When I was speaking last night on this question I expressed the view that it does not matter very much whether this particular company that is being established represents nationalisation of transport or not; it is as near to nationalisation as does not matter. But there is one important consideration. As we know, the number of State companies established to carry out industrial and commercial activities in this country has steadily increased over a number of years and the time has come to consider some machinery to control to a certain extent, or to supervise, the activities of such organisations. There was a suggestion made by Deputy Cowan, namely, that if a transport company should become park and parcel of the ordinary Civil Service of the State, it should be controlled by a Parliamentary Secretary who will be answerable to this House, and the members of the House will be in a position to ask questions and raise every detail of administration of that company here. There are many people who claim that such far-reaching investigation and interference with the working of a commercial company would make things so difficult that it could hardly be justified.
I think that the provision in this Bill for supervision by this House is too limited. Provision is made to have a report submitted to the House each year and the House has the right to debate that particular report. As between that provision and the very drastic suggestion made by Deputy Captain Cowan. I think there may be a middle course. It should be possible to set up a committee of this House, or a committee of both Houses, to investigate the operations of all State companies. Just as we have a Committee of Public Accounts to deal with the operations of the various Government Departments we should have a similar committee to deal with the activity and operations of all State companies. In that way there would be a more effective control over their administration. This House would certainly be better informed of the day-to-day operations of such companies. In addition, the safeguard of having an annual report submitted to this House, as is provided in this Bill, should also be preserved.
Last night when I was dealing with the rights of the stockholders, who are being acquired. I was not quite sure of the exact date upon which common stock will be redeemed under this Bill. From the Third Schedule it appears that debenture stock is redeemable in 1955-60, while common stock is not redeemable until 1975-85. That seemed to me to be an injustice to the holders of common stock. In a matter of this kind, when we are dealing with the rights of the ordinary citizens, it is our duty to deal absolutely fairly with any sections of the community with which we are brought into contact. I do not think anyone can condone the grave injustice inflicted under this Bill upon this particular section of the community. Many of the common stockholders in Córas Iompair Éireann are people of very limited means. Many of them are trustees for the benefit of dependents who are in poor circumstances. I think for that very reason nothing less than absolute justice should be done. There is the further factor that this stock will be reduced to 80 as compared with the debenture stock, which will be taken over at par. I think that here again there is a case for investigation and a very urgent need to meet these particular sections of the community in a fair and reasonable way.
The important issue facing this House is—can we now, after all the amalgamations, transformations and changes that have taken place, assure ourselves that there is a reasonable prospect that this new transport company will make a success of its operations? I think that is the most important question this House has to consider. What evidence have we that this new company will be more successful than was Córas Iompair Éireann, in the last five years? Have we any evidence that it will be more successful than the amalgamated railways were up to the time of the establishment of Córas Iompair Éireann? Unless there is a very far-reaching change in policy and a more vigorous application of progressive ideas in regard to transport in general I do not think we can have any definite assurance on that point. There is no doubt that if transport were left to itself road transport would eliminate rail transport by the ordinary laws of competition. I think that is an accepted fact. There may be some people who hold that the ordinary economic laws should take their course, but most sane people realise that railways are a national asset. They are an asset which should be preserved, if at all possible, because they are the backbone of our transport system.
The problem is as to how one will preserve them. I believe that the railway system cannot be preserved and that this transport company cannot be successful unless a real effort is made to dovetail rail and road transport and to make road transport a tributary, as it were, to rail transport, because I think rail transport should be the backbone of our transport system. I think any reasonable person must acknowledge that that is a sane approach to the problem. That is a suggestion which has been expressed on many occasions in the past. There is nothing original in it. Unfortunately, it is not a suggestion which has so far been adopted. Long-distance bus services are running parallel with the railway system. There does not seem to be any intention of discontinuing that unnecessary and unnatural competition. It is unnatural to have two distinct services, which are operated by the same company, competing against each other when there is not sufficient traffic to maintain two services.
I think it is deplorable to see buses coming perhaps 100 or 200 miles, full or partly loaded, over a route where almost empty trains are running parallel. It is difficult to imagine why this should be. The bus services seemingly have gained a certain amount of popular support and that makes an appeal to those in control to retain the buses as against the trains. There is no doubt that buses travelling along the main roads can collect passengers nearer to their homes than can the trains. The bus can stop wherever there is a passenger and take him up. That brings the service a little nearer to the citizen's own door and that gives the bus one advantage over the railway system. There does not seem to be any reason, however, why there should not be bus services operating to convey passengers to the nearest railway station from which they could travel the remainder of their journeys by rail.
In matters of this kind it is difficult for the ordinary layman to express his views because there are technical difficulties which the layman cannot always envisage. As one who has no technical knowledge of transport, I can give the House my own experience as a passenger. When the branch line was running from Sallins to Tullow, coming from my district one had two alternative methods of travelling. If I wished to travel by bus, I could pick up a bus within a quarter of a mile of my home and that bus would leave me in the centre of the city. If I were to travel by rail, I would have to travel five miles to the nearest station. Then I would arrive in Dublin at Kingsbridge and not in the centre of the city. I would have to travel, perhaps with luggage, from Kingsbridge to Parkgate Street to get the ordinary city bus there, a bus which is not suitable for carrying luggage, and continue the journey to the centre of the city. That is a very inconvenient service. I do not think that, as long as you have a bus service that takes a citizen almost from his own door right into the heart of the city, a railway service, in which the journey is broken two or three times, is a suitable alternative. I do not see any reason why the rail service should be so inconvenient. I do not see any reason why there should not be short-distance buses to collect people from the scattered rural areas and take them to the nearest railway station, and I do not see why there should not be a special bus in the city to meet each particular train and take the travellers direct to the centre of the city.
In the same way, take, for example, a person who goes up to Dublin to do some shopping. If he travels by train, he will, in the evening, have to look for one of the ordinary city buses which may, at that particular time, be heavily overcrowded—as they usually are about 5 or 6 o'clock—and travel on that bus to the railway station at Kingsbridge or elsewhere. There is even a possibility that such a person will not be able to put his luggage on that particular type of bus and, in any case, there is also the possibility that the bus may be overcrowded with the ordinary city traffic and the person concerned may not be able to catch the particular train. Why should there not be a special bus to pick up passengers in the centre of the city and meet the railway train at Kingsbridge—a bus capable of taking their luggage and everything concerned—and give the passengers a through-ticket right to the end of their journey? That seems a reasonable way of dealing with the problem, but it is a method which has not yet been adopted in this country, though it has in other countries.
I happened to be—in regard to an entirely different matter—in an English city a short time ago. During the rush hours of the day I was rather surprised at the fact that there were very few cyclists on the streets. I found that the reason was that the bus service was so efficient and so cheap that people did not bother cycling. I mention that, just to show that a public transport company, if it is properly equipped and adequate and efficient, can compete with the private ways and means of travelling. There is no doubt whatever that, if a public service to the city were available, there are many people in the country or in the country towns who have their own cars who would travel by the train and bus service rather than incur the wear and tear upon their own cars by bringing them to the city. That is true, and I think it is an aspect of public transport that has got to be considered.
The same position also arises in regard to goods traffic. One is often inclined to wonder why so much heavy goods are conveyed by road rather than by rail. One would think that the railway system is ideally suited for heavy freight traffic. The reason is that the loading and unloading of goods at railway stations is so troublesome and so expensive that in order to avoid it people will avail either of the Córas Iompair Éireann buses or lorries to convey their goods the full distance, or, alternatively, they will use their own lorries. But, here again, if we had a system by which lorries would collect goods for the railways and again deliver them from the rail-head right to their destination, it would be possible to divert a very substantial amount of traffic to the railways. In that connection, I would mention that I happened to be on a deputation to Córas Iompair Éireann some years ago, with regard to the closing-down of the Tullow-Sallins branch railway line. I made a suggestion which I thought was an absolutely original one, namely, that freight containers should be provided which would enable goods to be transferred from road lorries to the railway wagons without the trouble of unloading the goods. I was surprised and pleased to be told that such containers were already being provided. I have noticed quite a number of them on the roads recently. It seems to me that in the provision of such containers lies the hope of diverting a considerable amount of long-distance traffic to the railways. If it is possible, speedily and efficiently, to transfer a load from a road lorry to a railway wagon without any great delay or trouble or expense, then I think the tendency would be more and more to avail of that system. If Córas Iompair Éireann adopts that system widely and are in a position to collect goods by lorry, transfer them to the railway and retransfer them to the lorry, perhaps to finish the journey, then they may be able to win back a considerable amount of the freight traffic that they have lost. Everything, of course, will depend upon the system of transfer being not too difficult or expensive. That is a matter, perhaps, of mechanisation, in regard to which I could not pretend to be an expert.
It strikes me also that that same method of loading goods in containers, which would be transferrable, would also obviate a good deal of shunting at the smaller stations. I remember, when the Shillelagh branch line was in operation, on one occasion cycling to Tinahely station to catch the passenger train. I inquired about the time the train would leave and I was informed that the train had left half an hour before I arrived. The stationmaster asked me if I was cycling and, when I told him that I was, he told me that I would have no difficulty in overtaking the train which, in due course, I did. That type of delay was due to the system of shunting in order to pick up different types of wagons. If we could transfer the load from one line to another, from one wagon to another, it would obviate a great deal of what I consider is unnecessary shunting, which is a source of delay.
Another aspect of that matter is that it would enable goods and passenger trains to be combined. The reason why we cannot convey goods and passengers on the same train is that the delays at the stations are too great. If you had a quick efficient method of transferring the load on to the wagons of the train then you would be able to avoid those delays and thus make a saving by combining goods and passenger services on the one train. That would particularly apply to lines such as those I have mentioned, branch lines such as the Tullow-Sallins branch line, where the total passenger and goods traffic is rather light. I am only making those suggestions because I think that every Deputy feels it is his duty to do everything possible to help the operation of this national concern. If this final attempt to solve the problem of transport fails it will be in the nature of a disaster for the nation; it will be a great loss and expense and will completely dislocate our whole national life, so it is a matter of urgent importance that this transport company should succeed. It might be said that one way to make it a success would be to eliminate all competition. I do not agree on that point, and I would like to hear the Minister disagreeing with it also, because a certain amount of competition is necessary to produce efficiency.
I think it absolutely essential that private lorry owners should have the right to deliver their own goods wherever they are supplying them or to collect what they require. That element of competition is a far better safeguard to the public than any legal safeguards that might be introduced into this Bill. In the same way it is essential to preserve the right of persons to travel by other means than the Córas Iompair Éireann services. If, for example, the bus services in this city are not sufficiently adequate or cheap, then the right of a citizen to take out his own bicycle and use it on the street is one that should be preserved because it helps to force this national company to keep up to date and provide efficient services.