I should like to join in the general chorus—so far it has been practically general—of protest against the hasty consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill. The Minister stated in his opening speech that the principal object of the Bill is to facilitate long-term transport policy. I think he will agree that all Parties in this House should have an adequate opportunity of hammering out that long-term policy. I do not base the case for the postponement of the Second Reading on the enormous amount of public money that is involved in this Bill but on the Minister's own statement. Frankly, I am not in the position, in which I should like to be, to make an adequate contribution to this debate because in the short time at my disposal it was possible to give only a hasty examination to this measure. This Bill when it becomes an Act will include not only one Act of Parliament but several Acts dealing with vitally different matters. I shall give an illustration of that in a moment. I think it very unwise to have this Second Reading debate carried out in such a great hurry. I can quite see the Minister's own point of view, that he has taken a very great interest in this matter, and that having reached the key point of efficiency probably in being able to tell the Dáil in his usual eloquent fashion what the Bill is about, he probably would not like to postpone the Second Stage to a later date. I think, however, that it would have been better in the interest of a long-term policy if the debate had been postponed.
I followed the Minister's opening remarks very carefully and took one or two notes as he went along. With many of his statements and sentiments I am in through agreement, namely, as to what the object of a transport system should be and what is the best method to bring about an efficient system. I do not, however, believe that this Bill carries out these objects and intentions. The Minister went to great pains to outline these objects and intentions. He told us that the Government were not going to do this or that and assured us that such-and-such would not be the law, but his statement really boils down to this: that this is a Bill to amalgamate the company known as the Great Southern Railways with the concern known as the Dublin United Transport Company. So far as I could follow the Minister's remarks, that is what they amounted to. He said that the public generally had lost confidence in the concern known as the Great Southern Railways Company and that it was necessary to give it a new name and a new start in life, by amalgamating it with the Dublin United Transport Company and giving the joint concern a new name. The Bill is undoubtedly drafted, so far as I can judge in the short time which we were allowed to read it, with a view to facilitating a long-term transport policy. So far as I could make out it gives this new company complete control, with certain minor exceptions in certain districts, over passengers and goods and in fact every form of traffic.
These explanatory statements I have come to regard with a certain amount of suspicion because they are worded in such nice language that when one reads an explanatory statement one thinks one has read the Bill. In the explanatory statement here, however, the effect of Section 9 of the Bill is entirely overlooked. That section is dealt with in Part II of the explanatory statement which purports to explain the effect of Sections 6 to 27. Here we have coming into being as a result of legislation the biggest statutory company I suppose in this country, indeed one of the biggest statutory undertakings in the world of its kind. Naturally any person who has any knowledge of the administration of a business company would look to the explanatory statement to see what powers of doing business the company possess and what form of business the company could engage in. While in fact this Bill has the effect of amalgamating two public transport undertakings, it sets out in Section 9 the powers of the new company. By a nice use of phrases, we find that this company can as soon as it is incorporated operate shipping services and create new activities of all kinds.
We have it stated in the Bill that the expression "transport services" means transport services by railway, tramway, inland navigation, sea, air or road. That is the object of this company. Further we are told that the expression "transport undertaking" means any undertaking operating any transport service. So while there are in existence two undertakings which are to be taken over and to be amalgamated to form the working core of this new organisation, under Section 9 the new company will have power to acquire any undertaking which carries on transport services by railway, tramway, inland navigation, sea, air or road. We are giving that over to one man who is to act as chairman of the company, who is to form himself the quorum for any meeting, and who is to be appointed by whatever Government is in power. That is what the Bill means, that we are going to have a traffic dictator, in the air, on the ground and under the ground in this country. There is not a word about that in the explanatory statement. If those who come in here armed to speak on the Second Reading are relying upon the explanatory statement, they altogether miss the purpose and object of this Bill.
I quite agree that if it is necessary to facilitate a long-term transport policy, it is necessary to deal with all those matters. But is it the consensus of opinion in this House, as representing opinion in the country, that we should give to one person, helped by a chorus of "yes-men"—and I shall deal with those in a moment—sole control of every form of transport in this country? I do not think it could possibly be. If the Bill were acceptable on general principles and could be amended in Committee, I would be in favour of it because I think we should have some form of proper organisation in this country in charge of transport. I am at one with the Minister when he says that the idea of transport is to give the best possible service at the least possible cost to the community, that is to say, it must be efficient and economical. Efficiency is to operate through a particular man at the head of affairs. Presumably, economy is to operate also in that way.
When the Minister came to consider this long-term policy he had three alternatives. I am with him in saying that there should be amalgamation and co-ordination, particularly having regard to the vast increase in travelling facilities by air, modernisation of plant, electrification, and so on. He had three alternatives. He could bring into being as a creation an ordinary business company with certain checks by the Government and Legislature on its activities; he could nationalise the railways, or he could adopt the third alternative, which is something that has not yet been fully tried out, and which I would not recommend should be tried out, an undertaking of such gigantic proportions and of such importance to the country in the future, namely, the managerial system. There has grown up during the last ten years in all countries in the world what has come to be regarded as the managerial system. It is more familiar to us, perhaps, in connection with the administration of our local authorities, and so far as that is concerned, I think it is working well. That system is being introduced into business not only in this country but in other countries. That is the 20th-century approach to efficiency by one school of thought. The Minister has adopted that expedient and I do not think that it is the correct one in connection with this particular matter, for this reason: If the Minister could produce a superman—make him dictator, if you like— to run our transport services efficiently and economically, well and good; but no such man, I suggest, could be produced or, if he could be produced, a successor for him could not be found. The Napoleons of business and so on are thrown up only once in a way, and their successors often make a mess of the job they have done. The general public, who are the persons vitally concerned, should have control over this undertaking.
Transport facilities grew up as a result of the joint stock companies, the railways and similar companies amalgamating, and in all countries big companies were created, and in this country the Great Southern Railways. Their primary object was to produce revenue for their shareholders, for the successors of the persons who had originally put up the capital to build the railways. The matter went a step further. The railways acquired ships, and later buses and lorries. Then the point of view grew up that the general public were the people who were entitled to be served. We must approach this problem of long-term planning in regard to transport from one point of view only, namely, what is the best way to create an organisation that will serve the public with proper transport facilities, having due regard to sectional interests, such as the interests of those who owned the capital of the company to be acquired, the workers employed, and so on? I am not so much concerned, except where justice is not done or where hardship is created, with other matters. The interests of the general public are what we are concerned with here, and I cannot conceive that the interests of the public can be safeguarded with the existence of a traffic dictator.
In the days of competition, if the public did not like one form of transport, they used another. The Minister is against competition. I think he said he did not believe in competition. That is, presumably, because the undertaking has to be so vast that it must absorb all competitors. But competition was the check that guaranteed efficiency to the public. If you did not like the railway, you went on the bus. If you did not like a particular railway, you travelled by another. If you did not like the route via Holyhead you went via Fishguard. These were the checks the public had. Under the proposed new system the public has no check whatsoever. It has no check through the Legislature. The laying on the Table of the Dáil of railway accounts is no check whatsoever. If I want to move a cat or a dog, or a bullock or a parcel, or myself, I have a choice of going by air, by road, or by sea, but I must make use of this particular organisation. I am looking ahead to the time when the whole scheme is working according to the terms of this Bill. If there is something wrong, what redress have I? If something goes wrong in regard to the postal service, I can go to my local Deputy and have the matter raised. There is no way in which the public can ventilate their grievances in connection with this public undertaking. They will just have to grin and bear it if anything goes wrong. There is no check whatsoever, and we are going to hand over control to a dictator who can tell the members of the public who may not like his administration, to use a transport expression, where they get off. That is the end of it. If this Bill is going through—as I suppose it will be machined through here —there is one thing I think we should insist on—and I think the Minister ought to agree to it—that is, that there will be some place to which an outraged member of the public can appeal, whether it be the representative of a big manufacturing firm, or a small farmer who has not had a proper wagon for his beast, or an old age pensioner travelling two miles who cannot get a proper seat in a train. Let there be some tribunal or some place to which everyone can go in order to see that the dictator at the top maintains what the Minister is seeking for in this whole Bill, namely, efficiency. I believe the transport system, if run efficiently, would pay for itself, and not only that, but would be able to redeem a considerable amount of the capital outstanding. It cannot do that without being efficient. I do not believe this Bill will promote efficiency with the methods by which the Minister envisages. The Minister's words were that there would be efficiency and economy.
Another matter which must not be lost sight of is that there is no mention anywhere in the Bill of the Great Northern Railway Company. As I understand it, that is an Irish company. It operates in Ireland, and has not got any level crossings on the Border. Of course, that is one of the difficulties we are up against in long-term planning. Leaving that question aside, how could there be a long-term transport planning policy if we do not include within its ambit a transport company that is operating over seven or eight important counties?
That fact is not dealt with. I do not know what the position is with regard to road traffic as I do not live in the great northern end of this State. I do not know if they have operational rights. When this Bill goes through we will have one system operating to the fullest extent in one part of the country and another operating partially only in another end. I assume that the Minister's answer will be what I mentioned in connection with Section 9, that the new company to be brought into existence will have power to acquire the Great Northern Railway Company. I do not see how we could intelligently discuss a long-term transport policy without taking some cognisance of the existence of the Great Northern Railway. In approaching this problem we must do so from the point of view of the public and not from the point of view of sectional interests concerned. The employees must be justly treated, and the shareholders of the concerns being acquired must be justly treated. The latter have already registered their views. I know that there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction amongst the employees regarding their position. I have not had time to go into that aspect of the matter, but as regards the shareholders of the company I want to know what they exist for at all. What is the object of having any ordinary shareholders? Is that a bit of window dressing? Is the reference to them put there as a suggestion that this will be still an ordinary company, and not a dictatorship?
Speaking from recollection, I understand that the qualification for a director is ownership of £1,000 of nominal capital in ordinary shares. I think these shares represent something in the neighbourhood of £4,000,000. It could be easily arranged by a dictator that he would be able to control the election of the qualifying directors who would act for him. Even if these directors wanted to they would not be able to represent their shareholders. I cannot see the object of having ordinary shareholders at all unless they are to have some say in the management of the concern. On the one side you have proprietors of common stock without any representation; on the other side you have the public, the users of transport, without any representation; and in the centre you have the chairman. That is what this Bill amounts to. It gives to the company to be brought into existence, subject to some statutory rights which the Minister has in a later part of the Bill, power to do certain things in the way of acquisition and gives it complete control of all transport. Does the Minister think that to be wise long-term planning for transport? We have had enough of experiments. I give the Minister credit for trying to meet the situation and for trying to work out a plan, but I do not think he has gone the right way about it. If the Bill did not contain the disabilities I have pointed out, I would be at one with the Minister, because I agree with what he aims at, but he has gone the wrong way about it and for that reason I cannot support him.