There are two main grievances that need to be stressed in connection with this Bill. The first is in relation to the citizens of the State as a whole so far as its financial structure is concerned, and the second, to which Deputy Mulcahy has drawn attention, is one that is peculiar to the citizens of Dublin. Dublin Deputies have been vociferous in giving expression to a point of view that they consider to be in the best interests of the citizens on the proposal to bring the Dublin United Transport Company within the confines of the new company. Those of us who have a certain viewpoint on that question should not allow any opportunity to pass without again stressing what is undoubtedly a strong and genuine complaint so far as Dublin citizens are concerned. I am particularly interested in this not so much from the point of view of the amount of capital of the Dublin United Transport Company that is involved and to which reference has been made, but rather the manner in which that company has been allowed to milk the citizens of Dublin of an amount which was considered by the Railway Tribunal in 1939 to be grossly excessive. That has gone on over a period of ten years.
Some time ago I directed the attention of the Minister to the fares charged at present by the Dublin United Transport Company. I pointed out to him that the profits of the company from 1938 to this year had increased from about £70,000 to almost £400,000. I submitted to the Minister, in view of the high burden that was being imposed on the citizens of Dublin, in common with the citizens of the State as a whole through the operation of a swollen cost of living, that some relief should be given to Dublin citizens by a lowering of fares. The answer he made to me at the time was that it was not considered expedient to bring about a reduction in fares, but that such a reduction was contemplated after the emergency. He also said it would be necessary for this company to have considerable reserves to meet the cost of the new and additional equipment that would be necessary when normal conditions returned. He also, of course, as he has done on a number of occasions, pointed out that there had been no increase in bus fares in Dublin.
I do not know if the Minister travels very often on buses. Superficially, it may be correct to say that there has been no actual increase in fares. I would point out to him, however, that during the emergency, in the case of the 28-seater buses, the company has been allowed to carry eight additional passengers. You have, by means of that an actual increase in income of nearly 25 per cent. That increase has been obtained without increasing the costs of running the bus. Therefore, there has been a large increase in the income accruing to the company from the running of their buses. That increase in income has resulted from an imposition of travelling conditions that the public in normal times would not be asked to put up with, and would not put up with. Therefore, it is true to say that so far as transport is concerned the drain on the resources of the citizens has been increased. If, as the Minister maintains, there has been no actual increase in fares, it is worth while pointing out that there has been a complete withdrawal of all special tickets, such as monthly tickets, for workers. That hits the working classes very severely, many of whom have to travel very considerable distances to their work. Take the case of a man travelling on the shilling stage. At present he will pay 2/- per day going to and from work, or say 7/- per week for a weekly ticket confining him to one journey each way on six days of the week. That is the position now as against a monthly ticket for 24/- which permitted him to travel as many times as he wished in the month and every day. We can see, therefore, that for practical purposes there has been a very substantial increase in the fares that are being garnered by this company from the citizens of Dublin.
If, as the Minister has pointed out, one of the means by which the new company will be in a position to meet its commitments so far as interest on debenture stock is concerned and to pay a dividend on the common stock, if that be possible, is the bringing into the transport scheme of this company in Dublin with a high earning capacity, how is there to be relief for the Dublin citizens under normal conditions? We expect a reduction in fares. Is the City of Dublin to continue to subscribe a sum of nearly £500,000, over and above the actual cost of transport, to the new monopoly of the future?
I have a particular point of view on local transport. There is not much use in putting it forward now but I do think that Dublin citizens have got, even at this stage, a special claim in regard to local transport—a claim which has been completely sidetracked by this Bill and the decision to absorb the Dublin Transport Company into the national undertaking. It cannot be denied that, in Dublin, there are local peculiarities and transport needs that will not be catered for by a national concern to the same extent that a local concern would be compelled to cater for them. It is indisputable that, if the Dublin services are absorbed into the national concern, it will be much more difficult to secure a reduction of the present excessive fares—fares which are excessive from the point of view of the margin left to the company. It will be much more difficult to get improved services to the suburbs and to arrange cheap excursions for school children to the seaside in summer, all of which matters can be of tremendous importance not merely from the point of view of transport in the city but from the point of view of housing needs and the health and welfare of the sections of the community affected. I cannot envisage a board of directors sitting in Kingsbridge and charged with responsibility for all national transport taking the same close and intimate view of the peculiar needs of Dublin as would be likely in the case of a company confined to Dublin and having to cater for conditions peculiar to Dublin. From that point of view, I think that Dublin and its citizens are being drawn into this new monopoly because, by virtue of its concentration of population, Dublin possesses a very high earning capacity and will serve to bolster up and secure this national concern.
Dublin citizens are not entitled to any greater privileges than other citizens, but, on the other hand, they should not be penalised to a greater extent than other citizens. If we are to continue under present conditions, our contribution to the new company will be close on £500,000 a year, and we shall be getting a very poor system of local transport. If the new company proves to be in difficulties, are we to be asked to bear our share of the burden placed on the people as a whole as regards the guarantee of interest on the debenture stocks, and are we, in addition, to carry this local burden—a burden placed upon us by virtue of the original legislation passed in this House and secured to the company by various enactments? The position of the company has been improved by the fact that they have been operating in emergency conditions, and have been relieved of many obligations which transport undertakings would normally have to meet. The Minister has, on a number of occasions, made great play with the fact that, since the change of management, the company has become a very healthy, solvent company, and has paid an increased dividend each year, while reducing its capital commitments. He has told us that it has a fine fleet of buses, and that it has given fine conditions to its workers. It has only given conditions to its workers which many of the bus companies, knocked out of existence by legislation of this House, gave to their workers many years ago. It is only to-day that this company is establishing decent conditions. That is not a thing to be placed to its credit. In recognition of the fact that they have been given a monopoly in Dublin and allowed to extract this large sum for transport from the citizens of Dublin, it would be but fair that some portion of the money should go to the workers, and that it should not be all retained for the benefit of the debenture holders.
It would not be natural to expect that the Minister would, at this stage, place his duty as a Dublin member before his duty as a member of the Government. But when we realise that transport, housing needs and the health and welfare of the great mass of the citizens constitute a single problem, not one part of which is soluble unless the problem be dealt with as a whole, I think it is well somebody should point out the difficulties we shall have to face in Dublin. I say that we are being deliberately sacrificed because there is need for bringing into the national concern an undertaking with a high earning capacity. It is also well to point out that, if the Bill goes through in its present form, we shall, in addition to meeting our commitments as citizens of the city be required to pay a very heavy annual tribute to the national undertaking and, in return, get nothing but a transport system which will have no relation to the ordinary transport needs of a city of the size of Dublin or to the needs which exist because of the housing problem.