I am sorry the Minister has been deprived of his authority in that respect. I would like to know the extent to which turf has been produced in the bogs where the work has been carried out under the supervision of the Turf Development Board. However, I will have to leave that matter until some other occasion. I put down a motion to reduce the Estimate for the purpose of giving the Minister an opportunity of explaining Government policy in relation to the control of our transport services. I do not think it should be necessary for me, under existing circumstances at any rate, to advance any strong arguments to the House, and particularly to the Minister, in favour of the proposal for the public ownership and control of our transport services. British and Irish commissions have been appointed by the British Government, on the one hand, and by the Irish Government since we took over control here, for the purpose of advising the respective Governments in regard to this particular matter.
There has been a popular demand in this country over a period of 80 years for the public ownership and control of the railways and of the transport services generally. One of the many British Commissions that dealt with this particular proposal was the British Royal Commission of 1910. That commission was set up as a result of agitation carried on over a long period of years in this country, and one of the most prominent members of that commission was the late Mr. Thomas Sexton. That commission unanimously recommended the State purchase and control of the Irish railways. In the early stages of our own Government— I think it was the Provisional Government—a commission was appointed for the same purpose, in 1922. That commission was presided over by the late Lord Justice O'Connor. The majority of the members of that commission made a report in favour of the purchase and State control of the Irish railways. The one member of that commission who dissented stated quite clearly that he was not opposed to the policy of public ownership, but that he disagreed with the views of the majority of the members of the commission on purely financial considerations.
The next thing we come up against is the many speeches made by the present Minister for Industry and Commerce in favour of the same policy. On the last occasion that this matter was referred to I quoted a declaration made by Deputy Lemass, when he was the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce in this House, on the 9th September, 1931, in which he declared, on behalf of his Party, that he was in favour of the policy of public ownership and control of our transport services and the municipal control of the tramway services in the country. Deputy Lemass, when he became Minister for Industry and Commerce, instead of giving effect to the policy of his own Party on that matter, proceeded to pass legislation of a patch-work type for the purpose of propping up the railways that were then in a very bad financial condition. The condition of the railways and of transport generally in the year 1932, when he took over control, was that we had too much transport; far more transport was available in the country than was required, and the bad financial position of the railways at that particular period was mainly brought about as a result of the failure of the previous Government and the present Government to regulate the activities of competing road services.
We come on to the year 1938, when as a result of representations made by the Great Southern Railways Company to the present Minister, he established a tribunal on the 7th December, 1938. That tribunal got very definite terms of reference from the Minister and he was then sufficiently impressed with the seriousness of the situation generally in regard to transport that he said in this House that he expected the tribunal to furnish their report inside a period of three months. That was not done, but the report of the tribunal was furnished to the Minister on the 4th August, 1939. The Minister for reasons best known to himself refused to publish the report for a period of two years and, in answer to many questions that were raised here during these two years, the impression was given to members of the House that proposals were under consideration by the Government for the purpose of giving effect to the majority report and, perhaps to some extent, the minority report that was submitted at the time I mentioned. Now the majority recommendations of this tribunal, with very few exceptions, appear to be almost entirely on the lines of the famous Allport Commission. There were other commissions, including the Royal Commission of 1910, which consisted largely of lords, landlords and bankers, and people with vested interests. I could understand lords, landlords, bankers and other people of that type subscribing to a report of the type submitted by the Allport Commission but certainly I never could quite understand why either Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Beddy, or Mr. O'Hegarty could subscribe their names to a report of the type furnished to the Minister in August, 1939.
This is the first commission or tribunal set up by the Government of this country which issued a report not favourable to the public ownership or control of transport services. I wonder to what extent they would stand over the different sections of their report if the Minister asked them for their views on these matters to-day? Would the members who signed the Majority Report express any doubts as to whether the branch lines of our railways should be closed down in existing circumstances? Would they be prepared, in existing circumstances, to sign a report containing a proposal for the taxation of private cars and commercial vehicles ranging from 15 per cent. to 100 per cent. in certain circumstances? I am pretty certain they would not. The proposal either in 1939, or at any other time, to close down certain sections of the branch lines of our railways was a proposal that was put forward, without due consideration of the consequences. Such a proposal could never be considered seriously by people who were not in favour of closing down the railways of the country as a whole.
The branch lines of our railways, it must be known to the Minister, play a very big part in feeding the railways with traffic and with funds to enable them to carry on. In the report submitted to the Transport Tribunal, particulars were furnished to show the huge quantity of traffic, both passenger, goods traffic and live stock, carried over these lines for a particular period. I could never understand why anybody who holds the view that the railways can render a service to the community could subscribe to the suggestion that the branch lines should be closed down. I could, if it is desired to furnish particulars here, give the number of live stock that have been carried over a section of the branch lines proposed to be closed down, the numbers of live stock for instance which could not be carried by any other form of transport if these branch lines were closed down. I know of towns on the branch lines of our main railway systems where big fairs are held even now and from anyone of which it would require three special trains to provide the necessary transport to the port at which the live stock would have to be shipped. Is it suggested that the equivalent of 250 wagon loads of live stock could be carried by road on a particular day from a town on the branch line to the port at which these cattle would be shipped? How are you going to carry the heavy commodities, which must be carried by some form of transport if these branch lines were closed down? There are no roads in the country capable of carrying certain commodities or no other suitable transport for these commodities except the railways.
If it is necessary to retain branch lines of the railway to carry live stock, coal or other heavy commodities, these lines must be maintained for the purpose of carrying other classes of traffic in competition with any other form of transport in order to maintain the railway system as a whole. I am pretty certain that the four persons who signed the majority report and in that report expressed doubt as to whether the branch lines should be maintained, would not put their signatures to a similar proposal under existing circumstances. I cannot understand, for instance. why people, whether they be lords or commoners, should express the view in connection with a question of this kind, that in emergency conditions or war conditions it is absolutely essential to have our railway system and transport under State control when in normal conditions they think there will not be any necessity for State supervision or control.
More than two-thirds of the railways of the world are under some form of State control at the present time and in many parts of the world railway systems that are publicly owned or under a very close form of State supervision, are paying dividends on the capital invested. It was suggested here some time ago by somebody that railways under State control were not paying any dividends on their capital. I can quote a number of cases here to prove that quite the opposite is the fact. In New Zealand, with a population of 1,600,000, there is a State-owned railway system. There are 3,500 miles of line open and the net revenue in 1939 was equal to 1.65 per cent. of the capital employed. In Western Australia, where the system is also State-owned, there are 4,350 miles of line open. In 1939, the net revenue was equal to 3.31 per cent. of the capital employed. In Victoria, the system is also State-owned. There are 4,720 miles of line open. The net revenue earned in 1939 was equal to 3.75 per cent. of the capital employed. In New South Wales, where there is another State-owned system, there are 6,120 miles of line open. The net revenue in 1939 was equal to 4.31 per cent. of the capital employed. In Queensland, where there is yet another State-owned system, there are 6,500, miles of line open. The net revenue earned in 1939 was equal to 4.42 of the capital employed.
In Britain, where there is a form of State control, dividends were guaranteed to the shareholders, and there was an excess profit of, I think, speaking from memory, £43,000,000 on the working of the railways last year. To suggest that the railways which are under public ownership in the different parts of the world, or under a form of State control, are not paying their way, is quite the opposite to the facts. These are only a few instances to prove what I am asserting. If the railways—or the transport system of the country generally—are to be regarded as a monopoly, it should be a monopoly under the supervision of the State. What is the difference, for instance, between having the post office, the electricity supply, the shipping services, the production of sugar beet, industrial alcohol, peat development, and schemes of that kind under public control, or close Governmental supervision, and having the railway services under some similar control? If there was ever a case in the history of our country for State supervision and control of transport services, it is sticking out and facing the Minister to-day. I cannot see why the whole transport services of this country, commercial lorries, buses, canals and railways, should not be under the closest possible form of State control. Our Army should be given a fair chance of defending this country in case of attack, and it cannot do it efficiently and effectively under the very loose system of transport that exists here at the present moment.
We had a debate here in the House the other night, in which the Taoiseach engaged in a very heated way when he challenged the members sitting on these benches to show how the cost of carrying turf and the price of turf fixed by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Supplies could be reduced. I assert that the price of turf all over the country, particularly the price paid for turf by the people in the cities and towns at the present time, has been unduly inflated as a result of the uneconomic transport system that exists here. I asked the Minister the other night—I did not give him reasonable notice, or a fair chance of giving me a reply, but I dare say he has taken some steps in the meantime to find out whether figures are available to answer my question— to what extent there has been light running of commercial lorries in this country since the turf cutting operations were taken control of by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. I know of cases where turf is being carried by commercial lorries owned by the Great Southern Railways Company, and by other commercial lorry owners, from places in my constituency as far from Dublin as 80 or 90 miles, to the dumps in Phoenix Park or at the North Wall, and where those lorries are returning light. The Minister can calculate the cost of the light running of lorries on the return journey in such circumstances.
I assert that in the cases that I know of, where the light running of lorries has been going on over 80 or 90 miles journeys, the price of turf has been increased by at least 5/- a ton. Why cannot we have some kind of central authority set up in this country, under existing circumstances especially, to see that whatever limited transport is now available for the carriage of food and fuel will be used to the best possible advantage, and that all this light running of lorries, and railway wagons to some extent, will be cut out? In that way we could reduce the cost of the commodities that are being carried, whether by rail, road or canal? I quoted a case here where the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the cost of carrying turf from some unnamed place in the country to Dublin was as high as 35/- per ton. Now, 35/- per ton for carrying turf by road from wherever it was to Dublin is exactly double the maximum rate charged by the Great Southern Railways for carrying the same kind of commodity from the most distant part of its system to Dublin. That very high rate mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary is brought about because of the cost of running the lorries on the return journey without carrying any commodity. There is no way of dealing with this uneconomic system of transport that exists in the country at the moment except by placing all the transport services under some central authority, such as a transport board. The members of the House should support the motion for that particular reason if for no other reason.
The Minister, when speaking here quite recently, said that the shortage of tyres and petrol might lead to a major economic crisis. That is a serious statement for the Minister to make. Will he say what steps he is taking or proposes to take for the purpose of avoiding the disaster which he appears to foresee? The collapse of the railways is mainly due to the shortage of fuel. During my lifetime, I have never known of the railways being in a position to put themselves on their feet, and in existing circumstances the coal situation makes it impossible for them to meet the requirements of the trading community. The main responsibility for that failure to provide coal for the Great Southern Railways Company must rest, in the first instance, upon the shoulders of the directors who were in control of that company up to 24th February of this year. I am of the opinion that, if those directors were living in another country, and had the responsibility for what is now going on in regard to the railway system over which they were supposed to have some control, they would probably find themselves in a fortress or charged with criminal negligence. I cannot understand, therefore, why it is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he took the necessary steps by Emergency Powers Order 152 to change the system of control of the Great Southern Railways Company, nominated four of the old directors as advisers to the present chairman. I cannot understand that, and I hope the Minister will give some explanation of it. Is it a fact that those four directors were imposed upon the Minister as a result of pressure from banking concerns?