To-day at Question Time I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he had received, from public bodies in County Cork, resolutions protesting against the increase in the bus fares recently imposed by the Great Southern Railways Company and, if so, whether he is in a position to say if action will be taken to give effect to the demands expressed in such resolutions. The reply I got referred me to an answer given to a question standing in the joint names of Deputies Bartley and Keane. From the question which these Deputies put down, it is apparent that resentment against the increase in bus fares is not confined to Cork county. The question pointed out that there was much disquiet and resentment at what was regarded as an attempt to take advantage of the situation of monopoly created by the petrol shortage. I want to point out that resentment is not confined to Cork.
Adjournment—Increased Bus Fares in Cork.
With which question is the Deputy dealing?
Question No. 19.
There is no reference to resentment in Question No. 19.
On March 20th, I addressed a question to the Minister asking if he were aware of the increases that were being brought about and what action he proposed to take in the matter. In reply he stressed the fact that the company had legal rights in the matter and he did not go beyond that. The answer did not in any way satisfy the peoples' demand for some kind of inquiry or investigation by the Minister's Department or some other Department to find out if those increases were justified. The Minister relied altogether on the legal rights of the company, forgetting that the people have rights in this matter as well. The people have a right to see that their interests are safeguarded and if the Minister or some section of his Department cannot safeguard those rights, I ask the Minister in what way can the people be safeguarded against the monopolies that have been created and against exploitation by these monopolies?
The Minister told me that since the 20th March, he had received protests from public bodies including a protest from the Cork County Council, a body representing the whole of Cork. As far as I can see from the answer I received, he has not, up to the present at any rate, taken any action as result of these protests. It is rather unusual to find such spontaneous protests coming from all sections of the people and from all parts of the country as we have on this question of the increase in bus fares. It is remarkable also that the Government on their own initiative have not taken any steps to see whether those increases were justified, considering the fact that it is the declared Government policy that no section of the people—and I assume that includes the directors and other people in charge of the Great Southern Railways buses—should be allowed to recoup themselves during this emergency at the expense of other sections. That policy has been very well put into operation with regard to increases in wages that were given to workers. These increases were strenuously resisted as far as Government Departments were concerned. I can quote one striking example in which an increase of 2/7 per week was given to road workers. That increase required the sanction of the Local Government Department, which sanction was refused on the ground that it was contrary to Government policy that any section of the people should be allowed to recoup itself for increases in the cost of living at the cost of other sections. These road workers are very poorly paid. Their expenses have gone up very considerably owing to the increased cost of living but, at the same time, the Government strenuously resisted their demand for an increase.
Let us now turn to the increases that have been secured by the Great Southern Railways Company in their receipts. What extra expenses have they to meet? So far as I am aware there has been no increase in wages. There has been no increase in the cost of petrol. They have a monopoly of transport in the South of Ireland and, owing to the petrol shortage, there has been a very substantial increase in the number of passengers carried. Still the Minister tells us they have a legal right to increase their fares. He does not tell us what moral right they had to increase these fares. Are they justified in increasing these fares? He has taken no steps to investigate that side of the question. He has taken no steps to see that they will not be allowed to recoup themselves at the expense of the people generally.
What is the type of people from whom the Great Southern Railways Company have decided to recoup themselves? They are principally workers, people who have been travelling on these buses since the inception of the service. In my constituency places like Crosshaven, Ballycotton, Castlemartyr, Riverstown, Glanmire, Passage, and Rochestown have been very seriously affected by these increases. I might also mention Kinsale and other places in the West Cork constituency. Numbers of workers come from those areas to the City of Cork. They include members of the various trades and also girls who work in offices and shops.
It would be no harm at this stage to quote from a letter, typical of many others, which I have received on this question. It does not come from any member of the Labour Party but, as the writer says, he is one of my constituents. He lives in Crosshaven, County Cork. The letter states:—
"The increases which take effect on and from the 19th instant are, as far as can be ascertained: Single fare Cork-Crosshaven, now 1/-, is to be increased to 1/9. The adult weekly ticket (one journey each way daily for six days) now 8/8, is to be increased to 15/9. There are other weekly tickets for ‘student,'‘apprentice,'‘child'. I have no information what the increases in these cases are but, presumably, they are in proportion to the increases mentioned above. I also understand that the single fare on the 6.50 a.m. bus Crosshaven to Cork, via Monkstown and Passage (obviously a workers bus) is to be increased from 1/- to 2/6. These are the figures which the company's officials have given out but they state they ‘are not definite on the matter yet'. As a daily traveller on the 9.15 a.m. bus Crosshaven to Cork and the 6.15 p.m. bus to Crosshaven, I can tell you that the mildest term I have heard applied to the company's action is ‘outrageous'. The views expressed by passengers include the following: (1) an increase of wages to the company's employees would justify an increase in the fares to some extent (hardly 75 per cent.) but the employees say they are not getting an increase. On the contrary the company have reduced their weekly earnings (in the case of employees I have spoken to) by reducing their working hours and discontinuing (except in, I think, two cases) the supplying of duplicate or relief buses during the heavy traffic periods of the day. (2) The traffic on this route is even in winter of heavy volume as evidenced by the fact that, after cutting off two buses each way, the company's ‘restricted' service schedules 12 buses from Cork and 12 buses from Crosshaven daily. (3) The cutting out of ‘relief' buses means loss of employment for drivers and conductors, and allows the company to carry human lives in a manner which they would not be allowed to treat livestock."
The writer goes on to point out that men with families, including children travelling to school to Cork, cannot afford the new rates. 15/9 per week is too big——
I do not want to make a strong point of order of this, but I would remind the Deputy of the controversy we had in the House some time ago about reading from a document.
The Deputy is giving the bus fares in Cork?
I am quoting the cost of the new weekly ticket.
He is reading from a letter.
The Deputy is quite in order in quoting from a letter sent to him by a constituent to illustrate the increase, or alleged increase, in bus fares in the constituency.
I was about to quote the figures sent to me. This writer goes on to say:
"15/9 per week—the cost of the weekly ticket—is too big a slice out of the wages of the manual workers and the girls working in factories and in business houses."
The result is that a number of those people have either to get digs in Cork or lose their employment. The whole question turns on what is the necessity for those increases. May I put it to the Minister in this way: Even if the increases were justified, is this an opportune time to put this very heavy burden on the people who have to travel on buses, when we consider that Government policy is quite contrary to this procedure? I want to know from the Minister why he has not made any inquiry as to whether those fares are justified or not. When that has been done, the question will arise what power he has. I suggest that the Minister has ample powers, under the Emergency Powers Act of 1939, to deal with a situation like this. Are the people whom I have mentioned, principally workers and children, to be mulcted to the extent that I have indicated by the monopoly company operating on those routes? Some people suggested to me that the Minister could deal with this by introducing a Bill. I think the most expeditious way of dealing with it would be under the Emergency Powers Act.
Under that Act, the Minister could deal with the situation at once. At the moment he seems to regard the matter as being outside his jurisdiction because of the legal rights enjoyed by the company. During the week-end it was pointed out to me that a number of men who had been kept on since the petrol shortage arose, and since the putting into force of restrictions on the use of buses, have been disemployed because there was now no need for relief buses and no overtime offering. The result of that was that there were 22 dismissals last week-end, attributed locally to the increase in fares. I want to put this case to the Minister from the point of view of the people who are directly concerned and who have protested to me. Mention has been made in the House of the very useful functions that parish councils could perform. On this subject I have received a number of letters and resolutions from parish councils. This one is typical of them:—
"That this council protests most strongly against the excessive in crease in the bus fares between Crosshaven and Cork as imposing an almost impossible burden on working-class residents employed in the city, and on parents who are trying to continue their children's education at secondary and vocational schools. And that copies of this resolution be sent to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the T.D.s of the area and the manager, Great Southern Railways."
That, as I have said, is typical of a number of resolutions I have received from parish councils. If the parish councils and the county council, which have made protests on this matter, do not represent the voice of the people of Cork County, then I must confess that I am at a loss to know what other method we should adopt to bring this matter forcibly to the notice of the Minister. I have said already that I had noted from Question 18, which appeared on to-day's Order Paper, that this matter had been taken up by people in other districts, not only by the members of this Party but by the members of the Minister's own Party. Surely, in the face of such a consensus of opinion it is time the Minister took action in this matter and decided that the present is not an opportune time for an increase in those fares. The increased fares mean an increase in the cost of living for those who are obliged to travel by bus.
I would ask the Minister to consider, in the first place, the justification, or otherwise, for an increase in the fares, apart altogether from the legal aspect of the matter. Secondly, I would ask him, if he considers, as I am sure he will, that those increases are not justified, to take power under the Emergency Powers Act to compel the Great Southern Railways Bus Company to restore their fares, at least to the level at which they were before the 20th March.
I have listened with something like astonishment to the justification which Deputy Hurley has offered for raising this question on the adjournment. I am beginning to wonder whether he and I speak the same language, because if we do then, I think, Deputy Hurley must not have heard my answer to Question No. 18 on to-day's Order Paper to which I referred when replying to the question which was down in the Deputy's name as No. 19 on the Order Paper. I did not, in my reply to Question No. 18, refuse to investigate these charges. I stated very distinctly that the whole matter is at present the subject of examination by my Department. When we have examined it, we can then see whether——
May I make myself clear, or try to get clear what the Minister is saying?
With the Minister's permission.
Is the investigation by the Minister to find out whether the fares are within the legal limit or not, or is it to find out whether they are justified or not? Let us be clear on that.
The investigation prima facie must be devoted to ascertaining whether the company in increasing their fares have committed a breach of the regulations. There are 11,500 fares in which increases have taken place, and it will take some time to examine them. When the matter has been investigated we will then consider, in the light of the information we have obtained from the company as to its costs, whether we would be justified in amending the regulations. That is not a decision to which we could come in a hurry, or without searching examination. If we start on the assumption that when the maximum fares were increased in 1932, conditions were very much easier than they are to-day, and that the maxima then allowable were justified on the score of the existing costs of the company, the position to-day is that the company has found itself compelled, drastically, to reduce its services. Such a reduction would, of course, be a source of increased cost to the company even if operating charges, such as wages and petrol, had not increased. Wages and petrol are not the only cost-factors with which the company has to contend. There is the cost of maintenance, and the cost of materials for maintenance, and over and above that there is the fact that there are heavy overhead charges of the company's road services. All this will have to be borne by traffic which has diminished possibly by 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. Naturally, the railway company is not in the position to operate these services at a loss. The Deputy is as familiar as I am with the precarious position of the railway company, a position to which it has been reduced by reason of the fact that costs have been continuously increased, while traffic receipts have been going down.
Deal with the buses.
I will have to leave the House if the Deputy interrupts. The Deputy knows that the buses are operated by the railway company. In these circumstances, it is quite clear that the first thing we shall require to be satisfied about is that the company has not exceeded its existing legal rights, as laid down by regulations, and in the next place, in justice to the passengers, we shall have to consider whether the maxima permitted by the regulations are, in fact, too high. We have to consider what would be the just maxima for the railway and owners of the buses.
This is very definitely a problem in which we must not do an injustice to any section if we can avoid it. Certainly it would not be justice suddenly to transfer to the proprietors of the railway company in existing circumstances the whole of a loss which some party must bear. Accordingly, as I have indicated, the question is one for investigation and, as I told the Deputy in my reply to-day, it is being investigated at the moment. The Deputy must bear in mind that this is not the only problem in which the Transport and Marine Section of my Department has to deal; that there are other questions of very much greater moment, in one way or another, with which it is concerned, questions that are much more vital for the country and to which only a certain amount of time and staff can be allocated. When this very involved question has been investigated then we may take any action that seems warranted by the facts, when ascertained.
Why was not the investigation made before the fares were increased? Would it not have been more advisable to have investigation prior to fares being increased?
The railway company had the right to charge these fares since 1932, and it would be a rather difficult matter for me to intervene or to deprive them of that right before there was any indication that they were going to increase fares.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.55 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, April 3rd.