lorries to the company for £3,000, and he bought three lorries and set up as a merchant. Where he used to carry sugar and sundries from A to Z for a freight charge, with the three lorries he bought the sundries and carried them and sold them, and it was found he was well within the Minister's Act in doing so. An endeavour was made to prosecute in a case of that kind, and the man was acquitted.

Mr. Davin

He was a wholesaler, what I would call a cruiser.

Mr. Dillon

Cruiser or wholesaler, or whatever else he is, he is the offspring of the Minister who is sitting over there. It was he created him and, having created him, he is now passing him over to a commission to try to dispose of him. But he has created a problem that will test the ability of any commission to control without doing very serious damage to the whole economic life of the country, and that problem is a problem of the Minister's own creation. The fund which he compelled the railway company to pay out to those fellows was the fund used for the establishment of those cruising or wholesaling businesses. The astonishing thing is that the Minister, having been a young Lochinvar in 1933, will march as an old Lochinvar in 1938, and everyone will look forward with equal enthusiasm to the effective measures he proposes to take to save the transport industry again. If he goes on saving it much longer, it will sink, lock, stock and barrel, with the country behind it.

I wonder is this inquiry going to be analogous to the fraudulent inquiry set up to consider the transport problem of the County Donegal? Does anybody remember that, or have they forgotten all about it? Does anybody remember Deputy Neal Blaney and Deputy Brian Brady stumping the country, explaining to the Donegal people that there were going to be deep-sea harbours all around the coast, and that liners were going to come in and bear away the ample merchandise of Donegal to the four corners of the world? All this was to be in pursuance of a transport tribunal which the Minister was going to set up. And he set it up, and it delivered a long rambling report which consisted, as to 90 per cent. of it, of pure balderdash, and it was probably thrown into the waste paper basket. Deputy Blaney and Deputy Brady took to their prayers, hoping to God that the people of Donegal had forgotten all about it. I trust this transport inquiry will not be charged with a similar mission, but that it will be invited to make really constructive proposals, and I trust when they are made that the Minister will not relent of his temporary prudence, but will abide strictly by the orders they give him.

This last word may be said. The Minister is not yet in a position to inform the House as to the personnel of the commission. He says he does not foresee himself inviting transport experts to take part in the personnel, but rather desires people who will view the whole transport problem of Ireland and make comprehensive recommendations. If the Government's standard of people who take a comprehensive view of such problems is enshrined in the third minority report, God deliver us from the people with a comprehensive view. I would rather have the narrowest expert view than that. I suggest that one of the great problems of our transport situation in this country is the long distance between dense centres of population and the catering for an area so embarrassing from the transport point of view. That problem presents itself acutely in Canada at the present time and has been the subject of almost acrimonious debate between the Canadian Government and the Canadian Pacific Railway. The Canadian Pacific Railway takes the Minister's line of closing down economic branch lines and maintaining only the big lines. The Government takes the line that the railways are something of a public service and may properly continue to operate even when economically they are not justified.

I would imagine that the Minister would find amongst the railway personnel of Canada some man who has been a considerable time listening to the pros and cons of the arguments on both sides. He would be the man who would be bound to dominate the solution of our transport problem here. The Minister ought to secure the assistance of such a person as a member of his commission or else invite such a person to come before the commission and give it the benefit of hearing the Canadian view of the problem. I know that Deputies will not fall into the error of imagining to compare this country with Canada. But this problem of the scarcity of population is not confined solely to this country. It is ubiquitous in Canada. I would imagine that the sort of commission envisaged here should hear the difficulty that has presented itself in Canada and hear what steps are taken and what schemes are set on foot in that country to solve the problem. This commission has our best wishes for the cleaning up of the mess which has arisen out of the ineptitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It has also our best wishes for the education of the Minister concerned. We have seen with approval and admiration the education by the Banking Commission of his leader, the Taoiseach, and the education of the Minister for Finance. We look forward with hope that even when the Minister goes out into the wilderness his education will be of advantage to him when in opposition——

Mr. Lemass

I had at least the hope that the Deputies of the Fine Gael Party had abandoned that hope.

Mr. Dillon

I still have hope for the Minister. He is quite an intelligent, sprightly man, but he is deplorably ill-informed. When he goes out of office he will be all the better as a member of the Opposition for the experience he has had in dissipating the national wealth of this country.

Mr. Norton

I feel rather surprised that the House should be asked to deal with the motion in these terms. If the motion indicates anything it is that the Government does not appear to have any policy in respect to transport. But there was a time in his wild imaginative days when the present Minister for Industry and Commerce used to tell us of the simplicity with which he would solve the railway problem and almost every other problem. That was a time when the Minister was an economic and industrial wizard. One had only to show a problem to the Minister to be sure that he had a solution, or if he had not a solution one could be worked out in a short time. We had the Minister's recipe in regard to unemployment, and we know the result. But the Minister made so many statements with regard to transport that one would imagine he had a definite policy and that he would not require a commission to inquire into the matter.

Away back in 1931 the Minister went down to Athlone and made a speech there, in which he told the country that Fianna Fáil had a plan to deal with the transport problem of the country and that plan was the nationalisation of the railways and municipal ownership controlling the transport services in the cities. In 1931 his solution was nationalisation of the railways and the municipalisation of transport services in the cities. In 1933, when discussing the Railway Bill in the House, the Minister again told us of his proposal for dealing with the transport problem. He again talked in an informed way, which gave one the impression that, however slow his steps were, he had a long-term plan in mind and that the implementation of it would bring prosperity to the railways, regular employment to the workers and an efficient service to the country.

Now, five years after the 1933 Bill was introduced, and nine years after the Athlone speech, the Minister comes to the Dáil and asks the House to believe "that it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring into the following definite matters of urgent public importance, that is to say—the present position of public transport (other than air transport) within the area of jurisdiction of the Irish Government, and in particular the circumstances which have led or contributed to the present unfavourable financial position of the Great Southern Railways and of the other railway companies operating within the said area, and whether any and, if so, what measures are necessary or desirable in order to secure efficient and progressive transport."

All this is being commended to us by the Minister, who told us seven years ago that the Government had a plan for dealing with the transport problem, and told some credulous railwaymen at Inchicore that the Government Party was a railway Party. Now we are told that the Government has no policy for dealing with the transport problem but that it may get a policy after this has been dealt with by the commission. That is the most amazing admission we had yet from the Minister. Everyone knows of the parlous position of the railway companies-Railway shares are worth very little, and railwaymen are spending their time fighting against reductions in wages. It is only the strength of the organisation that enables the men to withstand the attacks of the company to lower their standard of wages.

Probably worse than all, railway men are threatened with the loss of the livelihood to which they have devoted the best years of their life. The terrifying insecurity in which these people are placed in consequence of not knowing when they will be sentenced to economic death is creating a state of chaos and uncertainty on the railways that ought to have demanded a remedy from the Minister long before now. In recent months there have been efforts made by the railway company to reduce the working week of the men and, consequently, their wages. Large numbers of men have been dismissed and others are facing dismissal because of the parlous position of the railways at the present time.

There are certain aspects of the difficulties of the railways which do not need any commission to deal with them. It is clear to everybody that in many respects the railway companies are facing a very unfair type of competition, a competition which takes the form of the road competitors, with money provided by the railway, actually operating against the railway, under the guise of wholesalers, who, by working their employees for long hours and low wages are able to offer terms for carrying merchandise which are below the prices for which that merchandise could be carried if the company were fulfilling its normal public obligations and paying decent wages to those who operate the service. I had an example of a man who came to see me some time ago who was very annoyed because the railway company would not acquire his merchandise licence. He wanted me to bring pressure to bear on the railway company to have his licence taken from him. I asked him if he had decided to go out of the transport business or what was the explanation of this impetuosity on his part to have his licence taken over. He said, "If I could get a few thousand pounds from the railway company for my licence and lorries which are pretty old, I could, with the money I get, convert myself into a wholesaler, buy a few lorries and carry on precisely the same business as I am doing now, except I would not have so much trouble with the lorries, and they would be better and more efficient from the point of view of maintaining a service." There was a simple man who apparently thought the railway companies were to act as a kind of philanthropist to him and provide him with capital to maintain a transport service in competition with the railways. That type of competition does not need an enquiry to deal with it. That type of competition has been going on for the past few years and I am surprised that the Ministry has not already taken steps to curb that kind of competition and to close that gap in the Road Transport Act of 1933 which is making it possible for these people to compete with the railway company on very unfair terms.

I think it will be generally agreed that, while new methods of transport have grown up in recent years, new tastes developed in the matter of transport, whether it is merchandise or passenger, the railways represent such an important national asset and such an important national service that they must be saved at all costs and if there is to be a choice as to who will be hurt in the matter everybody, I think, would desire that the railway companies should be singled out for the avoidance of the ruin which is inevitable under the present position. That, of course, does not mean that one agrees with the present management of the railways. In a lot of ways it is strikingly unimaginative in its direction and there is an apparent unwillingness to develop new fields and create traffic, until the situation has reached a very critical point. One feels that enlightened administration and direction of the railways, imagination on their part and a disposition to cater for public demands and public tastes more generously and more extensively would probably attract to the railways a considerable amount of the additional goods and passenger traffic which is lost to the railways by the want of that type of direction.

But I think even when that is said, it will have to be admitted by all that the maintenance of a transport service in this country has difficulties which are not associated with the transport services of countries where the population is much greater than ours and where the distribution of the population is different from ours. I think it will be accepted that, generally speaking, we are not a travelling community in the sense that other peoples are and the fact that the country largely consists of a working-class or peasant type of citizen, compelled to exist on a very low standard, inevitably restricts the amount of money which is available for expenditure on travelling. Very few of our people, because of their low standard of living, are able to travel and such of them as to manage to travel, I believe, do so only once or twice a year. We have, too, a very conservative local communal life. You will find cases by the thousand of persons who do not leave the district in which they have been born and reared until long after they have reached manhood, and in addition to that you have the further difficulty of a sparsely populated country over which it is difficult to maintain a costly transport service because of the inadequacy of the traffic and sparsity of the population. Those are problems which are associated with the maintenance of a transport service in this country and they are vital problems to which any commission, or any Government, charged with dealing with the matter, must give specialised attention.

While one may quarrel with the Ministry taking the view that it is necessary to have an inquiry at this stage into matters such as the ownership and direction of the railway services of the country, there are certain advantages in the arrangement inasmuch as it will at least compel the Ministry to face up to its responsibilities in the matter. But there is one point upon which I would like the Minister to give us some information. It was felt by him desirable to amalgamate all the railways under one undertaking to be known as the Great Southern Railways. There is another undertaking in the country—the Great Northern Railway—and I understand that it carries on quite a remunerative traffic within the area of transport of the Government of Eire. I would like the Minister to tell us whether it is within the competence of this commission to recommend the amalgamation of that portion of the railways which operates within our territory with the present Southern Railways. Whether the Southern Railways are to continue as such in the future, of course, is a matter, at this stage, for conjecture but, if it is desirable that there should be one railway company and one railway service within the country, there does not seem to me to be any reason for the exclusion from that company of the area of railway service at present operated by the Great Northern Railway.

Mr. Lemass

I can think of one.

Mr. Norton

The Minister can think of one. Yes, and I suppose Lord Craigavon can think of another.

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy asks any of the County Louth Deputies, they will tell him what the one reason is.

Mr. Norton

County Louth Deputies? There may be reasons of one kind or another. Then am I to take it that it is not intended to effect an amalgamation of that kind?

Mr. Lemass

It is fully within the terms of reference of the tribunal.

Mr. Norton

I am glad it is. I think there are advantages to us as a State in doing that, even though there may be certain disadvantages in other respects. There are certain national advantages in doing it which might help to bring certain other people elsewhere to their senses and get them to appreciate that there can be disadvantages imposed upon them if they want to maintain a condition of partition in this country.

There is only one other matter to which I would like to refer in connection with this motion, and that is the question of a time limit. I was glad to hear the Minister indicate that he hoped to have the report of this commission by the time the Dáil reassembles. That is heartening news on a matter of this kind, because inquiry over so wide a field might well last for a very prolonged period, and meantime the railway services would suffer enormously. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that he will try to arrange that the commission would definitely report by some fixed date so that consideration of its report might be then taken up and the necessary legislation introduced for the purpose of remedying the present parlous position of the railways which is causing concern to everybody interested in transport and causing dreadful fears to railwaymen who are standing in daily dread of dismissal—a position which continues to enforce on railwaymen intolerably low standards of wages.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Dillon, in dealing with this matter, told us about the warning we got in 1933 in connection with the Road Transport Acts. Every Deputy in this House is aware of the position of the railways in 1931 and 1932. It took the Road and Rail Transport Act to prolong their lives up to the present. I want to know from the Minister whether representatives of the agricultural community are going to be appointed to this tribunal, for, if the Minister states that this tribunal means the life or death of the railway company, it also means the life or death of the agricultural community as well. Deputy Norton speaks about unfair competition, but I think it is about time that the railways of this country were placed under some business head, for if ever there was an exhibition of incompetence in regard to a transport system, it has been provided during the last four or five years by the Great Southern Railways.

Mr. Davin

Why did you not put that in writing?

Mr. Corry

I am putting it before the Dáil now. I have had instances brought to my notice in which the railway company bought over certain services. What was the result? There is a bus service plying every two hours at present from Cork to Cobh, side by side with the railway service, both catering for the one set of passengers. At no part of the route is there more than a quarter of a mile between the road and the railway. If there was an hour or half-an-hour between the services one might understand it, but there is not. The moment the train changes the time it is to leave Cork the bus also changes its hour of departure. They travel side by side along the one route.

Mr. Corish

One would be lonely without the other.

Mr. Corry

Yes, one would be lonely without the other. The two are run together as an exhibition of the business capacity of the Great Southern Railways. The railway company proved utterly incompetent, unable to meet even the business that was at their door. I have before me a report sent to the Minister by the Cork Harbour Commissioners some time ago. The report deals with the discharge of five cargoes of coal. A sixth cargo came into Cork, and left for Dublin because it could not get any facilities for discharge. Here is the manner in which they provide transport in the shape of waggons for the delivery of coal. A cargo arrived at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2nd. The vessel commenced to discharge on Saturday 6th, and, as was stated at the time, even if she got sufficient waggons she would not be discharged until Friday, November 12th. The S.S. Coral arrived at 5.20 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2nd, with 630 tons of coal and, at the date of the report, 10th November, discharge had not yet commenced. The next vessel arrived at 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 3rd, with 940 tons of coal. It was intended to discharge this steamer at the cranes, but the owners of that cargo found that the railway company could not provide them with any transport whatever, and the vessel was shifted 200 yards up the river, to Anderson's Quay, there to be discharged by unfair competition of which Deputy Norton speaks. That vessel was shifted at 7.40 a.m. on the 5th November to Anderson's Quay, where the discharge was completed on Tuesday, November 9th. Her cargo was borne to North Cork towns by lorry, because the railway company could not supply the wagons. I have further details of similar instances, but I shall not bother giving them. That is the position in Cork City, and that is the way people are treated by the railway company that wants a monopoly of the transport system of this country. That is the way they have discharged the onus placed upon them under the existing Acts.

Mr. Norton

You should be Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Corry

My attention was called some time ago to the case of a certain co-operative creamery down the country where the driver of a local private lorry was collecting milk at ½d. per gallon and delivering it to the creamery. The railway company came along and took over the service. Their charge for delivering the same milk was 1?d. per gallon. The price paid for the milk at the creamery was 3¾d. per gallon. The result was that the creamery ran dry.

The railway company, after buying over the lorry, and putting it off the road, found that the co-operative creamery had to step in, in order to protect its milk supply, and put a lorry of its own on the road. We have the same thing happening right along the line. The railway company, which, according to Deputy Norton, find it impossible to pay their employees, can expend a very large amount on a railway intelligence service for the purpose of spying around garages in Cork. They can have men travelling from door to door of Cork merchants to see who employs a lorry, where it is going to, and reporting the matter to the Department of Industry and Commerce so that the licence may be taken from the lorry owner. They are also able to pay £600 a year to a gardener for the purpose of beautifying stations along the line.

There is a condition of affairs prevailing amongst the agricultural community of this country that cannot be lost sight of, and that will have to be looked into. I cannot imagine, for instance, any railway company supplying a service from house to house through country boreens, collecting lorry loads of pigs, taking them up to Cork and delivering them there. I wonder how much per pig the railway company would charge on that job? We cannot overlook what they did in the case of beet. In some cases, the beet growers had to bring their beet four miles before the railway company would take it from that point to the railway station. That has been the condition of affairs. They got the whole of the transport of beet to the factories, and what did they do? They came at five o'clock in the evening and locked up the gates lest any more might come in, and the farmer, having his wagon half filled in——

Mr. Lemass

I submit that we ought to await the report of the tribunal.

Mr. Corry

My reason for giving details of these cases is to prove the absolute necessity of having representatives of the agricultural community on the tribunal.

Mr. Norton

There is a better way than that. The Deputy should be in charge of the railway company.

Mr. Corry

If I were in charge of it, I would not make the mess of it that the Deputy has made of his Party.

Mr. Norton

You would surely make a mess of it.

Mr. Corry

You would not have the wrangling between the Post Office workers that there is at present if I had anything to do with them. The Deputy should stick to his last.

Mr. Murphy

The Deputy was in charge of the railways at one time.

Mr. Corry

And he made a very good job of them.

Mr. Linehan

Yes, Mallow Bridge.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy was allowed to continue we would probably finish in a reasonable time.

Mr. Corry

I make no apology to anyone for the bridges——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy might get on to the motion.

Mr. Lemass

Where were you in '98?

Mr. Corry

I want, in the first place, an assurance from the Minister that the agricultural community will be represented on this tribunal. They are the people who will have to pay the piper in the long run, seeing that there is the difference of a halfpenny a gallon in taking milk to the creamery and one and one-eighth pence charged by the railway for an article worth 3½d. At present the main roads of the country are impassable for horse traffic owing to changes in the transport needs of the country and the need of driving the many people with heart disease who must have motor cars to take them smoothly along so that a by-election in any constituency will not arise. The traffic which the working farmer formerly carried with a horse and cart, taking pigs to market and such activities, has now to be done by lorry, and I submit that it is absolutely impossible for the railway company to cater for that kind of work except at a prohibitive price. I could stay here for a week giving instances of incompetence in the management of the railway company from my knowledge of it, but I do not want to waste the time of the House in doing so.

With regard to Deputy Norton's statement about a time-table, I say that this problem cannot be gone into on a time-table basis. It is not a problem in respect of which you can bring out a report after sitting for a couple of hours.

Mr. Norton

Where is the famous transport plan?.

Mr. Corry

The Deputy had plans, too, and they went agley——

Mr. Norton

Tell us about the nationalisation and municipalisation plan.

Mr. Corry

——including the plan the Deputy had for getting 205,000 votes from the civil servants some time ago. I want an assurance from the Minister that this matter will be fully examined, that plenty of time will be taken with it and that there will be no hurried decisions in regard to it. It is a matter of life or death for the agricultural community. If the cost of transport of a particular article goes up unduly, the agricultural community are going out of business in that particular article. This does not hit the large farmer because he will get a lorry of his own and do his own transport, but his neighbour, the man with one pig or two pigs, will find himself without a pig at all, because he cannot pay the railway company to take that pig to market. It is a problem whose examination requires time and trouble, and one which must be examined from every angle.

I have the utmost sympathy with those men who have spent their lives in the company's service, and who now find themselves practically out of employment. I am prepared to go any fair length to have that problem met and those men kept in employment. There is, however, also the problem of whether you are going to drive out of business a large number of the small farmers. That, too, is a very serious problem and one which will have to be very carefully inquired into. It would be absolutely impossible for the railway company, on any kind of economic basis, to provide the service which is now provided by the private hauliers of this country. They were never able to do it and they never will be able to do it. As I say, this whole matter must be fully probed and there must be no hurried decisions on it. We do not want any "marry in haste and repent at leisure" atmosphere in relation to this job. It is a job all angles of which must be examined and a cure found before decisions are brought in here.

Mr. Murphy

I suggest that this subject is altogether too serious for the kind of light entertainment which Deputy Corry usually provides and of which we have had an experience just now. My contribution will be very short, because I realise that the Minister was, to some extent, on sound ground when he asked that this matter should not be discussed at very great length. I must say, however, that the request for the setting up of this tribunal is disappointing, especially in view of the urgency of the problem and the widespread expectation of some more definite action than this time-honoured device of handing over an awkward problem to a commission. Those of us who have been in this House for the past 15 years have become rather cynical about the effect of commissions for one business or another. They appear to be designed, at least, sometimes, for the purpose of diverting attention from a very urgent and important problem, and dragging our hopes over a long period which very often fall very far short of fulfilment.

The Minister, of course, is aware, as every sensible person must be aware, that if some action does not result in one way or another, all that will be required will be an inquest on the whole railway industry of the country. This is a matter of very special importance to those of us who come from Cork, and particularly that part of the county from which I come. At a recent sitting of the Railway Tribunal, the general manager indicated that amongst the proposals to be considered by the company at an early date—and this was reported by the Press—was a proposal to cut off the entire railway service from Cork City to Bantry, taking in the whole western portion of the county and depriving the people in that area of railway services. This is an extremely urgent and menacing situation for the people in that position, apart altogether from the 500 railway workers, many of whom have given 28 and 30 years' honest and faithful service in the industry and who are now in a position of uncertainity which may result in their being deprived of their employment in a short time. I do not want to labour that situation, or to dwell on the might-have-beens in connection with this whole transport situation. I do not think it will serve any purpose for me to rake them up unduly, but I sincerely hope that this being the best the Minister can show us—and it is a very poor best—it will justify the hopes that he has in the matter, although, in our opinion, the methods he is employing fall very far short of the urgent and menacing needs of the situation.

Mr. Linehan

I merely want to make a very short reference to the composition of the tribunal. I do not claim, like Deputy Corry, to be an expert completely in railway matters, but there are two types, in addition to those mentioned already, and in addition to the interests mentioned by Deputy Norton, I should like to see represented, if possible. In addition to the agriculturists, I believe that another very large body of users of the railways, namely, the traders, who will be very much concerned with the findings of this tribunal, should be represented on it. The towns and the cities, in fact every small country village that is served by a railway line or some road transport service, is vitally concerned in the findings of this tribunal. It is a very important matter for traders who are dependent on the railway company for their supplies of merchandise. They, at least, should have some representation on the tribunal.

The second point is, as far as representation is concerned, that I want to raise is one that I discussed on the estimate for the Railway Tribunal. It is this, that while many of those with various interests in the railways mourn and wail, so far as their own position is concerned, they are very often inclined to overlook the fact that you have a very large number of people in this country who have suffered intense hardship as a result of the failure of the railways, whether by mismanagement or otherwise. They have suffered also by legislation dealing with the railways. I refer to those who had their money invested in the railways. No one can deny that a great deal of money was invested in the Irish railways. They were a trustee security, and money was invested in them by trustees on behalf of children, minors and old ladies who possibly had no other source of income. These people have been very badly hit because those who were in a fiduciary relation to them were not prophets and did not keep their eyes open sufficiently to see that the railway crash was coming. A number of those people have suffered severely. Their only source of income has, for various reasons, been swept away, whether by the failure of the railways, by the effects of the legislation dealing with the railways and for a variety of reasons. I think that representation on behalf of those people should be given on the tribunal so that, no matter what happens in the future, what little is left to them will not be further damaged.

Colonel Ryan

This is a rather interesting matter. I am in thorough agreement with the Minister that it is necessary to have some sort of a tribunal to deal with the matter, not from the trade union point of view— Deputy Norton dealt with that—or from the point of view outlined by Deputy Corry. The Minister knows that you have thousands of people up and down the country who have been trying to make a living out of transport—just keeping to one side or other of the law. I hold that these people should not be denied the opportunity of making a living. If that should happen, as a result of the findings of the tribunal, then I say they should get decent compensation. It is important, too, that the railways should continue. I am quite satisfied that there is no hope for them, if what I may call this hole and corner business so far as transport is concerned, goes on. I live in a part of the country near a beet factory where there is a good deal of transport work going on. There is certainly an avoidance, in some way or other, of the law in order to continue keeping lorries on the road—even on the part of friends of mine who voted and worked for me. I have sometimes intervened in order to keep them out of trouble. I think that an enquiry is absolutely necessary. I do not at all agree with the point of view expressed by Deputy Norton.

So far as transport in rural Ireland is concerned, it is not a matter of hours or of settled working. Of course, such conditions have been imposed on the railways by trade unions. So far as the lorries are concerned, there are no settled hours of working, but I certainly hold that the people who have them are entitled to make their living. What I want to put to the Minister is that those people who have been making their living out of transport before the last Act was passed, and since the last Act was passed, will get a decent compensation. Otherwise, it will be simply confiscation. If the Government deprives them of their means of making a livelihood, then it should compensate them. I hope that this enquiry will have the effect of putting the railways on their feet.

Mr. Davin

The proposal put before the House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the solution of a great and pressing national problem will, I think, come as a great surprise, and to nobody will the surprise be greater than to the railway men of this country who received so many repeated assurances from the Minister on this matter in the past. Deputy Norton, in referring to previous pronouncements made by the Minister on this matter, referred to a speech which, I remember, the Minister made in Athlone. I will do the Minister the justice of quoting from a speech which he made in this House. I will quote from the Official Records and not from memory, or from any newspaper that might not have made a correct report of his speech. Speaking in this House on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party on the 9th December, 1931, at columns 2645-6 the Minister, who was then Deputy Lemass, said:

"I think there are no Deputies who will deny that preservation of the railways is essential to the industrial development of the country.... If we are seeking to attain that aim I think we must also make up our minds that public ownership of these services is desirable if not essential. Unified control and public ownership are necessary for a number of other reasons as well.... I think that as strong a case, if not a much stronger case, can be made out for the public ownership of transport services as can be made out for the public ownership of an electricity supply. The position here is that the case is also strengthened by the fact that there does not exist amongst the people of this country any feeling of confidence in the existing railway management.... We are strongly in favour of public ownership of transport services with unified control outside the boundaries of municipalities. Inside the boundaries of muncipalities we are in flavour of municipal ownership and control of these services."

That was a definite pronouncement by Deputy Lemass when he was the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking in this House on behalf of his Party on the 9th December, 1931. Has the Minister forgotten that pronouncement or have the Cabinet and Government Party to-day turned down that policy? If not, why does he propose, nearly nine years after he made that statement, to set up some outside body to give him advice as to whether the policy and pronouncement made then are correct or not, or whether he would be justified in going ahead along those lines? Like some of the Minister's later prophecies which have not been fulfilled, is this a getting away from the policy and he pronouncement which he made in favour of public ownership. In the Dáil on the 3rd May, 1933, when he was concluding the debate on the railways and transport Bills, replying, in a very emphatic and eloquent way, to Deputy Cosgrave, or to a speech made previously by Deputy Cosgrave, he said:—

"These Bills are going to effect a substantial improvement on the transport position that will make possible a transport organisation that can be maintained on an economic basis. That opinion is shared by everybody who knows anything about the transport problem, whether associated with railways or road transport, or those who have given the matter study with practical experience. There is in all quarters a unanimous welcome for these measures. It is only those who have shown by their actions and by their words that they know nothing at all about them that wasted time in criticising these measures."

Now we come to the really prophetic portion of his remarks:—

"The position that will be created by these Bills will be one that will ensure that traffic will be carried on the railways and on the roads at the lowest economic rates, and that the receipts will be sufficient to pay all charges for organisation and administration, while giving a reasonable return on the capital invested."

And the plum of the lot is this:

"That is what we set out to achieve, and that is what these Bills will achieve."

Mr. Dillon

Loud and prolonged applause, I presume.

Mr. Davin

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.

Mr. Hughes

An efficient and cheap transport service is an important factor in the economic life of any country, but in a thinly-populated country such as ours, with a good many people in a difficult position to tap, it is practically impossible to my mind to get a reasonably cheap road transport service operated by a company such as exists here in this country. I should like to join with the Deputies who have asked that the primary industry in this country should be represented on this commission. The transport service of this country should be examined in the light of the manner in which it affects our primary industry, namely, agriculture. I think it is only right and proper that that industry should be represented on the commission. Some Deputies have accused the company of mismanagement, and Deputy Davin has tried to defend the railway company here.

Mr. Davin

That is not correct. I have not tried to defend the railway company.

Mr. Dillon

Order! Order!

Mr. Davin

I said that the people who alleged mismanagement should make some attempt to prove it.

Mr. Hughes

I have no hesitation in saying that the railway company is the most incompetent organisation in this country.

Mr. Corry

Hear, hear!

Mr. Hughes

The very fact that the company accepted the 1933 Bill at its face value proves that. They raised £750,000 here, and what did they do with it? They attempted to buy out, or thought they were buying out, the interests of privately-operated lorries all over the country. They bought up a lot of dud, worn-out lorries, and they gave capital to people to go into competition against themselves. That is how they used the £750,000. If the directors of that company were business men they should have realised that the Bill was not water-tight, that there was a loop-hole and a very big loop-hole for anyone to take advantage of and operate a lorry as a wholesaler. That, in itself, to my mind, proves the incompetence of the present company.

Mr. Hickey

Or of the Act? Which?

Mr. Hughes

It proves the incompetence of the present company in accepting the Act at its face value, when an examination of it should have shown them that it was not water-tight. I should like to ask the Minister whether he contemplates handing over a monopoly of the transport of this country to the railway company. I should not be surprised if that were his intention, because he is the father of monopolies in this country. Through his creation of monopolies, to my mind, he is the greatest enemy of agriculture in this country, because his policy is to continue piling on the load to the real people of this country, the backbone of this country, the people who have always carried this country, without any regard to consequences. He creates monopoly after monopoly.

Mr. Lemass

I submit that this has nothing to do with the resolution before the House.

Mr. Dillon

It has everything to do with the resolution.

Mr. Lemass

I have made a submission to the Ceann Comhairle, and the Deputy is not that yet.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister's submission is quite correct. There is a motion before the House that a tribunal be set up.

Mr. Hickey

And there is no need for any further speeches!

Mr. Dillon

On a point of order, surely we are entitled to argue that, from the very terms of reference given to that commission, it is a mere cloak to enable the Minister to come in here and establish a new monopoly for the exploitation of the agricultural community. I assert that that is the case, and I submit with great respect that we are entitled so to argue.

An Ceann Comhairle

This is a tribunal being set up to inquire into certain matters.

Mr. Dillon

And I submit we are entitled to argue that it is a subterfuge on the part of the Minister, to cloak his intended purpose, the setting up of a monopoly.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no reference to monopolies in the motion.

Mr. Dillon

I know there is not.

An Ceann Comhairle

Then the Deputy may not argue it. The Chair has given a ruling. The Deputy is out of order in proceeding to enumerate the various monopolies which the Minister is alleged to have created.

Mr. Hughes

I submit to your ruling, Sir. The companies under the Railways Act, 1933, proceeded to organise transport arrangements. Take the passenger service from the City of Dublin. An evening train leaves on the main southern line at 6 o'clock, and another train for Carlow-Kilkenny at 6.30 and, at the very same time, two buses leave, one going by Carlow and the other by Athy. Is there any sense in having that service of buses running parallel with the trains and, at the same hour? I suppose my right to criticise that is questioned by Deputy Davin, because I am a farmer? Is it because I represent the agricultural community that I have no right to examine how a transport system should be run? That was the innuendo thrown out. Any intelligent man who attempted to operate passenger service of two buses and two trains knows that it would be more efficient to run one bus at 4 o'clock, a train at 6.30, and another bus at 8 o'clock, instead of the three running at the same hour. That is the type of efficiency we have at present. I hope it will not be the decision of the Minister or of this tribunal to hand over transport, even apart from the passenger service, to such a company. I was in Athy recently and, when talking to a big trader about the proposed Transport Bill, he pointed to two motor wheels in his yard that had been sent down on a lorry. This trader lives close to the railway station. The lorry travelled to Athy with a pair of motor wheels and charged 5/- for delivery. It then went back to Dublin empty. Imagine sending a lorry with two wheels to a place at the side of a railway station and charging 5/-. That would not pay the wages of the driver for that journey. I know another man in Carlow who sent a typewriter to Dublin to be repaired, and the charge on the railway was 4/6. It came back in a lorry and the charge was 1/-. Are we to conclude that the railway wants to encourage road transport rather than rail transport?

Why is it necessary to run road services parallel with the railway services? Is it not reasonable to expect that the railway companies should as far as possible operate lorries to feed rail heads, and not to run parallel services? I do not see any attempt being made by the companies to feed the railways. That should be the policy of an efficient company. The agricultural community is in a peculiar position. The approach to many farms is difficult but, with the rapid development of road services in the past few years, especially by keen merchants operating in rural areas, very effective service was given to those in remote districts. These merchants could only give good service because they were able to use lorries between distributing centres like Dublin on two or three days a week, and, on the other days, use the lorries to distribute goods to farmers. In that way it was quite possible for farmers to get three or four tons of artificial manure delivered at a charge of 5/-. That type of service cannot be beaten by any company. That is the type of service we should be very slow to turn down. The use of artificial manure should be encouraged, and it should reach farmers at the lowest charge possible for delivery. It should also reach them at a price that would encourage them to use big quantities of it. The whole question of transport should be examined in the light of how it is going to affect the agricultural community. The burdens that that community have to carry are heavy enough. While it is groaning under the burdens it is bearing other expenses should not be added. I have no hesitation in saying that it is not the directors but the officials that are operating the railway companies. The workers in these companies are dictating policy.

Mr. Hickey

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Hughes

In the first place there are 50 per cent. too many of them there to give cheap service. There is not the slightest doubt about that. That is one thing that is operating against the railways. If conditions here are examined, and compared with other countries, that is the conclusion that must be come to. Take the case of a man at Crewe junction dealing with 400 or 500 trains daily. He has a lower wage than a man down in the country here, dealing with three or four trains.

Mr. Hickey

Can you prove that?

Mr. Hughes

The proof is there, and the Deputy knows it as well as I do.

Mr. Hickey

I know the opposite.

Mr. Hughes

These facts must be faced when examining this question. I hope they will not be lost sight of, and that there will not be an attempt made to find loopholes in the previous Act. If you are going to create another monopoly, at a time when we have many monopolies, it is going to add one more burden to agriculture.

Mr. McGovern

The Minister is doing a good thing in proposing to inquire into this question before he takes any further steps. It is a question which should be approached with great care, as the experience we have had of monopolies has been anything but pleasant. There is monopoly at present, and it has been abused to such an extent that these companies do not deserve much consideration from the country. The Minister is aware that down in my constituency a certain carrier was refused a licence because he did not apply at the proper time. The railway company undertook to draw milk to a certain creamery but, after trying it for some time, they said their weekly wage bill equalled the total value of the milk carried. The man who had been carrying the milk was able to do so, roughly, at one-eighth of its value, for something like 1/2d. or 3/4d. a gallon. After insisting that the other lorry owner should not get a licence, the railway company said they could not carry the milk under £7 10s. a week, which meant the whole value of the milk. That is one instance. When you have any monopoly that abuses its powers to that extent, the Minister should be very careful about enlarging their powers. I could give other instances, but it is hardly necessary.

Take the case of small parcels and light articles. A man used to run a lorry between Dublin and our part of the country. He used to bring things like bicycles at 1/6 each. What did they charge for them on the railway? They charged 4/6 each, an increase of 200 per cent. The same applies to other articles. I think, when all these matters are taken into account, the Minister should be careful. As Deputy Hughes pointed out, the people in the country are asked to carry burdens that they are unable to carry and, if you enlarge the powers that the railways have got, they are certainly going to be abused. The less meddling with any of these things the better. The experience of this House with regard to the railways should teach us caution. Under the 1933 Acts the State forgave this company hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The shareholders' rights were given away, and what is the result? We have them coming back for further gifts from the State, and there are further restrictions to be placed upon the people who are operating and giving a good service. Are we going to take the rights of these people who are giving good service and hand them to an inefficient company that will not give a decent service? I believe, as other Deputies interested in agriculture believe, that the farming community and consumers generally will be seriously displeased if the railways get any further right to increase freight and restrict their services. I ask the Minister to be very careful about setting up a commission, and if he does establish one, he should try to put the proper class of person on it who will pay attention to the needs of consumers, the agricultural community and others vitally concerned, as well as the interests of the railway companies.

Mr. Corish

I think it will be admitted that the resolution submitted by the Minister is a most important one, because it will be recognised that the railways at the present moment are in a very precarious position. I did not intend to intervene were it not for the extraordinary speech delivered by Deputy Hughes. According to Deputy Hughes, there are too many men employed on the railway, and the employees, he said, were dictating the policy of the railways. He had various other grievances. He cited some cases where goods were delivered in certain parts of the country, presumably in his constituency, for 5/- from Dublin. I do not think that is the type of carrying that this Government wants to encourage. I sincerely hope that is not their policy. Certainly we of the Labour Party would not like to encourage that kind of carrying.

Deputy Hughes is probably unaware that the wages paid in some cases to lorry drivers engaged in that kind of traffic are as low as 8/- a week, plus food. There was a case before the district justice in my constituency some time ago concerning a man engaged in lorry traffic. It was proved on oath that the man who was driving the lorry, which was getting a considerable amount to do, was being paid 8/- a week, plus his food. I do not think anybody in this House, no matter what Party he belongs to, wants to encourage traffic of that kind. So far as the number of men employed is concerned, I do not think Deputy Hughes can sustain his argument. As a matter of fact, it has been proved conclusively that various railway stations are at the moment under-staffed. The moment men become redundant they are dismissed, and unless something is done in the very near future, I think there will be a good deal more redundancy. Already a number of men are engaged for a short time.

When Deputy Davin was speaking he referred to the tendency of the railway company to close down certain branch lines. I suggest to the Minister that while this commission is deliberating he should ask the railway company to stop the closing down of certain branch lines. In one part of my constituency, the newly-added portion, including the town of Borris, the railway company are contemplating closing down the line which goes to Palace and connects with Borris. The town of Borris has been without a passenger service for some years and now it is contemplated to take off the goods service. Borris is a place where there is a good deal of beet traffic and it would be a great inconvenience to the farmers there if Borris were cut off. I suggest that while this tribunal is deliberating the Minister should ask the railway company not to carry out a policy of that kind.

Some Deputies referred to the Minister giving a monopoly to the railway company. I cannot find anything in this resolution which suggests that a monopoly is to be given. So far as I can understand, the commission is to go into the whole question of railway and road traffic, and things of that kind, in order to find out what is the best that can be done under prevailing circumstances. It might be a good thing if there was to be a monopoly. There is one thing that stands out on its own, and that is that the railways must be preserved in this country. They are the natural arteries of the country, and they are absolutely necessary for trade and industry. Apart from that, they give employment, so far as I can ascertain, to 6,000 or 7,000 men. If 50, 30 or 25 per cent. of these men are going to be thrown on the roadside, they will become a charge on the rates. The farmers will feel that perhaps a good deal more than the difference in freight they would be called upon to pay if the railway company were to get a monopoly, and some of the road pirates were put off the roads, those who are paying miserable wages to the unfortunate men compelled to work for them.

Mr. Coburn

I hope and trust that, as a result of the deliberations of the tribunal, the interests that are affected will benefit very much. One would imagine, listening to some of the speeches delivered, that the House was discussing the report of the tribunal. The fact is that the tribunal has not been set up. I hope and trust that, as a result of the tribunal's investigations, the Minister will be in the happy position of making an announcement to the House whereby any measures that may be presented will be the means of putting on their feet the great industries that are affected by the terms of this motion. We all know the grave position of the railways. We also know that the railways give large employment, and that there are good working conditions prevailing in that huge undertaking.

I was rather sorry to hear many Deputies criticising the management of the railways. I happen to have been connected with the railways for quite a long time, representing, as I do, the railway town of Dundalk and I can say that when one considers the difficulties under which the railways have worked for the past eight or ten years, it is marvellous how they were able to carry on at all and to give the employment they were giving. In solving this problem of transport the great industry of agriculture must be borne in mind. If this proposed tribunal can galvanise those interests, agricultural and railway, into one harmonious brand it will be a very good thing for the country. I sincerely wish the Minister luck in the setting up of this tribunal. Its success will only be achieved by co-operation of all Parties. Deputies in this House must recognise the fact that we are only a small nation, and it is only by co-operation amongst all classes that we can bring the nation to a state of prosperity and bring success to our industries and to our people.

Mr. Nally

I wish to congratulate the Minister on his courage in the setting up of this tribunal. There is one thing on which I strongly appeal to the Minister, and that is to keep the branch lines open in South Mayo, particularly between Claremorris and Ballinrobe. From Ballinrobe fair, I understand that on last fair day 80 waggons of cattle were railed. There is a monthly fair there. If that line is interfered with I have no hesitation in saying that the fairs in the town will be destroyed and the farmers of the district will suffer. Unfortunately already too much harm has been done in Mayo by the closing down of branch lines. The branch line from Westport to Achill was closed and so was the branch line from Ballina to Killala. The Minister should see that we will get some sort of rapid transport from the West to Dublin. Fifty years ago a traveller could travel more quickly from Mayo to Dublin than he can to-day. What at that time took four hours now takes five hours. If the Minister will put those matters before the tribunal, try to get a solution, and get rapid transit from the West from Mayo to Dublin, he will be doing a great benefit to the farmers, whom we all want to see prosper.

We have also to take into account that the lorries must be allowed to continue to run in some places. There are two ports in Mayo, one in Ballina and one in Westport. If a trader at present wants five tons of flour in Claremorris all he has to do at 11 o'clock in the day is to telephone down to either of these ports and in four or five hours the flour is delivered to his place. Now if that flour or maize had to be sent by rail it would have first to be delivered from the port to the railway station at Westport. It would have to be transported then from Claremorris railway station to the shopkeeper's place and that would take about three days. If the Government want to improve transport facilities they must first of all look for rapid transport and rapid delivery of goods and they should not close up the lines which are so essential to the farming community and to the success of the fairs.

Mr. Brodrick

I welcome the setting up of this commission and I hope something good will come out of it. Certainly something needs to be done. A Deputy has spoken about parallel lines of lorries and 'buses and railway lines. I could never understand what was back of the idea of having a railway company running a line of trains and at the same time 'buses and lorries. I cannot see what was at the back of that because both lines run into the same district and call to the same towns, the only difference being that the 'bus instead of calling at the railway station pulls up opposite some shop in the town. There is no necessity for this duplication.

There was I believe a flaw in the Act of 1933 because compensation under that Act was paid out to private owners of 'buses and lorries and those private owners have gone in again. I would not agree with Deputy Hughes in saying that the company was at fault. I believe the defect was in the Act. Heavy compensation was paid to private owners. By the Act the Minister for Industry and Commerce caused thousands of pounds to be paid to the owners of lorries and 'buses but these people came along again, bought a new set of lorries, and ran their lorries to Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, brought back stuff and resold it in the particular towns. That was what was done. If the commission can settle that part of the business it will be doing some good.

I think it is a pity to see so many of the branch lines closed. If the Minister gives serious consideration to the setting up of this commission he will go a good part of the way towards solving the problem. The Minister and everybody in the country knows that in some respect the railways in this country are not working properly. If you ask the charge for travelling or transport of any kind down the country one will find that the buses and trains running parallel have different charges to the same towns. Surely that is evidence of very bad business methods.

I would not like to see any branch line closed, because these lines are a benefit to the public. We all know, of course, that the railways pay very high rates. This money has been lost to the local rates. Then there is the line from Galway to Clifden, about 45 miles in length. That line was built a little over 40 years ago, but two years ago it was closed down. It is a disgrace to the Government of this country to see closed down a line that was built at heavy cost in order to serve a huge part of the country. I again say that I welcome the commismission and I certainly hope that when it is set up a certain type of thing that happened under the 1933 Act will not be allowed to go on. The Act of 1933 was in one respect a great safety to the public, for with all its faults it put a number of so-called buses off the road. I hope that the commission will look into that matter very carefully and more so in the light of the public needs than in the light of the interests of the railway company, who are not able to manage their businesses. Deputy Nally spoke about fair days down the country. I am sorry to say that the management of the company at present are not able to estimate from one year to another the number of wagons required for a particular fair. Possibly the Minister for Agriculture may be the cause of that trouble, because he had a lot to do with the upsetting of the fairs in the last five or six years. I know that in the fairs in the West of Ireland buyers of live stock are very badly treated by the management of the railways who do not make sufficient provision to deal with the traffic. In the town in which I live there is a junction for four railways. I do not know when that railway was built, but there has been no improvement whatsoever in the railway rolling stock in that particular area. Then we have the Civic Guards coming along every fair day and prosecuting farmers in that particular town for not dealing in the right way with their live stock. It is a disgrace for any railway company that they have refused to make provision for the rearing of live stock. Even a week ago the lack of provision in that town caused the death of a person crossing a level crossing. I think all these matters should be dealt with by this commission when they are dealing with the matter of transport. Provision should be made for the public. I think it is only fair that the Minister, when he is setting up this commission, should have every matter of transport included in the terms of reference.

Captain Giles

It seems now that commissions are to be the order of the day and, like Beecham's pills, are to banish all ills. I hope that the commission will act as quickly as Beecham's pills. The Road Transport Act of 1933 seems to have been nothing more than a mass of incompetence and muddle-headedness and I really think the Minister ought to be ashamed of himself for the way in which he has allowed the pirates on the roads to prosper at the railway's expense, and allow them to drive coach and four through his Acts. We are all satisfied that the transport system of this country is in a hopeless mess and must be got out of that mess some way or other. I do hope that the outcome of this commission will not be to give the railways a monopoly of this country because I am one of those who do not believe in monopolies. I know what monopolies have done for this country and other countries and, as someone said already, we have enough monopolies at the present moment. The agricultural community for the last few years has had splendid service from those operating lorries in the country with carriers' plates, but I am sorry to say that those pirates or those who reaped a small fortune from the railways when they were compensated for being put out of business were allowed to turn out to be a commercial concern again and allowed to buy new lorries and carry on as if nothing at all had happened. I think it was very unfair to those men with the traders' plates, trading in a genuine and honourable way, who were of great service, that they should be left with this unfair competition and many of them, in fact, driven to the brink of bankruptey by those pirates who have fattened and battened at decent business men's expense. I really think that that matter should have been tackled along ago and that we should not be waiting for a commission which will be one, two or three years before it reports. I know dozens of this type of men who started with an old crock of a lorry that was worth about £15, and who evaded the law—or at least the law does not seem to get them—and in a few months they have a secondhand lorry and you find them at the end of six months with a brand new lorry, carrying on, working night and day, and then you find them to be the gentry of the day, and at the same time they are working all the time outside the law. I really believe that the Minister should have stepped in long ago and enforced his rights and his rules.

I am satisfied also that the railway company are a great deal to blame themselves for their present plight. In the good old days when prosperity was in this country the railway companies were not what you would call very civil to the ordinary plain people of this country. Unless you were a large business man or had large shares in the company you were not heeded at all. Many a time I knew a poor old farmer, bringing two stall-feds by the railway wagon, and if a big rancher happened to be on the road they would shove the unfortunate farmer back and leave him five or six hours waiting, while they would get every official and every servant of the railway company gathered around the rancher's cattle, giving him every facility. I really believe they are responsible for a lot of their own troubles. There were plenty of uncivil officials who would give endless trouble to the poor farmer but who never gave any trouble to the gentry of this country. I believe, if the railways are going to get this monopoly again, we should see that they have officials who will give every type of people a fair crack of the whip and not cater for one class at the expense of the other. I believe that if a certain amount of decent traders who have carriers' plates at the present moment are going to be put out of existence they should get fair and square compensation because, after all, many of these men are built for life, as the saying is. Their lives are made on this class of livelihood an they are working these lorries solely as their living and if they are going out of business in perhaps middle-age they are at least entitled to compensation. I hope this fact will not be overlooked.

I say again that we should all beware of monopolising and I believe myself that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is keen on giving the railway the monopoly in this country. If he does, he may live to regret the day because, after all, in any business in this country or any other country you want rivalry—clean, healthy rivalry—and if you have, the plain people will get a fair crack of the whip.

Of course, the main thing about the commission is the type of men we put on it. I believe that the agricultural community, who are really the key to prosperity in this country, should be catered for as far as possible. We should see that they get at least a fair percentage of the membership of the commission, because they are the people for whom we really set up the commission. If they go out of exist. ence, the country ceases to exist. Therefore, the Minister, if he has authority to set up a commission, should see to it that the right type of men are put on it, and not the type of people who do not know the first thing about agriculture. Agriculture is the mainstay of the country, and, if this commission is to do its duty, it will have to do it for the agricultural community.

Mr. Keyes

The trend of the discussion on this motion seems to indicate a general welcome for the proposed commission to be set up, mingled with surprise at the necessity for its being set up, because I think most Parties in the House had long since recognised the urgent necessity for doing something practical to rescue the transport industry of the country from the chaotic conditions into which it had dropped, but I think there was a good deal of feeling throughout the House and throughout the country that the Government had decided many months ago to introduce legislation on their own hind leg, so to speak. Whatever has happened in the interval which has caused the Minister and the Executive Council to set up a commission, I think we should welcome that commission. and even if the time taken in coming to a finding will be a bit longer drawn out than the Minister anticipates, it will be worth while. I consider that the matter being tackled is one of the most important, if not the most important, in the whole country.

I am afraid the contributions from many benches in the House to-night will not be helpful to the Minister either in the formation of the personnel of that commission or in guiding the commission themselves on the lines they should take on this problem. We have had all the small little local angles developed here as though they were dealing with the commission itself. I think the main points are the speedy setting up of the commission, due regard to the type of people who are going to constitute it, and a reasonable time for coming to a decision, having regard to the seriousness of the position at the moment. I wonder if Deputies in the House have realised how serious the position in the railway world at the moment actually is. As a practical railway man myself, I can speak of the influences of this collapse upon the railway workers, and I am not narrowed in my views. I am also aware of the chaotic conditions obtaining throughout the country in the competition and scramble for traffic taking place on the roads.

The last speaker, Deputy Giles, has spoken of the danger of a monopoly. We have monopolies in the country that are doing no great harm. If the monopoly is properly controlled and in the interests of the majority of the citizens of the State there is nothing wrong with monopoly. There is nothing wrong with the monopoly of transport any more than with the monopoly of light or the monopoly in the carrying of letters. Nobody complains of the monopoly in the carrying of letters—the postal services—of this country. There is very little complaint with the electric lighting monopoly, and surely the transport industry, in a general way, is of more importance than either of the two things I have mentioned, and if the railways are going to be controlled in a regularised way under State or semi-State control, I think we should welcome that because that is going to operate in the best interests of all parties concerned as citizens of this State. I do not think we need be frightened by the bugbear of monopoly which has been held up to terrorise us by Deputy Giles and others preceding him.

There is one remark on the part of Deputy Giles which I resent—the charge of unfair discrimination by railway servants in handling of cattle of the citizens of this country. That is an unworthy suggestion, and after 13 or more years in the railway service I resent that on behalf of the railwaymen. There is no question of handling ranchers' cattle with greater haste and respect than is given to the smallest farmers of this country, and I think that will be borne out by the live-stock traders in the country. Deputy Giles gave very little support for the contention made against the railwaymen. There may be complaints to be made— there is undoubtedly room for complaints—against the overlapping that is taking place even since the railway company has joined all the services operating.

Deputy Brodrick has spoken of two different sets of fares operating where the lines are running parallel. I could quote an instance of that myself. There is definitely room for inquiry into what is taking place, but the main thing that matters is that a definite effort was made in 1933 by the Government and the House to regulate the transport industry. That proved to be a failure because the House was not able to foresee the ingenuity of the road pirates. Many of those pirates, after being bought out and compensated, blossomed forth as wholesalers. Taking advantage of the compensation given them, they came out refurnished with new vehicles and commenced to undercut the railway company, who are compelled to charge reasonable rates as fixed by the Railway Tribunal.

The transport industry should be regarded as secondary only in importance to the agricultural industry, which must always be regarded as the primary industry of this country. If the agricultural and the transport industries are to be treated on this basis, some kind of regulation should take place and the chaos and lack of co-ordination that have been going on in recent years should disappear. Unfortunately, new vested interests have been springing up in every town and village in the country until we have a sort of anti-railway mindedness in the country because of the fact that so many people, some of them, perhaps, misfits who could not fit into any other profession, just got hold of old lorries and commenced to carry traffic at all sort of prices, working all kinds of hours. Somebody mentioned here that railway employees work only a certain number of hours, certain regular hours. That is true. My complaint is that those people who are competing with the railways work at all hours, sometimes sleeping in their lorries on the roadside, a menace to themselves and to other traffic. If our roads are to be preserved for their original purpose, steps will have to be taken to control this traffic. Our roads are not suitable as are the Continental motor roads, which have been specially constructed for motor traffic, for this incessant tearing round by lorries of all kinds, with all kinds of heavy traffic which should be rightly carried on the iron road provided by the railway company. If this irregular traffic were controlled it would provide some reasonable measure of safety on the roads of the country for ordinary pedestrians and horse traffic.

I think that this is such an important question that this debate would have justified itself even if there were no question of a tribunal. The Minister made one statement which was rather difficult to understand. He said that he did not intend to invite any railway experts to act on the tribunal. If we have had legislation previous to now, in which the Government undoubtedly had the counsel of railway experts, and if that legislation has proved to be ineffective, what is the idea now when conditions have become so much worse, of handing over this question for consideration to an unregulated commission of people, whose only qualification must be that they are not railway experts? It reminds me of a case which I once heard in court, in which several witnesses were called to give evidence and in which not one of them knew anything about the case. The judge at length said, in despair: "If there is anybody else in court who knows nothing about the case will he come to the witness-box at once?" I hope the Minister does not intend to invite all classes of people to act on this tribunal, bar people with an expert railway knowledge. That would be a dangerous impasse to arrive at, in seeking a remedy for the transport industry. I hope that he will be able to assure the House that, while the members of this tribunal will be drawn from representative interests in the country, it will mainly consist of persons who are competent to advise as to how the transport system should be put on an ordered basis. With these few remarks, I think I can conclude by thanking the Minister for setting up this tribunal which is the best thing that can be done in the absence of the direct legislation which we had hoped would be introduced in this session. I only hope, while I should not like to see the matter speeded up unduly, that the Minister's assurance as to having the report before the 8th February will be realised and that we shall be in a position in the near future to put the whole transport industry on a healthy foundation.

Mr. Belton

I wonder if it is a fair assumption that the Minister's decision to set up this commission of inquiry is due to his fear of the magnitude of the problem that he has been handling himself for five or six years? From the Labour Benches, five or six years ago, I heard precisely similar speeches to that which I heard to-night from Deputy Keyes, that the transport system of the country was in a chaotic condition and that it was time to regulate it. Labour Deputies welcomed the Transport Acts four or five years ago. Those have been failures and some scapegoat must be found now. Hence all this talk about the pirate on the road, but it was these alleged pirates on the road who developed the bus traffic and motor transport in this country. It was through the enterprise of the thrifty workingman, who put down all his savings as a deposit to buy a bus and who borrowed the rest from the bank that the bus traffic was developed. They were the pioneers of bus and motor transport. The railway companies would never have developed that transport if they had not been forced to do so. When these men had developed the trade, a howl went up to regulate it, and then it became necessary to compensate these people who put buses on the road. That was done and the unfortunate taxpayer was plundered to provide that compensation. The men, who were thrown out of that service because they saw a loophole in the Act and legally developed another trade, are attacked in this House. We are told that there are 5,000 or 6,000 workers affected in the railway service. Anybody must sympathise with them, but how many are employed in the bus services and the road transport services? I am prepared to believe there are just as many employed in the motor transport services.

What is the cause of the whole trouble? Diminishing production and the development of a dual service, an additional service beyond what we had in our young days. You have a road transport service to-day that you had not 20 or 30 years ago. You have also a railway service which you had 20 or 30 years ago, and then you have less production in the country. What is your commission, when it is set up, going to do? To ration the transport of that diminishing production between the road and the rail services. This House, I submit, would be better engaged in trying to increase the productivity of the country. That is the real trouble. The chickens are coming home to roost. The slaughter of 500,000 calves was not for nothing. They, at from £15 to £20 per head, would have provided good freightage for the railways to-day, but they are not there. When we set about examining this problem, we ought to remember that if we cannot have increased production we will not have increased freightage. Now we must ration the freight. Personally, I do not care who is on this commission. I presume that legislation will have to be enacted to implement its report, and then is the time for us to examine in detail what the recommendations will be. I am afraid that any report which will be implemented here in legislation which makes any attempt to give a further monopoly to the railways will meet with serious opposition in this House and in the country. I should like to know why have the railways failed; and how are we going to carry out this rationing? Let us look at it in general terms. Everybody will admit that railway charges are higher than road charges, and is it sensibly suggested here that you must increase all charges up to the level of the railway charge? If you do, you are in for trouble, and the country is in for a loss.

Deputy Corish spoke of the miserable wage of a man in his constituency who has 8/- a week and his board. What is the Government regulated agricultural wage in this country? Twenty - seven shillings. What is the difference? Does an agricultural labourer not require to be fed and clothed as well as a railway worker?

Mr. Corish

The agricultural labourer has more than that.

Mr. Belton

The regular wage is 27/- a week.

Mr. Corish

How much does he get in cash?

Mr. Belton

That is the total.

Mr. Corish

He gets more than 8/- a week in cash.

Mr. Belton

That is an isolated case.

Mr. Corish

Yes, when it does not suit.

Mr. Belton

Take it at 8/- and board. What about 27/- a week altogether?

Mr. Corish

What is he going to do with his wife and family?

Mr. Belton

I am talking about 8/- a week and board as against 27/- a week. There is not a terrible difference. That, in the Government view, is the economic wage that agriculture can pay. That economic wage produces goods which are carried by the railways and by the road services. Is it suggested that a further bite must be taken out of that agricultural production and given to the railways, or that the road charges must be increased by a further bite out of agricultural production with the obvious consequence of still further reducing the agricultural wage? We cannot destroy wealth without feeling it. We are beginning to feel it now and we shall feel it more in the future. Wait until this commission sits and examines the whole problem. They will, I am quite sure, place the blame on the right shoulders.

There is no use in attempting to condemn, in advance, the road transport services. Road motor transport has come to stay in this country and in a country so sparsely served by railways as this mobile motor transport must not only be protected but developed. Deputy Hughes struck the right note when he said that the railways should develop transport at the termini of the railways and not run it side by side with the railways for long distances throughout the country. It is no harm to give expression to views of that kind, so that a commission, whoever its personnel may be, will have some guide as to the lines on which we here, so far as we reflect the opinion of the country, are thinking. In imagining points for criticism, while expressing our views generally on the causes of the present chaotic state of transport, we may think that we are able to fix the blame, but there is no way of finding that out exactly without an impartial inquiry and I think the best wishes of all Deputies and Parties should go to the Minister, together with a request to pick his commission judiciously and to pick it from people who may be helpful, not only in arriving at a conclusion, but in knowing sufficient of various aspects of the question as to be able to put good questions to witnesses when they go there to give evidence. I hope the Minister will get into his stride quickly and hasten the investigations of the commission so that we will get an early report. I hope the speed with which this commission will report will disappoint many of us who have lost 99 per cent. of faith in commissions.

Mr. J. Flynn

I welcome this proposal to set up a commission and I am sure the people throughout the country will appreciate it. With regard to Deputy Belton's point as to overcharging by the railways and exorbitant prices as compared with road transport, I submit that that must be so when the railway employees must get a standard wage, while the people in charge of road transport can pay half wages.

Mr. Belton

What is the Kerry labouring man getting on a farm?

Mr. Flynn

The road transport employee's average is about one-third of the standard rate paid on the railways. This inquiry will be very beneficial because, while maintaining the railway system and making it operative throughout the country, it will, at the same time, help to adjust the road transport system. The Road Transport Act was a failure simply because the civilian population of the country, who had made various complaints, did not stand by them; in other words, did not assist the Guards in proving the cases against the people concerned. That was mainly the cause of a breakdown of the Transport Act and, consequently people who received large sums of money from the railway companies came along and, in the guise of distributors, competed against the railways. That system must be inquired into and adjusted. It will be an unlucky day for this country if the railway system is not maintained and developed. The people at the moment may imagine that the cutting of prices by road transport services—lorry owners and others —will help to lower prices generally, but once the railway system is wiped out or not developed on proper lines, the road transport system will become a monopoly and the people generally will lose out.

The point that we make in regard to this inquiry is that not only should there be an effort made to remedy the abuses under the road transport system at the moment, but that there should also be an effort made to adjust the headquarters organisation of the railway company. At one time I suggested and others in the areas concerned suggested, that a board somewhat similar to the Electricity Supply Board should be established: in other words, that the Minister should nominate a representative to act in co-operation with the directors of the railway company with a view to defining policy and to arranging a transport system. I believe that a move in that direction would tend towards greater efficiency, and would help to bring the system—a system that Deputy Belton has described as inadequate and 30 years behind the time—up to date, so that it would be able to meet the requirements of the country as we know them at the moment. On behalf of the people whom I represent, people who are well conversant with the position, I gladly welcome this proposal to have an inquiry. We certainly are confronted with this question of pirates who pay little or no wages and who, in my opinion, are a menace to the transport system of the country. They have come along and offered themselves at starvation wages, and at very low rates to the farmers in our district. We realise that while that may be very attractive at the moment, that eventually it is bound to be detrimental to the maintenance of a sound transport system for the country. The Minister saved the railways in 1932-33. I realise now, and people who have studied the position realise, that his decision to set up this tribunal, and to have a thorough investigation will once and for all save our transport system.

Mr. Brasier

I desire to lend my support to the efforts the Minister is making in this matter. So far as the main industry of this country is concerned, it would be absolutely disastrous to it if anything should happen to the railways, so that it is of first-class importance to have immediate steps taken to preserve them. In the interests of the agricultural community it is of the greatest importance to preserve the railways for the carriage of cattle and of heavy goods. You could not strike a greater blow at the agricultural community at the present time than to do anything that would tend to damage the railways. They are required not only for passenger traffic but for the transport of cattle, manures, feeding stuffs and almost everything that concerns the welfare of agriculture. They are our chief form of transport, and I desire to give my hearty support to the efforts that the Minister is now making to save them. In addition, we have the tourist traffic which, if it is to be maintained must be maintained principally on the railways.

Reference has been made to the competition of the buses. It must be remembered that there are large parts of the country which have been developed by bus traffic and in which railway facilities are not provided at all. I believe there is a certain amount of co-operation between the two now. In my opinion, where the railways and the buses are running side by side they are injuring one another. In a great many cases, so far as passenger traffic is concerned, the bus rates are very much higher than the railway rates. I believe it would be absolutely disastrous to the whole country if we were to allow the railways to go down. Therefore, I support the Minister's proposal.

Mr. Cosgrave

I propose to read to the House, from the Official Debates, two statements which I made in the House some years ago. The first was made on the 9th of March, 1933. Speaking then on the Second Reading of the Road Transport Bill, I said:—

"I would strongly advise an examination of the whole transport problem by, let us say, two officers of his—the Minister's—Department, whom he knows as well as I do, with an accountant and an engineer added to them, to present to the Ministry, what, in their opinion, would be the best scheme that ought to be adopted in order to give the people an economic transport system; and to get the maximum number of persons employed; to save, if it is possible to save, the money which is being invested in this enormous concern, and to meet the natural and normal requirements of the people."

Later, on the 3rd of May on the Fifth Stage of the Bill, I said:—

"On the Second Reading of this measure the Minister was informed from various parts of the House that this Bill would not solve the country's transport problem ....... These two measures, notwithstand ing what the Minister may say, will not improve the transport problem. To a certain extent they stabilise it as it is so as to give the Minister an opportunity of correcting and lessening any further complications that may arise in connection with the services; but they do not solve the problem ....... On the Second Reading I mentioned to the Minister what appeared to be a practical way of bringing about a solution of this whole question. He has in his Department, certainly, two officials who would be quite capable of sitting down to consider and resolve the whole question along with an associated accountant, an engineer with a knowledge of transport and an engineer having a knowledge of railway transport. My suggestion would be that that committee would have full power to examine the whole question, bearing in mind the idea that the railroads should form the main transport agency; that the main consideration was economic transport; that they would be entitled to consider in respect of any recommendations that they would make the claims that persons might have in respect of compensation; what compensation properly should fall upon the transport agencies; and what compensation ought to be paid by the State. That committee could produce, in effect, a Bill which would be a Schedule to a single ‘clause Act' giving it the force of law and putting it outside of the competence of Parliament to consider it; keeping ministerial control out of the recommendations and viewing them and considering them solely from the point of view of economic transport, having in mind the maintenance of the railway organisation as the particular agency for transport in the country, not ignoring the fact that a new form of transport has extended transport throughout the country, is extending it and is likely to still further extend it. That should form the main subject of this committee, and I think that granted such a proposal as I have put to the House, even the House itself would vote with an overwhelming majority in favour of it."

I congratulate the Minister in doing now what it was suggested to him he should do five and a half years ago. I understand that he stated to the House this evening that this tribunal will have the power to investigae—that it will be responsible for an investigation into the problem. The general impression in the House is that a tribunal is a body which sits and hears evidence and that brings in a report upon the evidence submitted to it. If that be the intention with regard to this particular body it is absolutely useless. What concerns everybody is the concern of nobody. If the Minister undertakes to make an investigation then he ought to get his Department working on the investigations that are necessary in order to get a sensible report from this committee, and we ought to expect some results from it. But if this particular treatment in connection with transport is on a par with the rest of the Government's policy then I am afraid we have got to wait another five or six years for the Government to see a little bit of sense, that is if they ever will see it.

Mr. Lemass

Apart from the last speech, most of the other speeches made in the course of this discussion contained only very casual references to the motion before the House. I am glad, however, that the discussion took place. I think that those speeches, although if taken individually they may have been of little value, made between them a case for this motion. They revealed the same absence of information, the same muddled thinking and the same diversity of conclusions on this subject that one would expect to find in the anonymous letters that appear in the Evening Mail, and that is why it is necessary to set up this tribunal.

Mr. Dillon

And to hell with Parliament.

Mr. Lemass

I did not interrupt the Deputy, and I think I ought to be allowed to speak now without interruption from him. I said, when moving the motion, that a stage had been reached at which major decisions on transport policy had necessarily to be made. Even a decision to do nothing would be a major decision. If we are going to ensure that the decision made will be a right one, it is necessary that the House and the public should be fully informed as to the facts. That is what this tribunal is for—to get the facts and to make recommendations based upon these facts in relation to the problem. The tribunal is not going to be representative of agriculture or of traders or anybody else. Nobody will be on the tribunal who will be representative of anybody. The tribunal will consist of one, two or three individuals specially chosen because of their ability to get the facts and to draw the right conclusions from them.

It is apparent that many Deputies who have spoken have either declined to face the realities of the situation or do not know what these realities are. I intimated in moving the motion that the position of urgency had arisen by reason of the fact that both railway companies operating here are not making their working expenses. Do Deputies realise what that means? It means that apart from the prospect that something will be done here, or that there will be some change in the situation which will alter the financial results of the company's working, these companies are going to stop. They cannot carry on working at a loss. There is no question of making profits. There is no question of paying interest on their preference or guaranteed shares; there is no question of paying interest on debentures; they are not making their working expenses. Yet we have people like Deputy Nally who tell us that the railway from Claremorris to Ballina must be kept open, even though, of course, you will get the flour in quicker by road and even though nobody intends to use the railway, it must be kept open because it will be bad for Mayo if it is closed. The railway from Dublin to Cork or the railway from Dublin to Belfast cannot be kept going at a loss, much less the various branch lines, the closing of which is essential to the preservation of the main lines.

Deputy Brodrick objected to the closing of the branch line from Galway to Clifden. That line had reached such a state of insecurity that it was contrary to the public interest to allow trains to run over it. The putting of that line into a condition of reasonable safety would involve an expenditure of £800,000. There was no possibility of that line ever earning 1 per cent. upon £800,000; it was not even earning its working expenses. Those very Deputies who protest that these railway lines should be kept open, who are objecting to their being closed, who will come with deputations to my Department every time a railway company proposes to close one, are the same Deputies who, in public and in this House, say that there must be no monopoly. Of course we must have competition; of course the independent owners of lorries must be allowed to operate. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot have that competition which has forced down railway rates to an utterly uneconomic level and at the same time keep the railways open. That is the fact that I want Deputies to face. There has not been a diminution in traffic. The total tonnage of merchandise carried by the Great Southern Railways last year was 8 or 10 per cent. higher than in the first year of that company's existence—1925—the first year after the Amalgamation Act of 1924 came into operation. But the amount they got for carrying it was not sufficient to pay the cost of it and that is due to the existence, not so much of these pirato operators that Deputies talk about, but to competition of another kind to which I shall refer later.

Deputy Dillon was glad of the opportunity of saying that this transport situation is entirely the fault of the Minister. So long as he can say that he is satisfied. Deputy Dillon, of course, was also, like Deputy Cosgrave, glad to say, "I told you so." Deputy Dillon knows that he says so much about everything it is impossible to visualise any situation arising in this country at any time about which Deputy Dillon could not say, "I told you so." He has got it all wrong. Other Deputies who spoke in the same strain have also merely shown their inability to understand what has happened since 1925. The Railway Act of 1933 set out to give the company a monopoly with the approval of every Party in this House, even the approval of Deputies who are now denouncing monopolies. It was 90 per cent. effective. Despite what Deputy Dillon said, so far as passenger traffic is concerned, it was 100 per cent. effective. So far as goods traffic is concerned, it is quite true that some people did find a successful method of evading its provisions. We may be at fault in that we did not foresee those possible evasions. If we are at fault, we are in the company of every other Government in the world which legislated in this matter. Certainly our legislation was no more ineffective than the legislation in Northern Ireland, which was not prepared by the inefficient Minister for Industry and Commerce, but by the same type of expert tribunal that Deputy Cosgrave was talking about a few minutes ago.

All the traffic carried by those people who evaded the Act, these pirates whom Deputy Davin talked about or the cruisers mentioned by other Deputies, does not matter that much in relation to the position of the railway company. Not a single Deputy will face the fact that the most effective competition to the company was the private lorry which is not carrying goods for hire, not even engaged in carrying on a faked distribution organisation in order to get carrying goods for hire—the private lorry, the private car. If we are going to secure that there will be available to the railway company a volume of traffic sufficient to enable it to carry on its organisation and secure profitable rates of charge for the carrying of that traffic, it is that most dangerous form of competition that will have to be regulated. I can see at once that there will be many good arguments for doing nothing, for allowing the railway company to close down. There are people who contend that we in this country, in our circumstances, can carry on without railways at all. There are people who will contend that a much more efficient transport organisation can be provided on the roads if the railways disappear. Perhaps they are right, but I do not think they are. That contention is seriously made by serious people. Deputies who spoke here as if it were possible to achieve some Utopian situation have to face that.

Deputy Davin said the railway companies are not paying high enough wages, that they are not employing sufficient men, that the branch lines they closed down should be reopened. He spoke glibly along that line, miles away from the realities of the situation, without facing the fact that what we are trying to do is to impose limitations on the other forms of transportation in order to preserve, in the national interest, the main lines of railway, because it is only the main lines that can be preserved. In so far as the areas served by branch lines are concerned, public transport in those areas was never an economic proposition. Deputies talked about pre-War conditions. I invite them to read the report of the Transport Commission set up in 1922. Deputy Cosgrave will remember that commission and its report. Even before the War, when there was no other form of public transport available, the railway companies in this part of Ireland were earning on an average 3 per cent. on their capital, and they earned that 3 per cent. on the basis of low wages and extraordinarily bad conditions of employment for their workers—wages and conditions of employment which were swept away during the War. The Transport Commission in 1922 stated that the railway companies in this area can never get back to pre-War conditions, to conditions in which they earned 3 per cent. on their capital.

That situation has changed even more in that direction since then, for a great part of this public transport was provided by subsidy. Either the cost of constructing the railway lines was provided by a Government grant or the cost of operating the lines was provided by a local subsidy or by an arrangement for baronial guarantees or something of that kind. Deputies have to face that fact. If they want to preserve and assist the railway services, they cannot at the same time say that, in relation to these railway services, everybody who chooses to buy a lorry is to be allowed to go into competition and force down the cost of transportation to such an extent that, no matter how efficiently the service is run, the working cost cannot be secured. I do not say that the Great Southern Railways or the Great Northern Railway have run their services efficiently. I do not say that they have even tried to get the best results out of the 1933 Act. I think quite the reverse. I think that neither company has made a really serious effort to turn to the fullest possible advantage the position created for them by the legislation of 1933. But to say that the existence of transport difficulties now is due to the 1933 Act is sheer nonsense. The railways would have disappeared in 1933 if that legislation had not then been passed. For a number of years following 1933, the railway position was definitely improving. The receipts were improving. They were able, not merely to maintain their operations and to pay some interest upon their shares, but they were able also to recover some of the arrears of maintenance expenditure which had gone by default in earlier years. This year was a bad year. Perhaps the circumstances of this year are purely temporary and will not exist at all next year. Perhaps we are agitating ourselves unduly. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is the case. We have got to face up to the fact that this year working expenses are not being made, and that, unless something is done, the operations of the companies must cease.

I do not think that there is anything else to which I should like to refer at this stage. Obviously we have got to leave the field clear for this tribunal to act without any pressure being put upon them in one direction or another. It is clear that we cannot go back on the policy adopted in 1933. Whatever steps are taken must be an advance upon those taken then. My recollection of the type of criticism we got in 1933 was that we were going too far. Those who spoke against the measures that year did not do so on the grounds that they were inadequate to deal with our transport problems. In so far as they were criticised at all, they were criticised on the ground that they were giving the companies advantages which were unnecessary to their preservation. I intimated then that time might prove that we were not going far enough. It is clear now that that is so, and that if public transport is to be preserved here and operated on a profitable basis, something more must be done. I do not think that we did wrong. I think that we were fully justified in giving the Great Southern Railways Company an opportunity of showing whether it could make good under conditions which it itself believed to be adequate to enable it to make good. We gave it these conditions in 1933, and if it has not succeeded in turning these conditions to full advantage then expected, it is time to review the position. That is what this tribunal is for. Deputy Dillon made some sarcastic reference to the commission which we set up regarding transport in Donegal. I want to say that the persons who carried out that inquiry did extraordinarily useful work and published a report which was a model report—a model for its clarity and for the conciseness of the views expressed.

Mr. McMenamin

What did you do with it?

Mr. Lemass

Its recommendations are being carried out and, because these recommendations are being carried out, Donegal is the only part of this country in which there is not an urgent transport problem at the present time.

Mr. Belton

Are we to take the Minister's remarks as indicating that this tribunal should recommend that the carrying of goods or passengers by privately-owned cars or lorries for the benefit of the private individuals or private firms concerned should cease or be limited?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly not, but if Deputies think that the rapid increase in the number of private cars and private lorries has no hearing on the problem, they may not even have begun to understand it.

Mr. Belton

Are we to take your remarks as indicating to the tribunal that it should recommend that these vehicles should be limited or curtailed?

Mr. Lemass

I am indicating nothing to the tribunal.

Mr. Dillon

Could the Minister give us any idea of when he hopes to publish the names of the members of the tribunal or the number of persons who are to constitute it?

Mr. Lemass

I could not do so.

Mr. Dillon

Can the Minister indicate what number he has in mind?

Mr. Lemass

Two or three persons.

Mr. Dillon

Is it the intention to take in an outside expert or is it proposed to confine the tribunal to domestic sources?

Mr. Lemass

I could not answer that question.

Question put and agreed to.