Yesterday I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce:
"Whether in view of the fact that the Transport Tribunal was established by authority of an order made by Dáil Eireann on December 7th, 1938, he will state by what authority he has declined to submit to Dáil Eireann the reports of the tribunal presented to him in August, 1939."
The Minister's reply was:
"The warrant appointing the Transport Tribunal was issued by my Department on the 22nd December, 1938, in pursuance of a resolution passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas on the 7th of that month. The warrant of appointment of the tribunal required them to inquire into the matters mentioned in the resolution and to report thereon to me. I am not aware that I am under any obligation to publish the tribunal's reports.
"It is probable, however, that the reports will be published when the consideration referred to in answers to previous Parliamentary questions has been completed."
I consider that reply was unsatisfactory under two heads. In the first place it showed that the policy of procrastination which had been adopted in regard to the many questions tabled on the same matter on previous dates by myself and other Deputies was to be continued.But my amazement and disappointment in that regard were completely overshadowed by the expression of the Minister's doubt as to whether he was bound to present the reports of that tribunal to the House. I think, and I hope the House will record its opinion, that any such tribunal, commission or committee of inquiry set up under the express authority of the House has an unquestionable right to have its report presented to the House which was responsible for setting it up.
I suggest further that neither the Minister nor the Government, who are only the servants of this Parliament, having received that report, have got any right to withhold it from the Parliament at their pleasure. I consider that the first function involved in the setting up of that inquiry was to bring enlightenment to the public mind upon a matter of public importance, and I believe that it is entirely out of order for the Government to sit upon this report for so long a period as they have, pending considerations of all sorts and kinds. I believe they should at least have brought the report back here to the House and so made it available to the people of the country who are vitally concerned upon a very important national question. It does not necessarily follow that the Government would have to implement the decisions or recommendations of the tribunal immediately they produced the report. We have had plenty of evidence of other tribunals whose reports have been submitted and in connection with which no action was taken. This, however, seems to be a new departure, and I believe that it is one to which the House should not lightly agree. I believe further that we should disabuse the Minister's mind of the opinions he seems to hold as to where his duty lies in this respect.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce, who preceded the present Minister, in introducing the order of the 7th December, 1938—Column 1401, Volume 73 of the Official Debates— said:—
"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."
Further on, the Minister said:
"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."
There is just one other quotation from the Minister's speech, in the following column, which I should like to give. It is as follows:—
"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 after the Christmas Recess."
Now, that was the 7th December, 1938, and the date on which we were to resume, after the Christmas Recess, was the 8th February, 1939, and, speaking on that debate, later on the same afternoon, I said that I hoped that the Minister would not unduly rush the matter and that, having regard to the overwhelming importance of the subject under discussion, it would be manifestly unfair to attempt or to hope to get a reasoned decision from the tribunal by the following 8th February.Everybody was aware of the urgency of the problem, but all were equally aware that it should not be rushed unduly. Now, February, 1939, passed and the two reports were eventually submitted in the month of August, 1939—I think the dates were the 4th and 11th August—and since that month of August, 1939, the month of February, 1940, has also passed, and we are now in the month of November, 1940, and there is still no sign whatever from the Minister that he is going to bring into the House and make public that report.
If we contrast the present Minister's attitude in this connection with that of his predecessor, who set up the tribunal, they seem to be at variance one with the other. The former Minister, Mr. Lemass, thought it a matter of extreme urgency, but the present Minister does not seem to be imbued with that spirit at all. Now, what has happened since, that has made it unnecessary to pursue this matter that was visualised as being so urgent at that time by the Minister's predecessor? Has the position of the railway company improved to such an extent, or has it got out of the rut into which it was admitted it had sunk at that particular time?
