I move the motion standing in my name and the name of Deputy Keyes:—
That having regard to the serious financial condition of the Great Southern Railways Company, its inability because of financial stringency to afford to the public the transportation services essential to satisfactory economic activity under conditions of transport monopoly, and the dismissal from the service of the company of numbers of men who have no prospect of obtaining alternative employment, Dáil Eireann requests the Government forthwith to publish for the information of railway-users and of the general public the reports presented to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in August, 1939, relating to the circumstances which led or contributed to the present unfavourable financial position of the Great Southern Railways and of the other railways operating within the State.
I want to assure the Minister and the House that this motion is not put forward for the purpose of gaining any Party advantage, but for the purpose of forcing the Minister and his colleagues, if we can succeed in doing so, to face the facts. What are the facts? In 1932 and 1933 we had public declarations from the Party now in office that on the question of transport they were in favour of the policy of public ownership. I feel certain the Minister will not deny that statement or contradict it in any way, because there are many quotations from speeches made by his colleagues in this House, and from public announcements issued by the Government Party previous to the elections held in 1932 and 1933 to confirm that statement. In 1933, very shortly after the Government were returned in the election which was held early in that year, legislation, not on the lines of the publicly declared policy of the Fianna Fáil Party, was introduced. I think there is nothing wrong in my quoting from the speech made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was speaking on the concluding stages of the Railway Bill of 1933. On the Final Stage of that Bill, on the 3rd May, 1933, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, amongst a number of other very interesting statements, made this statement:—
"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. That is what we set out to achieve and that is what these Bills will achieve."
I would like to hear from the Minister, if he will be good enough to go into that aspect of the matter, whether he is satisfied that the Act of 1933 has been administered in accordance with the intentions of the people who were responsible for its passage. Many questions affecting the financial position of the railways and the chaotic position of transport generally have been brought under the notice of the Government during the intervening years in this House, but the most important thing that took place during the four years subsequent to the passage of the 1933 Act was a motion moved in this House, on the 7th December, 1938, by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He came to this House and he moved a motion which is fully quoted in column 1401 of the Dáil Debates of the 7th December, 1938, for the establishment of a tribunal:—
"That it is expedient that a tribunal be established for inquiring 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."
Speaking to that motion, the Minister made a number of statements which, in my opinion, have a direct bearing on the motion now before the House. As reported at column 1402 of 7th December, 1938, he said—and this is a very important statement—
"...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."
Concluding, the Minister said:—
"Certainly, it is my expectation that we should have the report of the tribunal before us when we meet again after the Christmas Recess",
that is to say, he expected that the report of the tribunal would be in his hands on 8th February, 1939. The report of the tribunal—or the reports of the tribunal, because I understand two reports were submitted to the Minister —were submitted not on 8th February, 1939, but on 4th and 11th August of the same year. Numerous questions, innumerable questions, have been put on the Order Paper not alone by members of the Labour Party during the intervening period but by other Deputies in this House asking the Minister to state the reasons, if any, why he was refusing to publish reports of that very important body. It is hardly necessary for me to say—at any rate, it is unnecessary for me to tell the Minister— that the reports of commissions set up by this House and of public tribunals on matters of national importance are always furnished to the members of the Parliament responsible for the establishment of such bodies.
If the Opposition here in this House has any function it is surely to make their contribution to the good government of the country. We were returned here at the last General Election with the knowledge that the Government had a clear majority, but still the Government which has that clear majority will not and cannot deny the right of the Opposition Parties in this House to criticise the policy of the Government in a constructive way, and to help the Government to implement its own policy in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people. How can we exercise our duties as Deputies in this House, whether or not we sit behind the Government responsible for the implementation of a particular line of policy on transport or any other matter, unless we are put in possession of the valuable information which must be contained in the reports of all public commissions set up by this House at the taxpayers' expense?
The Government has declared its policy of public ownership. In 1933, in the Minister's own words, they put the private ownership system on trial for the last time. The Minister at the time stated that if the Acts of 1933 failed to come up to expectations of the Government at the time there was nothing facing the Government in the future except to implement fully and without qualification their declared policy of public ownership of the transport services of this country. A tribunal was set up. Two reports are lying not, I hope, in the wastepaper basket, but in some pigeon-hole locked with the personal key of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not know why the Minister refuses to give to the elected representatives of the people of this country the reports which were submitted by experts appointed by this House for the purpose of inquiring into a matter of great public and national importance. On that point, I think I had better quote as a partial explanation—it is certainly not a satisfactory explanation—from the latest statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the House. In reply to a question addressed to him on Wednesday, 5th February last, as to why the Minister had not, so far, authorised publication of those reports he said:—
"The reports of the Transport Tribunal were submitted to my predecessor just prior to the outbreak of the present war. The examination of these reports has been proceeding in my Department and in the other Departments of the Government concerned in the light of the continuously changing conditions which have been experienced since then. It is clear that until there is some stability in the circumstances in which our transport undertakings have to work, final decisions as to the recommendations in the report cannot be arrived at, and that, indeed, the whole position may require to be reviewed afresh when trading and transport conditions become normal. In this situation there would seem to be little public utility in publishing reports which were based on circumstances which have altered materially"—
those are very important words—
"since the outbreak of war and which will, no doubt, continue to change during the whole period of the present emergency."
What are the circumstances referred to by the Minister in his reply, or what is the meaning of the suggestion in the latter portion of the reply that the circumstances had altered materially? Does he suggest that the financial position of the principal railway concern in this country has in any way altered during that period? This tribunal was set up on 7th December, 1938. The total net receipts of the Great Southern Railways Company for the year 1938 were £351,113. The Minister, in moving here in this House for the establishment of the tribunal, expressed the opinion—and he had inside information on this matter—that it was owing to the serious financial position of the company that he was asking the tribunal to submit their report to him within such a short period. What is the position to-day? The net receipts of the company for the year 1940, as published by the directors a few days ago, were £358,856. The details published, which I am sure are in the Minister's possession, will show that in the working of the company there was a net deficiency of something like £7,700 for the year 1940. There is very little to justify the argument put forward by the Minister in his reply, so far as any material alteration in the financial circumstances of the company for the year 1940 as against the year 1938, when this tribunal was established, is concerned.
The position of the principal railway concern in this country is much worse than it was in 1938. I will tell you the reason why. I am sure the Minister has access to the information that was produced by the chief accountant of the company in support of the case made before the Railway Wages Board. I hold that information, but I am not at liberty to quote it. I have reason to believe that the Minister has the information in his possession and if he examines it he will see that at that period the chief accountant of the company foreshadowed a deficiency of £17,000. The actual figure turns out to be £7,701, but in a company where the gross revenue amounts to the high figure of £4,568,604 a difference of £10,000 is not very much one way or the other. Giving evidence before the Railway Wages Board, the chief accountant gave estimates that to me appear to be very surprising. I had a doubt about their accuracy. They indicated that there would be a huge increase so far as the cost of materials was concerned. In the report published, the figures certified by the auditor of the company show that there was an increase in the wages bill, compared with the previous year, of £85,669 and the increased cost of materials over the previous year amounted to the alarming figure of £186,597.
The report contains a reference to the fact that the Ministry has been repeatedly approached, and apparently suggestions have been made for the introduction of amending legislation. Quoting from the report of the directors, it says:—
"The Government have not yet declared their intentions regarding the report submitted by the Transport Tribunal to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in August, 1939. Representations have been repeatedly made by the company to the Minister stressing the importance and urgency of and the necessity for the enactment of remedial legislation to deal with widespread evasions of the Road Transport Acts, 1933 to 1935, but so far without result."
I am not very well acquainted with the details of the suggestions submitted by the railway company to the Minister, but perhaps the Minister might indicate, if he is in a position to do so, what these suggestions were other than the suggestions that there should be certain amendments made to the Road Transport Acts.
