Transport Bill, 1944—Second Stage—(Resumed).

General MacEoin

I want to urge on the House the wisdom of delaying the Second Reading of this Bill and supporting the motion put down to adjourn the Second Reading until after the report of the Railway Stocks Tribunal. I submit that it is very important that that should be done, but there are even greater reasons for it. The Minister for Finance very properly pointed out that this guarantee represented 44 per cent. of the contingent liability of the State. That is a very great percentage of our guarantees and it is one that should not be lightly undertaken, especially when it is for such a large amount.

The Taoiseach, when he was addressing the House, asked why should we postpone this Bill until after the tribunal has reported. I suggest to him that the reason we should postpone it until we have the report is that we want to know, and it is essential we should know, whose capital we are guaranteeing, and who is going to reap the benefit of the guarantee which this country is to give for this particular stock, a guarantee of £16,000,000. That is a very large sum, and while I admit the transport of this country is very important, there are other things, in my opinion, which are even more important and which require a guarantee of financial help but will not get it, at least until it is too late. I submit that the whole question has been pushed too quickly and the House is asked to come to a decision too hastily.

The Minister admits that he has had discussions with the railway people, and he must also have had discussions with the transport people. He has had the advantage of a staff and yet I would be sure in saying that there are a great many matters in the Bill of which even he has not a thorough grasp. It is obvious there are members of the Government with a greater opportunity who have not a grasp of these matters either. There is no reason in the world why the matter should be rushed. I submit there is a reason why this Bill should not be rushed. It is the recommendation of the tribunal that a five-year plan should be adopted, and in the light of the experience of the five-year plan in which, I submit, it would be reasonable to have a dictator at the head of transport, we would have information on which to base our plans for the period after that. I submit, therefore, that the House should refuse a Second Reading to this particular Bill or to pass the motion that it should not get a Second Reading until we have considered the report of the Stocks Tribunal.

Mr. Browne

I wish to support this motion by Deputy Dr. O'Higgins. I feel that to rush this Bill through in such a short period as to have it completed by the 1st July is not fair to the people in general. Such a big national scheme should not be rushed through without every Deputy getting time to examine it. So far as the text of the Bill is concerned, we have had very short notice. In my case, I got only five or six days to consider a Bill of roughly 170 sections, between 400 and 500 sub-sections and 50 pages. In a distant area such as County Mayo you would want a reasonable time to study some of the sections. It is well that the Minister should realise that people in areas like Mayo have to pay attention to different aspects of the problem. I was asked on several occasions during a period of three months whether I had got the Bill. Eventually I got it suddenly and I had not the time to tell them that it had come. In view of this, I would consider that the Second Reading of the Bill should be deferred. I do not think that it was reasonable to give such short notice to people in the country in areas where there is no railway service such as in parts of County Mayo.

Many large areas of County Mayo have had no railway service for a number of years. The railway company took away the line from Westport to Newport and Mallaranny and the branch from Mallaranny to Achill. In those areas the railway company did not come to the assistance of the people with alternative services. It was really the private haulier and the motor lorry that came to the rescue of the people of those areas, and the same situation applies in other parts of the country. They took up the railway line from Ballina to Killala and the company gave no substitute service. I support all those who want to see the railway system protected, because without a railway system we could not serve the interests of the country and I do not see how the people would be able to exist.

The railways must be protected, but I am making this point that if the railway company are to have a monopoly, there is no reason why they should not replace something which they have taken away from the people. I believe that a lot of the trouble in the railways is due to their lack of foresight between 1918 and 1933. That is the period in which road services took hold and stretched out in areas which the railway company had not touched. In my county, a considerable area is not served by the railway from Ballina to Blacksod, a distance of 60 miles. Prior to 1918 and coming from that to 1922, stock had to walk 40 to 50 miles from the fair to the nearest railway station at Ballina. Pigs had often to walk 50 miles to Ballina and the railway company made no effort to provide people with the service they required between those areas and the nearest railway station.

This was the reason for the success of the private companies, who gave the people the service they required, a good, cheap and efficient service. Private owners of these lorries went to fairs and markets without demanding a price for the day. They went on the chance of getting a load and if they got a load they were paid by the load. If they did not, they had to provide for themselves and they might have to do something for themselves in order to meet the expense of the journey. Those are the things which made the situation awkward for the railways.

Section 106 of the Bill deals with 10-mile radius men. I feel that the 10-mile radius men are very useful in certain areas, especially in my district. Those men will have to live at a certain distance from the railway. They are conveniencing the farmers and the public, and an ordinary man can go to the lorry owner and book his lorry for the day and be told whether he can get it or not. These men deserve very special consideration, and I am glad to see that under the section they will be able to continue their usual work. It seems that there is a condition that up to the present they did not need to register and that by this section they will now have to be licensed.

What I am afraid of in that section is that the Minister has retained to himself the power to add to the existing licences in the 10-mile radius or to refuse a licence in accordance with the requirements of traffic. In that case I would make a special appeal to the Minister that there are areas such as I have mentioned and that those 10-mile-radius men give very useful service. As I have stated, they are always there for the convenience of the people in the ordinary way, so far as the haulage of agricultural stuff to and from the fair is concerned. As the Minister is aware, in some parts of the country the roads are not the same as they were 25 years ago so far as horse traffic is concerned, and to my mind lorry service has come to stay, and therefore anything that would interfere with those 10-mile-radius men would seriously affect that traffic in certain districts and particularly in my own part of the county.

As far as Newport, Mallaranny, and Achill districts are concerned, the Minister gave permission for the lines to be taken up there, and the railway company have withdrawn all services in that area. As a result, complaints have come from that area that the people are not getting any service so far as the railways are concerned and that, even prior to the emergency regulations, they were not getting a sufficient supply of petrol for haulage purposes. The Minister should pay special attention to the districts of Newport,. Mallaranny, and the Island of Achill and provide these people with every possible service, even during the emergency. These people have to get in and out from the island and transport their goods, and unless they get some service, reasonably approaching what was given to them by the railways, they will not be satisfied. I ask the Minister to give special consideration to that part of the county.

The next point I want to make is that this is a post-war Bill, and I cannot see how it is so urgent that it has to be passed before the 1st July. Nobody in the House or in the country can know what will happen so far as this country is concerned when the war is over. It should be remembered that it was the post-war regulations following the last Great War that brought the lorry traffic into this country. It started in 1917, went on through 1918, 1919 and 1920, and it was between 1920 and 1924 that the lorry traffic really came into this country. That was what happened after the last war and, accordingly, with regard to post-war regulations so far as road or lorry traffic is concerned, it is very hard to decide what is going to be the post-war position.

My final point is that I do not think it is fair or right to put the control of a big combine of this kind, a State organisation, into the hands of one man. I think that this House should have some control or some say in the matter. We saw certain things happening in other cases where control was put practically into the hands of one man. We saw what happened in the case of the Pigs and Bacon Board —I do not want to mention it—where the pigs and bacon trade was killed altogether, and, certainly, a national system such as this, should be sub- ject to some control by the elected members of this House. You are putting £20,000,000 capital into this combine and giving control of it to one man. You are putting that combine into competition with the small men in the 10-mile radius, and we can easily realise what will happen to the small men. They will go out of existence in a very short time.

With that amount of capital behind them, the combine can wipe out these people one by one. Of course, the owner of a lorry may be able to carry on for a year or two, but he will not be able to bear the cost of general repairs, and it is doubtful if any of these lorry owners, when their lorries become old, will be able to replace them with new ones, and if these lorries go off the roads and the whole transport business is put into the hands of the great combine I have very grave doubts with regard to freight charges in the future. I do not think they will be as low as they are now. After all, competition is the life of trade, and my opinion is that the competition of a number of those lorries in the different areas would be very useful competition, even as far as the railways are concerned, and they would be even more useful now when you are going to have this big combine. The railway companies take every chance they can of collecting freight and charges generally. We had experience in that connection in Mayo, so far as Ballina and Westport are concerned, where the railway, as a result of the competition of goods coming into these ports, had to cut rates and charges on goods coming into those areas, with resulting benefit to the people concerned. Those are just a few remarks I wish to make. In general, the Bill has been very well discussed by all sections and by all the previous speakers in the House. The only thing I wish to say in conclusion is that I am going to vote against the Bill, principally on account of the principle contained in it.

Mr. Moran

I cannot understand the arguments that have been offered to this House about the rushing or alleged rushing of this Bill through the House. Everybody here knows, and everybody in the country knows, that the country as a whole, for many years, has been crying out for something to be done about our railway system and about the way in which the Great Southern Railways had been carrying on. For many years, the people of this country, generally, have been demanding Government interference of some kind or another with a view to bringing some order out of the chaos that existed and still exists so far as that company is concerned. This Bill could be described as an injection of penicillin through the gangrenous system of the Great Southern Railways Company. It holds out a hope that even at this late stage something will be done to put those things in order and, from that point of view, I think the Bill should be welcomed by all sides in the House.

It has been said here that whatever complaints there may be in respect of the matters that are being investigated by the tribunal that is sitting at the moment, these matters have nothing to do with the principles enshrined in this Bill. There are a few matters in connection with the Bill on which I should like more information. One is the question of harbours, and particularly small harbours, throughout the country. We, in Mayo, save something like £2,000 every year as a result of Westport Harbour being open—I am speaking of the county council—when we were importing tar through Westport Harbour. The Minister may say that the Bill does not propose to interfere with any harbour, but there are various ways in which the company in the future could interfere with such harbours. For instance, if the company closed down a line to one of these small harbours they could manufacture the excuse that the line was uneconomic and, in that way, cut out competition by the small harbours throughout the country.

That is one of the matters on which I should like more information and some guarantee from the Minister that that will not happen in the future, because there is a temptation for any company given a monopoly such as is proposed here, to attempt by every means at their disposal to eliminate all types of opposition. I should certainly like to see these harbours preserved and I hope that this company, when it is the be-all and end-all of transport in the country, will not be in a position to wipe out the traffic from these small ports by lifting the lines leading to them. I am not satisfied that it was in the best interests of the company or of its business to wipe out some of these lines in the past. I think that they now find that the closing of lines such as the Newport line in Mayo was a great mistake. It is a very easy thing to close down a line, but it is not so easy to replace it. That line has now disappeared, of course, and there is no possibility of having it reopened. I hope that the representative of the Minister on the new board will see to it that the company will be run, not so much from the point of view of a profit-making concern, as in the general interests of the community. I hope that the company will have regard to the service which it should render to the community as well as having regard to profit-making for shareholders. The railway service is vital to all sections of the community and in some instances the company will have to bear in mind that there are things more important than mere profit-making and that there are certain vital services that must be carried out irrespective of how they may be viewed from a business standpoint.

The Minister made it clear that it is not the intention of this Bill to interfere after the war with the private lorry. The position of people operating such services within a ten mile radius of places like Ballina, Drogheda, Sligo, Tralee and Westport is not clear to me. I am not clear whether it is the intention to renew the licences of the present licensees when they die out. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is the intention under the Bill to allow those people to transfer their licences, or otherwise dispose of them, or whether it is the intention to continue the present practice of allowing a father to transfer his licence to his son. I know that these people have performed an excellent service to the community during the years in which they have been operating, and I should like to see them allowed to continue that service. I think the experience of the Minister is that they have been doing it as well as the railway company or anybody else could do it. The value of these people's services was recognised before when they were allowed to continue.

Criticism has been levelled at this Bill on the ground that the amount proposed to be paid to the company is too much. I do not know that that criticism is justified. I do not know that anybody who held these investments in railway stock, certainly since the old days, have made a fortune out of them. I think the opposite is the case. Quite a number of people have held on for a great number of years without getting any return whatever for their money in the hope that at some future date something might be done for them. These people who held on to railway shares for a great number of years in the expectation of making something out of them found instead that a considerable part of their holdings was reduced by legislation time and again. These people are not making a fortune under the proposals outlined in this Bill. So far as people who bought these stocks in recent years are concerned, I do not know that anybody ever bought anything without expecting to make something out of his investment. People do not invest in enterprises of this kind without expecting to make something out of it.

I do not think there is anything extraordinary in the proposals contained in this Bill and the fact that agreement has been reached between the Minister's Department and these people is all to the good. The suggestion has been made that it would be better if the question was left to arbitration. Some Deputies have suggested that the proper way to approach this matter would be to take the figures quoted on the Stock Exchange for these shares in 1938 or 1937. It may not be a proper analogy, but if you take the case of a countryman who purchased a farm of land at the height of the economic war at a comparatively low price, I do not think it would be fair to ask him to accept the same price to-day.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

That is no analogy.

Mr. Moran

To take another instance, if you asked a man who bought stock for his farm 12 months or two years ago to sell them to you today at the same price as he paid for them, I do not think anybody would call it just or equitable. We had arbitration before when the Great Southern Railways Company were taking over lorries from a number of hauliers and everybody knows that it was a farce, as far as the company was concerned. I could never understand myself why the company agreed to a system under which people were enabled to sell them old lorries without any goodwill for thousands of pounds. The company were raked and robbed under that system. They paid a lot of money for practically nothing at that time and I am glad that some agreement has been reached on this occasion that seems to be acceptable to everybody. I heard no good argument during the debate as to why we should hold up this scheme any longer. This is a Bill which is long overdue, a Bill under which we hope to see the whole question of the transport of this country brought under proper control. I hope that the Government will go further and include other forms of transport such as canals. In that way we shall have a system of transport that will not be dependent on a board of directors who have no interest in the community as a whole. At least we shall know what is going on because the facts and figures in connection with the undertaking will be laid before the House and will be brought under yearly review. We shall have an opportunity in that way of reviewing the operations of this company.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Apparently there is practically no need to engage in this discussion on the lines of the necessity for a reorganisation of our transport system but, on the other hand, now that the proposals are before the House, the argument used by almost every Party is that there is not sufficient time at our disposal to examine this Bill, and that it should be postponed for this and that consideration. I thought that this opportunity would have been availed of by the Labour Party particularly, to criticise the Government on the belatedness of the introduction of this measure. They might have been able to adduce good arguments along those lines. They must realise, of course, that the Government have been studying this question for many years, faced with the failure of the Great Southern Railways Company to give satisfactory and efficient service and the failure of those in control of it to fully appreciate and act according to their responsibilities.

Everybody knows that a tribunal was set up by the Government and brought in a report. Then the war intervened. I suppose we were so much occupied with the different aspects of the defence of our country and the awful inroads made upon our general economic position that time passed. Two years ago, the Minister for Industry and Commerce appointed a chairman of the board in control of the Great Southern Railways with very full powers. Since then, statements have been made on behalf of the Government and by the Minister. The Minister has acted and we are now examining proposals which are the outcome of those years of experience, including the tribunal examination, with the report of that body and its volume of evidence. That was a very important report but more important must be the experience of the man who was put in charge a couple of years ago to make the most of the transport facilities at our disposal. Neither the Labour Party nor the other Parties have been idle in this connection. They have made comments on our transport system. The Labour Party has been discussing the whole question of transport year in and year out. Within the past few months, some spokesmen of the Labour Party have been actually lecturing on proposed heads for a transport Bill. The Labour Party were quick off the mark in presenting a set of counter-proposals regarding the principles on which legislation should operate. I think, most definitely, that, as sensible men, we should realise that we must make up our minds some time and that, when we ask for a thing and get it, we should not ask for a postponement but rather try to get down to implementing the measure as quickly as possible.

Deputies have given many names to these proposals. Deputy Davin described this Bill as a Fascist Bill. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney advocated nationalisation which, he said, this Bill is not. Deputy McGilligan was more cautious. He would not commit himself to a policy of nationalisation but said he would prefer nationalisation to this Bill. Deputy Dockrell could not discover any difference between nationalisation and these proposals. Deputy Larkin (Junior) challenged the Minister to give his opinion on the whole policy of nationalisation. Deputy Donnellan called the Bill a dictatorial measure, and finally Deputy MacEoin said there was as much difference between nationalisation of the services and this Bill as there was between two "ones" on a piece of paper.

Mr. Dillon

The truth is that it is the speculators' Magna Charta.

Mr. Fitzgerald

I do not propose to deal with the many "isms" mentioned by speakers. I do not propose to describe this Bill as akin to State socialism, capitalism managerialism or any other "ism". As practical people, we should work out a system, call it what you will, which will be most suited to our own position and be derived from our own experience. I do not think that anyone in this House can have as much experience of public control in all shapes and forms as the present Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Deputy Dillon will agree with that statement, at least. He will agree that no person in this House has as much experience, by virtue of his position as Minister for Industry and Commerce, of the various forms of public control——

Mr. Dillon

He is the bureaucrat par excellence.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

He has more experience by virtue of his position as Minister for Supplies.

Mr. Fitzgerald

In his opening statement, the Minister was very informative on the results of his experience. He faced the issue boldly and he comes along now with a plan in this Bill which is in many respects novel. Surely, it is not because the proposals in this Bill differ from legislation in other countries that Deputies cannot see in this measure a really honest and courageous attempt to solve our difficulties. We have many forms of public utility control. Some of them serve us well; others of them may not. We took over certain State Departments from the British Government and they are still functioning as State Departments. If we had to build from the ground a system of State organisations, we might not have planned the same way at all. Posts and Telegraphs, apparently, are well fitted into a position of State control in time of emergency but would one say in respect to the telephone service that a public utility corporation might not have given better service to the country? Deputies of the Fine Gael Party have concentrated on the composition of the Electricity Supply Board. I am not in a position to criticise either the composition or the functions of the Electricity Supply Board. I cannot discuss its successes or its failures. I am not suggesting that it has had any failures. I know very little about it. I have heard it said from the opposite side of the House that this House debates the whole question of the working of the Electricity Supply Board and its policy. I did not think that was so; I may be wrong. I thought, of course, that if the Electricity Supply Board wanted additional finances from this House, that this House would have a perfect right to discuss the entire ramifications of the Electricity Supply Board, with respect to their request for that money. The Electricity Supply Board is functioning under the control of men in whom, apparently, the State has considerable faith but none of us knows whether or not it might have worked better under a different system. It does not even have to give an account of itself to an annual meeting of shareholders. Audited accounts and a report, of course, are published and laid on the Table of the Dáil and Seanad as will be audited statements of account of this company but is there with respect to the Electricity Supply Board any users' or consumers' council such as is being set up under this Bill in respect of the users of transport? How many citizens might decry the valuation system of tariffs employed by the Electricity Supply Board if they had an opportunity? Is it fair? Is it the best system? How many citizens are in a position to criticise the Electricity Supply Board for failure to engage earlier in the greater development programme that might have served us well during the emergency? Not one. The Minister must have tremendous experience in the working of the Electricity Supply Board. He has been asked questions on many occasions and has found himself not in a position to reply because he has left the Electricity Supply Board to function as an independent corporation. He takes different powers under this Bill.

I have tried to make the point that we should discuss this Bill now. All countries are planning and we say that we should plan. I say we should go further than mere planning. We should try to set up organisations, such as is proposed under this Bill with respect to transport, that will be able possibly to implement some features of the planning before we enter the post-war period. Deputy Browne very kindly presented to the Minister a case for his action in respect of this Bill. He drew attention to the fact that unrestricted, uncontrolled, competitive transport crept in immediately after the first World War. It crept into Britain. It crept in here and although I am one who feels that competition of a good type is definitely necessary, none of us wants unrestricted, uncontrolled competition. In this particular-instance the Minister asks, not alone that we should plan as we have planned and as he and his Department have planned in connection with this Bill, but for authority to have it implemented quickly so that, even if it means only taking steps to examine some of the very big problems associated with transport, those in control of the company may be in a position to act with a full sense of responsibility. Granted, for instance, that the present chairman of the Great Southern Railways Company may be the chairman designate of the new company, how could it be expected that he would function and plan with the same forcefulness now as he would if the Bill were enacted? Is it not obvious that the two sets of conditions would be entirely different for that person? If the Bill were enacted immediately he would feel that he had the necessary power and authority in addition to his very heavy responsibility.

On the question of the general principles underlying the Bill and the type of control, I see in this Bill a scientific, democratic approach to a very serious problem. Transport is one of the life-lines of this nation's economy and with respect to the responsibilities of the new control I think our democratic institutions will have as much control over the workings of the transport board proposed in the Bill as they would have under any form or make-up that has been proposed during this debate. The chairman has great powers. He will be answerable to the Minister. Why should not he have great powers and be answerable to the Minister when under the proposals this House is accepting the greatest responsibility? That is agreed. He will have associated with him those representing the common stockholders of the company. Those directors will be elected annually by the stockholders. They will realise that unless the company can earn more than will be required for the debenture holders the people they represent will get nothing. Surely that must provide a considerable spur, if suitable directors are appointed?

Mr. Dillon

To raise freight rates, yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald

The chairman will have unlimited powers. I do not know whether Deputies have found the super-man, the man who will act as chairman of this board and will take no notice, or very little, of the remarks or the influences of those co-directors who will be, in all probability, representing very vital sections in the economic life of this country—industrialists, commercial men, agriculturists, and so on. If that were not deemed sufficient he has introduced an advisory transport committee into the Bill, which provides the country with a triumvirate of interests, a chairman, directors representing the common stockholders and the advisory committee. That triumvirate should make for a solution of the many problems associated with the finance, working, and operation of the transport system. It will be agreed that there is very little use in making the point that the common stockholders are being presented with a gift of complete ownership of a concern which is valued from £15,000,000 to £16,000,000. As far as I understand the fixed profit, it means nothing more than a national utility corporation. It would be better if instead of criticising any person who may be designated as the responsible chairman of this board, we were to consider if we could possibly find such a person here willing to assume the tremendous responsibility of the office envisaged under this Bill. It has been claimed that he is not a railway technician. Must he necessarily be that? It will be admitted that the chairman of such a company could be a person with the broadest possible experience of management of company affairs and that such a man could be found in this country.

Mr. Dillon

If the position is advertised at £2,500 a year you will have a rush of applications.

Mr. Fitzgerald

Technical advice can be purchased and will give control with integrity, breadth of vision, and sense of responsibility towards this country's interest rather than control by technicians. I can visualise many matters that would have to be reviewed and, in all probability, attempts may have to be made to put some of them into operation before the post-war period. There is the question of zoning of the country with respect to deliveries and charges. Something like that might be done now as part of the policy of such an individual. There is also the study of transport developments in other countries; electric traction about which so much has been glibly talked, and about which so very little appears to be known outside Cork, or the ability of this country to pay for it. The question of Diesel locomotives would have to be examined; also the standardisation of equipment. I read yesterday that in one of the belligerent countries the number of parts in the building of a locomotive has been reduced by 1,000 owing to standardisation. I know nothing about the building of locomotives, but I did not think there were so many parts required. There is also the question of minimising the rehandling of traffic between rail and road to its ultimate destination. That is most important and may take years of planning and studying before any scheme could be implemented which would cut out waste and keep together a fine body of Irish workers, as well as improving their conditions of employment. When we talk of the transport system we seem to forget that in addition to the stockholders and the users of railways there are others who depend on the industry as their primary method of livelihood.

I do not propose to go into the various sections of the Bill now, as that can better be done in Committee. I join with members of the Labour Party and with other Deputies in drawing attention to Sections 40 and 45, of which some explanation is due. I feel that can be best given in Committee.

The financial proposals can also be best discussed in Committee. The proposals outlined in the Bill received considerable discussion in Cork, and I understand that there was considerable criticism of the terms offered stockholders and debenture holders. An amount of such material will provide ready ammunition for those who may wish to score off the Government on the financial provisions. I prefer to reserve my remarks about a Cork pamphlet until such time as it sees the light of day.

There is one suggestion that I would like to make to the Minister while not necessarily requesting that it be put into the Bill. Generally speaking, with respect to all forms of State or public enterprise under the control of the State, or guaranteed by the State, I feel that it might pay us well to have a re-examination of such enterprises by experts every five or ten years. I have not given the matter very much study. I can see tremendous difficulties in the way of finding-persons to conduct such a re-examination. I do feel, however, that as the tempo of this war had developed the Minister could find some body to make such a re-investigation to see how those various State or public concerns, concerns guaranteed by the State, would have functioned over a period of five or ten years.

I feel that this Bill is deserving of a Second Reading even if only from the point of view that we are being put to the test with regard to a call for planning. When the plan is before us we refuse to accept it and want to postpone it. If Deputies feel that this is a Bill that does not fulfil all that they would wish to see in a transport Bill, they can get down to a discussion on it in the Committee Stage. I, at any rate, feel that the Bill should get a Second Reading from the House. That is due as a tribute to the many years of effort on the part of the Minister responsible.

Mrs. Redmond

I desire to raise my voice in support of the amendment. I do so not in a spirit of vindictiveness or against the Government, but simply because I think such a course would be for the good of the country. Several speakers have pointed out that there is a great deal of uneasiness in people's minds in regard to this Bill. After all, if we come here to represent the people it is surely our duty to say here in Parliament what their wishes are. The people whom I have the honour to represent feel that there has been too much hurry about the Bill, and that for a time at least the Government should not proceed with it. The Government have set up a Railway Tribunal to carry out an investigation into certain matters. I am of opinion that the Bill should not be proceeded with until that tribunal has reported. I would ask the Minister to consider that point. If the tribunal find that there is nothing of a dishonourable nature to be reported on, why then the necessity to hurry the Bill through? We do not want Parliament to be brought into disrepute by trying to cover up something that, possibly, is not there. In order, therefore, to alleviate misunderstandings or any grievances the people may feel they have, I think it is in the interests of the country, of the House and of the Government that the further consideration of the Bill should be postponed.

There are a few points in the Bill that I desire to deal with. One concerns the position of private lorry owners and of hackney car owners. These men have as much right to live as anybody else. Personally, I have a great dislike to monopolies, no matter what they may be. There is an old and a true saying that "competition is the life of trade". For that reason I think that the rights of the people I refer to should be safeguarded in the Bill. It has been said in the House that these people have nothing to fear. I would like to have a definite undertaking from the Minister that they have nothing to fear. I know that they are very doubtful in their minds as to the interpretation that may be placed on this Bill when it becomes an Act. For that reason, I would like to have an undertaking from the Minister on the lines that I have indicated.

With regard to the chairman of the new company, I think that no matter what kind of man he may be, what ability he may possess, or what capabilities he may have, the powers which it is proposed to confer on him are too great for any one individual to have. I think he should be put in the position that he would have to take directions from his colleagues on the board. I understand that he will be the one man who will really count. After all, we are dealing in this Bill with the railway system of Ireland. It is a huge undertaking that concerns the whole country. In my opinion, the powers which it is proposed to confer on this one individual are too far-reaching and too wide. It may be that later we will repent that we gave him such powers. The people feel uneasy about this, no matter how capable the man may be, or how qualified he may be to fill the post. I hope the Minister will look into this and make certain that this individual will, in some way, have to take directions from his colleagues on the board. Even though the Bill may have to get a Second Reading, I would again ask the Minister to defer proceeding with the further stages of it until such time as the tribunal has reported. I would ask him not to hurry it through, so that we may have time to ponder over the many good suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate. I urge that in no spirit of vindictiveness, but rather with a desire to cooperate with the Government in dealing with the biggest industry that we have in the State.

Donnchadh O Briain

Sílim gur Bille maith an Bille seo. Is léir do gach aoinne gur dhein an t-Aire géarmhachtnamh ár an gceist seo. Aoinne go bhfuil aon taithighe aca ar chóras taistil agus ar chóras iompair mar a bhí annseo le fiche blian anuas, tuigfe sé go raibh dian-ghá le hiarracht éigin chun feabhas do chur ar an scéal. Tá an Rialtas agus an tAire ag déanamh an iarracht sin sa mBille seo.

Ón am ar cuireadh an Fiosrúchán ar bun roinnt blian ó shoin—i 1939, is dóigh liom—i dtaoibh cúrsaí iompair in Éirinn, is mó ceist do cuireadh ar an Aire annseo ins an Dáil, ar cathain a thabharfadh sé Bille os ár gcomhair, chun feabhas do chur ar scéal an chórais iompair. Tá sin déanta anois aige, agus nuair tá, sé déanta, níltcar sásta, agus tá daoine ad 'iarraidh gan an scéal do bhrostú chó mór, go bhfuil am go leor againn chun an scéal do réidhteach. Ní féidir an dá phoinnte do thabhairt le chéile. Measaimse—agus measann a lán daoine nach mé, ar fuaid na tíre—go bhfuil dian-ghá le feabhas do chur ar an gcóras iompair atá againn cheana féin.

Cúpla bliain ó shoin, do chuaidh gléas taistil na tíre seo ar gcúl ar fad, agus bhí baol ann go mbéadh na traenacha ar stad. Do lean sé sin go dtí gur tháinig an fear atá ina Chathaoirleach ar an mBóthar Iarainn anois isteach. Bhí an scéal ag dul in olcas gach lá, ach ní fada bhí an fear sin ann nuair bhí na traeneacha ag rith go ceart agus in am arís. Sílim go bhfuil moladh tuillte ag an bhfear a dhein an t-athrú sin.

Ón gcainnt do chualamar ós na Teachtaí annseo mar gheall ar an gcóras iompair, do shílfeá gur ionann Baile Átha. Cliath agus Éire. Tá a fhios againn, muinntir na tuaithe annseo, nach ionann, agus nár chóir go mbéadh aon tsocrú speisialta ann do Bhaile Átha Cliath nó d'aon chathair eile. Ba chóir go mbéadh an gléas iompair céanna le fáil ag muinntir Bhaile Átha Cliath agus muinntir Éireann uile.

Má tá aon tsuim speisialta ag baint leis an mBille seo, baineann sí le háis agus gléas iompair agus taistil bheith le fáil feasta ag muinntir na tíre ar fad. Ba chóir go mbéadh an áis chéanna agus an chóir chéanna le fáil ag an áit is iargcúlta in Éirinn agus tá le fáil ins na bailtí agus na cathracha móra. Ba chóir go mbéadh deis ag an bpobal ins na h-áiteacha iargcúlta san chó maith agus chó hoiriúnach agus tá ag na daoine i mBaile Átha Cliath nó aon áit eile. Tá súil agam go bhfaghfar é sin anois, de bharr an Bhille seó.

Tá a fhios againn go léir nach raibh san ann do mhuinntir na tuaithe ins na bóithre iarainn le fada an lá. Bhí an cólucht ina gcoinne agus do theastuigh uatha aon phléidh le muinntir na tuaithe do sheachaint. Tá cúis le sin, mar bhí saol eile uair amháin ann, nuair nach raibh aon ghléas iompair sa tír seo ach na bóithre iarainn. Bhí a gcluiche féin dá imirt ag cómhairle an bhóthair iarainn annsan, agus ní ró-oiriúnach do chruthuíodar do mhuinntir na tíre.

Mar adúirt mé cheana, ba chóir go mbéadh le fáil ag muinntir na tíre seo, cabhair, go béasach, go múinte agus go cneasta ón tseirbhís seo. Tuiteann sé amach anois agus arís ná bíonn an scéal amhlaidh, ach tá réiteach air san ins an mBille seo.

Is beag eile atá le rá agamsa, ach ba mhaith liom a chur in iúil don Aire gur labhair daoine liomsa agus le mo chó-Teachtaí ó Luimneach mar gheall ar Alt 41 den Bhille seo. Tá na daoine atá ag obair ar na bóithre iarainn mí-shásta agus mí-shuaineasach mar gheall ar an alt san D'iarrfaín ar an Aire an talt san d'ath-scrúdú. Ní cóir go mbéadh ins an mBille seo aon rud a chuirfeadh míshuaineas nó mí-shástacht ar na daoine atá ag obair ar na bóithre iarainn.

Téigheann mo chuimhne siar go dtí aimsear na nDubh-Chrónach, nuair do sheasuigh na fir oibre sin go tréan agus go cóir ar son saoirse agus cirte na hÉireann. Ní ceart dearmad do dhéanamh air sin go bráth. Bhéinnse go láidir ar thaobh an ailt, agus ní bhéinn ró-shásta é d'athrú. Tá sé in am, agus thar am, dlí den tsórt san do chur i bhfeidhm. Mar gheall ar na postanna a bhéas folamh, taréis an Bille seo d'achtú, ba chóir go mbéadh dlí den tsórt chéanna do dhaoine in gach aon phost, idir mór agus beag, ar na bóithre iarainn, agus i ngach aon chólucht gnótha eile ar fuaid na tíre.

Mr. L. Cosgrave

We have now had considerable discussion on the various aspects of this Bill and, before I actually deal with it, there is another matter I would like to mention. I deprecate the growing tendency on the part of certain Deputies to cast aspersions in a veiled way on individuals outside the House, who have no opportunities of refuting or answering those charges, made by Deputies under the privilege they enjoy as members of the Dáil. Occasionally, those charges are backed up by such expressions as "I know what I am talking about", or "I can prove what I say", and there and then the evidence stops. No further evidence is adduced, either here or elsewhere, in support of the imputations or aspersions cast on those individuals. Usually the individual is not named, but most Deputies who make the charges here leave no doubt in the minds of listeners or of the public as to the individuals to whom they are referring. If Deputies have charges to make and evidence on which they can base those charges, there are other places in which to make them and other tribunals to decide them. There is a deplorable tendency to use the privilege of the Dáil to attack persons or groups of persons, safe from any consequences which might result if Deputies made the charges outside as ordinary individuals.

One of the principles of this Bill is that of the amalgamation of Dublin United Transport Company and the Great Southern Railways. As I said on another occasion, I believe that that principle is a sound one but, lest I be misinterpreted in any way in opposing the Second Reading, I want to make it quite clear that, when I spoke in favour of amalgamation, the other proposals now contained in this Bill were not available. The only information then available was that the proposed amalgamation was to be portion of transport legislation. I still adhere to that view, in so far as it is in this Bill —that a unified transport undertaking is the best system. On no account, however, could I subscribe to certain matters in the Bill now presented to us. I can go further and say that if, on the Committee Stage, the Government see fit to accept amendments, which I presume will be put down— and I propose to put some down myself—then I will have no hesitation in voting for the measure.

In his opening address the Minister mentioned that this Bill contains a long-term policy. He also mentioned that the present emergency restrictions had nothing whatever to do with that proposed long-term policy of the Government. I presume that he took that precaution in view of the fact that numerous Deputies, and many of the general public, are perturbed by the nature of the restrictions and by the nature of the control now in operation. They feel a sense of danger that these restrictions may remain in the post-war period. While the Minister mentioned the fact that the present restrictions had little or no relation to the proposals in the Bill he omitted to mention the fact that at the present time, or since the emergency, the only occasion in which the Great Southern Railways was able to make a profit was during, and arising out of, emergency conditions. To try to discuss the measure in a manner detached from the emergency is, in my opinion, not possible. Whether we like it or not, we are affected in more ways than one by the impact of the present emergency and by the restrictions and other effects arising out of the conditions which the emergency has imposed. There are certain matters in the Bill which I would like to get clarified before I proceed much further. In Section 9, which the Minister has dealt with in the White Paper, sub-section (2) reads:

"The company may, with the sanction of the Minister, acquire by purchase or by the exchange of stock of the company the whole or any part of any transport undertaking carried on by any other person and the property and assets used in or in connection with such undertaking."

The Minister, in reply to Deputy McGilligan, said: "Subject to agreement," as I understood him. There is no mention in the Bill of agreement.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 9 May 1944

Transport Bill, 1944—Second Stage—(Resumed).

Mr. O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly

Mr. O'Reilly

Mr. Larkin

Mr. Larkin

Mr. Larkin

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 9 May 1944