Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1953

Vol. 136 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Vote 51—Transport and Marine Services.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000,000 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for certain Transport Services; for Grants for Harbours; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1947, and the Foreshore Act, 1933 (No. 12 of 1933); for certain payments in respect of Compensation, including the cost of medical treatment (No. 19 of 1946); and for the Coast Life Saving Service.

Once again the Dáil has to be asked to vote additional money to make good losses incurred during the year by C.I.E. When the Estimate for the year was being prepared 12 months ago there were discussions with the board as to the provision which might reasonably be made in the Estimate for subsidy in the financial year. The board had estimated its possible losses at a higher figure than the £1,300,000 which appeared in the Estimate but, after consultation with the board at the time and consideration of the matter by the Government, it was considered that £1,300,000 would not be an unreasonable provision, though there may have been more optimism than confidence in adopting it. In the event, the actual losses incurred in the year are now estimated to exceed the provision in the Estimate by about £650,000. The higher losses are, of course, attributable to higher costs incurred during the year, of which increased wages are the most considerable item. That excess of £650,000 in losses over and above the Estimate provision was incurred, however, notwithstanding the fact that increased charges were brought into operation in July last and further increases in thepresent month, and notwithstanding the fact that the board put into operation during the year various economies, some of which involved reductions in staffs.

The House will recollect that this time last year I had to propose a Supplementary Estimate for £2,250,000 to meet C.I.E. losses in the previous financial year. Against these losses there had been no provision at all in the Budget prepared by our predecessors so that the supplementary sum then asked for of £2,250,000 was the amount estimated to meet the whole of the losses in that financial year. In the event, the end of the year showed that the losses exceeded the amount voted in the Supplementary Estimate by £450,000. That was due almost entirely to the fact that increased wages became operative between the date of the introduction of the Supplementary Estimate and the end of the financial year; but it makes it necessary for us now to vote over and above the £650,000 required to supplement the provision in the present financial year another £450,000 required to make good the deficiency in the provision of the previous year so that the total additional amount which the Dáil is now being asked to vote for C.I.E. is £1,100,000 in addition to the £1,300,000 provided for in the Book of Estimates.

Mr. O'Higgins

Is that the £650,000 and the £450,000?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. With regard to the other details of the Estimate there is an additional £100 to provide for legal advice to the transport tribunal and there is an estimated reduction in expenditure of £100,100 on harbour works mainly because of the very slow progress which is being made in the construction of the new graving dock in Dublin. The net result of all these changes is to require us to ask the Dáil to provide another £1,000,000 for transport and marine services.

During the course of the year I had on more than one occasion to make it clear to the board both in private discussion with the chairman and in various public statements that in myview neither the Dáil nor the public is prepared to continue to find substantial sums every year from taxation to meet the losses of the C.I.E. undertaking, losses which are running roughly at the rate of £2,000,000 per year. I also informed the board that I was personally not prepared to contemplate losses running at a higher level and that if they should appear likely to emerge because of higher costs or declining traffic they would have to be offset by increases in rates and fares and, if such increases in rates and fares should lead in turn to a reduction in traffic, then there would be no alternative but to reduce services and effect appropriate reductions in staffs. The position is, therefore, that so far as the present C.I.E. undertaking is concerned we have endeavoured to put a ceiling to their losses. We made it clear to them and to everybody else concerned that any further addition to their costs must be immediately offset by increased fares or charges or, alternatively, by a reduction of services involving probably reductions in staff.

Mr. MacBride

What ceiling has the Minister put?

Mr. Lemass

The present level of losses. I also told the board that I was not prepared to ask the Dáil to continue to vote subsidies even to meet losses at the present level unless I could hold out the prospect that these losses would in the course of time be eliminated. I invited the board to submit to me its plans for the elimination of losses and for getting the undertaking at some stage into the position in which it would be able to pay its way without subventions from the taxpayers.

The Houses is aware that I received from the board certain proposals for the amendment of the legislation relating to the operation of transport services, involving restrictions upon the operation of private transport vehicles. By all the usual devices I endeavoured to insure that these proposals of the board would be widely publicised and be brought to the notice not merely of the various trade associations and individuals affected by them but also to the notice of thetrade unions catering for workers in transport employment. I indicated that I personally was not attracted by the proposals but that I felt bound to consider them in view of the fact that they had been made by C.I.E. and represented their proposals for the relief of their situation. I intimated also that I was prepared to consider any objections to them that might be forthcoming from other affected interests.

These objections were numerous and many of them were very vigorously expressed. I think it is quite obvious that public opinion would not regard these proposals as meeting either the position of the C.I.E. undertaking or as being suitable to the national development. No final decision upon these proposals has been taken. Before coming to a decision, I invited the trade unions with members employed in the C.I.E. organisation to establish a consultative committee and I requested that committee to consider these proposals of C.I.E. and any associated matters bearing upon the future of transport policy.

A consultative committee of trade unions was set up. There are 24 trade union representatives on it. It has held frequent meetings but I have not yet received its report. Its terms of reference are as follows:—

"To consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce and C.I.E. on the problems of C.I.E. and/or to consult with any other person or body whose advice might be helpful to the committee in the discharge of its duties to consider and make proposals thereon."

Although I have indicated a personal viewpoint upon these proposals of C.I.E. for the restriction of private motor transport, I do not feel that it would be right to take a final decision regarding the matter until the views of that committee have been considered and until the representations made by a number of other affected interests and trade associations have been fully analysed.

However, as it was clear to me that these proposals of C.I.E. would not in any event wipe out the losses of the undertaking, nor did the board claimthat they would, I had further discussions with the chairman of the board. The board were requested to put up for the consideration of the Government more comprehensive proposals for the reorganisation and re-equipment of the undertaking, proposals which in the view of the board would hold out the prospect of eventually getting to a stage in which losses would not arise.

I have now received these proposals of the board. They are at present under consideration, and no final decision has been taken on them yet. I think, however, I should say they involve the complete dieselisation of the whole railway undertaking. The board is emphatic in its view that a complete change-over from steam locomotion to diesel electric traction would, by itself, be almost sufficient to wipe out the operating losses on the railway by reason of savings in fuel and maintenance costs.

They have other proposals for capital expenditure upon equipment which are linked in with these dieselisation proposals. It will be appreciated that the fulfilment of these proposals could not be completed except over a number of years and that that would involve a substantial additional capital investment in the undertaking, capital investment which would, in itself, impose new charges on the undertaking. Nevertheless, the board claim that the combined effect of all these proposals, of which the chief is this complete change-over to diesel electric traction, would be to create a situation in which the need for subsidy would disappear or at worst the present deficit in the undertaking's revenue be reduced to very small dimensions.

The proposals, as I have said, are being examined. They are being examined both from the point of view of the soundness of the arguments advanced by the board for them and the co-ordination of the capital investment programme which they involve with the general capital programme of the Government. I, therefore, feel I can come to the Dáil with a slightly easier mind to ask them to vote this additional sum for C.I.E. in the present year, because even though afinal decision on these proposals has not been made, there is at least the prospect contained in them that at some stage, not next year or the year afterwards, when the full programme has been carried into effect, of eliminating these losses or at worst reducing them to manageable size.

The provision for the transport tribunal, although a nominal one and made necessary by the fact that the possibility of the tribunal requiring legal advice was not foreseen when the Estimate was prepared, gives the House, if it wishes, the opportunity of discussing the operations of that tribunal. Although it was provided for in the Act of 1950, it was not, in fact, set up until last year. It was set up to consider certain applications which the C.I.E. board wished to have considered for the abandonment of branch lines. The first series of applications related to branch lines on which services had ceased but which the board had not finally abandoned. The House is aware that under the provisions of the 1950 Act the Minister for Industry and Commerce has no function in deciding questions of that kind. Application for authority to cease a service of trains on a branch line or to abandon a branch line is made to the transport tribunal and the transport tribunal's decision is final. It is communicated to the board and the board has then the authority to act on it.

I do not know what I can say regarding the saving upon harbour works. It is not a kind of saving I would like to have to report. For some reason the construction of the graving dock at Dublin has proceeded much more slowly than was anticipated away back in 1945 or 1946 when I persuaded the Government to agree to make a grant of £500,000 towards its cost. I had thought then that the dock would have been completed by this, but apparently work on it has been very slow, and it is not even possible to say now when that project will be completed. There were some other harbour works upon which work was slower than had been estimated, and it because of that fact that we have £100,000 to put against the additional money requested by C.I.E.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is, I think, proper that the House this year should hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce a reason why in the recent Budget he underestimated by almost £1,000,000 the operating losses of the transport undertaking. No doubt the Minister can say that it is not proper in regard to an undertaking having statutory obligations, as this undertaking has, to write them a blank cheque and to say to them: "You can go out and lose as much money as you like, provided you do not exceed such and such a figure." It was last year the Government took the extraordinary step of providing in the Estimates for the losses which they felt C.I.E. would incur in the ensuing financial year. That was an unprecedented and most unusual act of charity at the expense of the taxpayer by the present Government to C.I.E. They provided in the Estimates for a loss by C.I.E. of £1,300,000. That was done because much of the financial wail set up by the present Government when they found themselves in office in June, 1951, concerned the fact that the former Government, in its last Budget, did not provide for C.I.E. losses totalling £2,250,000. The reason such a provision was not made was that no sensible Government under the sun would do that if it expected the transport company to endeavour to operate its concern in such a way that losses would not be necessary. Of course, it was appreciated by the former Government, as it is appreciated by the present Government, that losses will be incurred, and it was recognised and it was the practice, unfortunately necessary, that at this time of the year a Supplementary Estimate to make provision in respect of losses already incurred would be moved by the Minister. That practice has obtained, and it was only because members of the present Government sought to make capital for political purposes of the fact that, in the previous Estimates, no provision was made for possible C.I.E. losses that some effort was made last year to provide for these losses.

Of course, as the House has heard from the Minister, that effort was not a serious one. He glossed over it bysaying that he selected a figure, £1,300,000, in an optimistic frame of mind, to provide for C.I.E. losses. The House and the country may take it that there was no effort to budget for those losses. A figure was selected and put in the Estimates, so that the Opposition at the time could not say: "You are not providing for C.I.E. losses; why blame us for not doing the same?" It was for that reason the figure came in and now, as expected, the Minister has to ask for a supplementary sum to provide for that underestimation which the Minister for Finance made in his Budget. The Dáil is asked to vote over £1,000,000, made up of two underestimations—the first being a sum of almost £500,000 underestimated in the last Supplementary Estimate, and the second being £650,000 underestimated in the last Budget.

We must agree with every word the Minister has spoken regarding continual operating losses by C.I.E. No one could regard the prospect of annual losses on the transport undertaking with any degree of complacency. While that must be said about all Deputies, it must apply with particular emphasis to the present Minister, because it was due to him, if bouquets are to be thrown, that the idea of a national transport company became possible. It was his efforts originally that formed the first C.I.E.; it was his efforts originally that propped up the shaky structure of the G.S.R. with the fine city transport system we had in Dublin; it was his genius and his imagination some nine or ten years ago which saw the possibility of a national semi-socialised transport industry. It was his vision and prophecy that enabled him to tell Dáil Éireann nine years ago that the proposal which he was putting before the Dáil and the country would guarantee for the people of Ireland cheap and efficient transport.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear! I remember the day.

Mr. O'Higgins

That was the keynote of the present Minister's message almost a decade ago, when the idea of nationalised transport was firstmooted—cheap and efficient service. It is a sorry tale nine years later that the man who sponsored this proposal, through whose efforts it came into being, should have to tell the Dáil that he is now waiting for someone else— a conference of trades unionists, perhaps, or some other body outside the House—to tell him what the devil he is to do now.

Mr. Lemass

This is not the same organisation. This is the one you set up in 1950.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is the same company.

Mr. Lemass

It has the same name; that is the only similarity.

Mr. Dillon

We had better be careful, or you will start another company. The last two wrought great havoc.

Mr. Lemass

This is your creation— and I repudiate it.

Mr. O'Higgins

The only difference is that the losses now are smaller than under the original company.

Mr. Lemass

The company I set up never lost money.

Mr. O'Higgins

If the Minister uses that argument, I cannot speak. The Minister tells the House to-day that, while he deplores the loss and thinks it is a bad thing—and of course it is —the situation is so serious that he had to tell the board they must face the fact that neither the Dáil nor the public was prepared to continue these annual sums; and then he asks what is to be done about it. The Minister says he is expecting early some suggestion from a conference of the trades unions and if it does not come from them it must come from the board of C.I.E.

Mr. Lemass

I have got them and I said what they were. Will the Deputy deal with that? That was the 1947 idea.

Mr. O'Higgins

The present Minister and his Government have little or no policy now as to how best to provide what they originally promised—a cheapand efficient transport service. The Minister said he referred to the proposals he got. Undoubtedly he did. In the month of July last, the country heard by hearsay, by rumour, by reading—I think it was during the newspaper strike—what was printed in some English newspapers, that a proposal had been made to the Minister by the Board of C.I.E. to restrict the right of every owner of a commercial vehicle to carry his goods or those of anyone else beyond a certain zonal distance. That was given by the Minister to a conference of trades unionists and eventually it percolated amongst the people. Naturally, it caused some concern in the distributing trade and amongst decent people who had built up through years of effort a system of distribution of their goods. Bit by bit, a very considerable wave of opposition grew up towards that proposal. When Dáil Éireann met again, in the autumn of last year, we took steps from this side of the House to ascertain the Government's policy in relation to that proposal. We were told that no decision had been taken. I think that at that time the Minister, outside the House, expressed his own personal disinclination to carry out that particular proposal; but the House was told that no Government decision had been taken on the matter. So far as we can judge from the Minister to-night, the position is still very much the same.

In regard to the suggestion of restricting or zoning commercial vehicles, the Minister is still unable to say what, if any, decision the Government has taken in the matter. He said he is rather against it but he has been very careful to say that does not mean it will not come. "I may have a personal disinclination to doing it, but no decision has yet been taken." He went on to say that, in any event, he was satisfied that even the zoning of commercial vehicles would not meet the operating losses of the transport undertaking. Accordingly, he had asked the board to give to him, as Minister, more detailed suggestions and accordingly he has been in a position to tell the House to-night that the Board of C.I.E. have made certain proposals to the Government which involve, amongst other things, a change-over, the dieselisationof the system and a change-over to quite a different method of traction. I agree with the Minister when he says that he is happy to be able to show that amount of progress. It would indeed be an appalling prospect if the Minister to-night was unable to give the House any assurance for the future and unable to show any real step being taken to meet these operating losses. Although this matter of operating losses must have concerned the Minister for the past 18 months, it is strange that these proposals should be of such recent origin. There may be a reason for that—we do not know—but I take it from the Minister's speech that whatever decision is taken will be taken with all possible speed, after considering, of course, the different possible effects of such a radical change.

The Minister mentioned—it is part of this Estimate—the Transport Tribunal. I do not know what the practice is in this regard or what the exact position is, but, in the past six months or so, the Transport Tribunal has adjudicated on a proposal to close down lines which in fact have not been operating. In addition, sittings have been or are being arranged to consider objections from those interested in branch lines which are at the moment operating lines. I do not know whether it is possible to make any provision for the legal costs of objectors fighting a case of that kind before the tribunal, but, speaking as a Deputy, I am aware of the vast amount of work that may be involved in presenting to the tribunal an intelligent case for its investigation in relation to the closing of these branch lines. I am not certain if, under the statute, the Minister has any function. The Minister has no function? Very well; I will pass from that point.

We join with the Minister in regretting the necessity for this Estimate and we sympathise particularly with the Minister in having to introduce the Estimate and having to seek this money. We would oppose any suggestion to ease the difficulties of C.I.E. by the virtual elimination of private enterprise in road carriage. We hope the alternative proposals the Minister now has before him will ease thedifficulties of C.I.E. and that whatever decision is come to will be implemented as quickly as possible.

Dr. Esmonde

The Minister's statement in relation to the public transport of the country is a pretty sombre one, from the point of view of the taxpayer and from the point of view of the future of public transport in this country. As I took it, the position is that C.I.E. is operating at an annual loss of £2,000,000. The Minister has said—it is indeed poor consolation to the taxpayer—that he is limiting those losses to £2,000,000 annually. I listened carefully to his statement and, so far as I could gather, he has no alleviation to offer in this unfortunate situation that has arisen, except to endeavour to change over to diesel oil as the fuel for public transport.

I take it that the importation of this diesel oil fuel will be from the dollar world, which means that it will throw a heavy burden, by reason of the non-convertibility of sterling, on our dollar pool. How does the Minister propose to meet that? I should be glad if he would give us some information on that point. Admittedly, he did not dogmatically state that—it is just a suggestion on his part. In effect, really and unfortunately, he has no solution to offer. He also said it might be a matter for consultation with the trade unions. Am I to take it that the suggestion is that the employees of C.I.E., who, as I know, are clamouring for an increase in their wages, are to be asked to take a lesser sum each week? The public have already paid dearly for C.I.E. We have had an increase in all the fares and so far as we can gather from the Minister's statement, there is a possibility of fares being further increased.

Is it not time that somebody said, as, in effect, the Minister himself to a certain degree this evening has said: "There is a limit to the losses which you may incur; there is a limit to the extent of the mismanagement of your business?" If any private firm in this country was running its affairs in the manner in which C.I.E. is conducting its affairs and imposing a heavy drain like that on those who provided the capital, would the management of thatfirm be retained? I am not conversant with the people who are responsible for the administration of C.I.E., but it is quite obvious that they are not making a success of their job. That statement covers the whole organisation, but, of course, the people at the top must always be held responsible. The difficulty with this company is that if I, as a Deputy, write and make any suggestion to C.I.E. which is brought to me by some of my constituents—and I have made innumerable suggestions since I was elected—I am only wasting my time. I shall get a reply saying that the matter will be considered. I presume that my communication, like many others of a similar nature, goes into the wastepaper basket and there is no more about it. Then when I come into the Dáil here and ask a question about any matter in which C.I.E. are concerned, I am referred to the 1950 Act. The 1950 Act is apparently the cloak under which C.I.E. can spend the money which we, the elected representatives of the people, vote and get away with it every time. I do not agree with that system at all.

I think that the Minister has the responsibility to call in whoever the directors, the management or the controllers of this particular company are and point out to them clearly and emphatically that this is not a rich country, that it is already an over-taxed country and that we cannot afford to go on handing over £2,000,000 per annum or give them a ceiling of £2,000,000 per annum to run their business in the way they are doing it. In other words, we should call a halt to present trends.

It is not that C.I.E. have a particularly tough road to plough. They are not in the position of ordinary private firms who have to compete with rival firms in the country. They have a virtual monopoly of everything in the line of transport. Does not every Deputy know that, with the exception of a few lorries with trade plates, C.I.E. has a virtual monopoly of road haulage in the country to-day? In spite of that monopoly, which constitutes, to my mind, a very definite restrictive practice, they cannot make the organisationpay and they come in here and look for money to subsidise them. As if to add insult to injury, they have thrown into chaos all the private firms and many industrialists in this country who provide lorries for their own transport. What state of mind are the directors of these companies in at the present moment, facing the suggestion of a zonal limitation of about 20 miles? I am sure every Deputy has had letters from all over his constituency, as I have had from my constituency, asking if this suggestion is to be enacted into law or not. By a parliamentary question, I tried to elicit from the Minister what his mind in this matter is. He has told us he is not enamoured of these proposals but he has to give due consideration to them. Is there any suggestion that, even if C.I.E. were to be given these unnatural restrictions on private haulage in the country, they would be able to make a success of transport? I do not think so, and I think it would be a sorry day if they got any further grip on the country than they have now.

I should like to give the Minister some little information about the manner in which transport is carried on by C.I.E. This is one of the few chances one gets of mentioning these matters without being referred to the 1950 Act. In the town of Bunclody, in my constituency—some of you may know it by its older name of Newtownbarry—a delivery system is carried out by C.I.E. If you are a tradesman or a merchant in Bunclody and you arrange to have stuff ordered in Dublin delivered by C.I.E., it is sent out from Dublin in the morning to Tullow, in County Carlow. It is kept there until a lorry comes from Enniscorthy which takes the stuff from Tullow and delivers it in Bunclody, after closing hours in the evening. This happens twice a week. That is the transport which C.I.E. is providing for the people of Wexford. I am sure every Deputy has had a similar experience in his own constituency.

I asked a question in reference to this matter because the last time I was in Bunclody, the merchants there came to me and told me that they had to pay their staffs overtime and keepthem at work after hours to suit the whim of C.I.E. The stuff arrives, if it ever does arrive, about 8.30 p.m.

We are asked to vote £2,000,000 to C.I.E., but yet the answer I get when I question the Minister in regard to these matters is that, under the 1950 Act, the Minister has no jurisdiction. If I were Minister for Industry and Commerce—I am sure I never shall be, and I am afraid I would not be a good Minister—I certainly would not agree to be bound by the 1950 Act, and if a Deputy asked me a question in reference to such complaints I would go to C.I.E. and say to whoever is in charge of the particular section concerned: "Look here, the Government has to provide you with £2,000,000 per year and the least you should do is to give some decent service to the public for that." If the Minister thinks that C.I.E. are giving the Irish people satisfaction, let him dwell for a while on the points which I have put to him.

I want to refer briefly to the railways. I think anyone with a constructive national approach to the problems of transport in this country must realise, especially bearing in mind the difficulties which we had to overcome during the emergency, that railways are an essential part of public transport in this country. Without railways we certainly could not carry on in time of emergency. If there should be another outbreak of war, we would again be absolutely dependent on the railways. Of course it is difficult to make railways pay now. Things have changed a lot with the passing years, but I do not think railways have been given justice in regard to the general transport arrangements of this country.

It seems to me that it has been arranged by whoever controls the transport of C.I.E. that you must have trains and buses all going in the same direction. There are certain parts of Ireland where people have to walk, travel by private car, ride a bicycle or go in any way they can, and there are other parts, on the main routes mostly, where you can go by bus or train.

I think I am right in saying—I was not Deputy in the House in the lastDáil—that some sort of a commission was set up by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Daniel Morrissey, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, to go into this question of transport. I think we had somebody over here to advise us on the matter, and I think that one of the principal things he advised was that the trains and the buses should not run in competition with each other. Am I right? I think I am. I do not know what that man came over here for or what he was paid to give us that advice, but it did not produce any results, anyway, because in my part of the country— and as far as I know in other parts of the country—the buses and trains continue running in opposition to one another.

Take the case of Bray. I think there are 84 buses per day travelling between Bray and Dublin. I may not have my figures quite right. Before C.I.E. came into existence and before the happy days when we shook a couple of million pounds round to keep these white elephants alive—real white elephants, not the ones we heard of 20 years ago—the Dublin South-Eastern Railway, on the Bray to Dublin line, carried all traffic economically. It was solvent and kept the line alive. It could be the same again to-day if given a chance but what chance has it with 84 buses per day going into Dublin? There might be some sense in it if they ran some buses from areas where there is no transport and bring the people to the railway station so that they could take the trains in to Dublin. Who will walk to a railway station if he can step into a bus in the main street? It may be a little difficult and hard on the residents but if it is going to save £2,000,000 or portion of the £2,000,000, it is worth considering.

Another piece of fatuous nonsense I heard about the other day was in connection with a branch line that was closed down somewhere in Ireland. A train has not run on it for some years. There are four or five houses on it with nobody living in them. Somebody was sent out the other day to paint them inside and out. That is the sort of thing that is being done in C.I.E.— money thrown away for nothing.

Nationalisation or State control at any time is a step in the wrong direction. Nobody wants that in this country. The railways and the public transport in this country are not actually nationalised, but I think we may say that they are next door to it. I think we must all speak with a sense of responsibility here now. Unfortunately, we have got to face up to the unpleasant fact that this firm is running at a heavy loss. I think there is only one solution to it. I think it would be better for the present governing board of C.I.E., whoever they may be, to be superseded.

We have in it, of course, very fine engineers, architects, running engineers and fine people who are concerned with transport and the timing of trains but what we really need in C.I.E. is somebody with a good business capacity. It would be worth the country's while to try and get somebody who is fully conversant with the running of transport and pay him to do it in order to try and save this country from the drain on our resources. There is not a bright future as we stand at present.

May I digress slightly, Sir, for a moment and refer to the rumours of deficits in Budgets, unhappy financial positions and a further increase in the cost of living? It is a natural sequence of events that the employees, the working men connected with C.I.E. will be looking for more money to subsidise their weekly budget. That means that you will have further overcharges on an already overburdened C.I.E. exchequer.

I suggest now to the Minister that he get hold of somebody who has got a real good business head and try and save Irish transport and take it out of the maelstrom and the muddle in which it is at the present time.

Mr. Cogan

I am rather afraid that Deputy Dr. Esmonde did not realise how fiercely and how emphatically he was condemning the whole policy of the inter-Party Government during their tenure of office in connection with road transport. When this whole problem came before the Government in 1950 they had it in their hands toabolish C.I.E. as it then was. It was not a nationalised body at the time, but it was centralised if you like. They had it in their hands to transfer the whole system of transport to private enterprise. What did they do? They introduced the 1950 Act which completely, thoroughly and finally nationalised the whole system of transport and established C.I.E. as a State company with a certain amount of independence from Dáil and ministerial control, but as a State company, State financed and State controlled. If there was anything in what Deputy Dr. Esmonde said and if he had any faith in what he said, he should have conveyed that message to Deputy Daniel Morrissey when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and to Deputy Cosgrave. Instead, we had by the 1950 Act the whole system of C.I.E. as a centralised State controlled transport company made permanent.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde went further and said that that company should have been placed in the hands of some man with business experience, with training in transport, and yet the decision of the Minister of his own Party and the Parliamentary Secretary of his own Party was to place control of C.I.E. in the hands of a permanent civil servant. A permanent civil servant, no matter how efficient he might be in his own Government Department, could hardly be expected to have any knowledge or experience of transport.

With that history before us, I think it is rather difficult to be patient with people like Deputy Dr. Esmonde. We know that this is a problem of extreme gravity and complexity. Previous Governments have not been able to solve it. Neither Fianna Fáil nor the inter-Party Government could find the ideal solution except by committing themselves to State aid for a centralised transport body and State aid, as we know, is a dangerous thing. It is something which carries with it the menace of permanent and growing inefficiency.

It is time to review the whole position without trying to make Party capital out of the situation and without trying to condemn any Party inconnection with the matter. I do not think that Deputy Dr. Esmonde added anything to the sum of our knowledge on the subject or made a constructive approach by his all-round condemnation of the present Government. He must realise that when another Government had this problem on their hands for three and a half years, they failed to solve it. I think it is necessary to take stock of the position before deciding to make any further large contribution to the upkeep of this company.

I regret to say that I did not hear the Minister's statement. I am not sure, therefore, whether or not he stated the particular branches of C.I.E. in which losses were incurred in the main. I think everybody knows that the greater portion of the deficit is in relation to the maintenance of the rail system. Deputy Dr. Esmonde agrees that the rail system must be maintained. Therefore, even if we make him Minister for Industry and Commerce—a position which, he says, he does not desire—we shall still be committed to maintaining the rail service which is unable to pay its way.

The Minister's suggestion for an improvement of the rail service either by the introduction of diesel traction or by any other system is to be welcomed. I feel, however, that it might be better if C.I.E. cleared off the roads altogether so far as goods transport is concerned. Everybody agrees that C.I.E. can give a reasonably efficient passenger service, but it is very difficult to imagine how a large centralised company such as C.I.E., maintaining a huge fleet of freight lorries, can utilise those lorries to the best advantage and make them pay. I feel that it is an impossible and unnecessary task. So far as goods transport is concerned, private enterprise can fill the bill adequately. It is only in the matter of passenger and rail transport that a State or centralised body is required. Therefore, I think it would simplify the problem if C.I.E. withdrew completely from road transport. I do not think they can handle the service efficiently and I do not think they should be expected tohandle it. I feel that private enterprise can handle that service to the satisfaction of the community.

If C.I.E. were confined to the task of maintaining the essential railways and of giving a passenger and goods service on those railways and also to the task of providing adequate bus services where required and where they do not compete with the railways, they would do as much as it is necessay for them to do. Private enterprise could look after the carriage of goods. I do not think that C.I.E. should be under the legal obligations which they are under to give a goods service in every area. I think that their liabilities, responsibilities and expenses should be cut down. One thing is certain: this nation cannot go on subsidising transport. Sooner or later —and the sooner the better—that subsidisation must cease. The general taxpayer should not be asked or expected to provide the finance to carry on a transport system. The system should be able to stand on its own feet.

Another point which must be made clear is that there must be no interference with the right of the private citizen to convey goods by lorry. The free operation of goods lorries is absolutely essential to the business life and to the agricultural industry of this country. The more freedom we have in regard to goods transport by road the better for all concerned. There are people who say that the private lorry owner does not pay as good wages or give as good conditions of employment to his employees as C.I.E.

We are living in a competitive age and anyone who is connected with organised labour knows that there are thousands of well-paid workers in the employment of private lorry-owners and licensed hauliers who are well satisfied with the conditions under which they work. It would be terrible to deprive those men of their employment, but it would be even more serious to deprive commerce and industry and agriculture of the free and flexible system which private enterprise provides for the conveyance of goods to and from every portion of the country. Furthermore, it would bevery dangerous if the entire transport of this State were in the hands of a monopoly when the entire economic life of the nation could be paralysed overnight by a trade dispute. So long as you have privately-owned lorries to convey goods there is no danger that the people in the towns and cities will ever be held up to ransom with regard to their food supplies or that the farming community will be refused a market for their produce. Therefore, I say emphatically that whatever we do and whatever problems may face C.I.E. we must preserve the system of private enterprise in regard to road transport. I suppose it is equally true that the private citizen should be free to travel by his own car or by whatever means of transport he wishes to employ. The essential thing to bear in mind is that it is important that the vital interests of the nation be considered—and the vital interests of the nation demand that the greatest possible measure of free enterprise should be allowed to operate.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I wish to make an earnest appeal to the Minister, on the matter of this very great problem of transport, to give another chance to some of the branch lines which it is proposed to close in the near future or which, at least, are the subject of notice. I know that the pros and cons of the case in relation to broad policy will be dealt with by the tribunal, but we must regard these branch lines as feeders of our main lines. It is not enough to regard them individually as a unit: we must regard them as feeders of the main lines.

We must have some regard for the communities which live in our small rural towns. They are up against much opposition to-day. There are two towns in my constituency which are seriously affected at the moment by the proposal to close branch lines. If that policy is persisted in it will mean the death knell of these towns. If, for example, the lines were kept open on fair and market days it would mean a good deal for the towns concerned. It is felt by those in the cattle trade, and others,that if the cattle which are now transported from these local fairs by rail are to be brought by road the farmer will be called upon to take a reduced price for them and that, rather than do that, he will divert his cattle to fairs held in a town, perhaps not very far distant from him, where there are rail facilities. For these and the other reasons which I have stated, we feel that these branch lines should be given another chance, particularly in view of the developments in relation to diesel cars. We think that the diesel cars should get a trial on these branch lines.

We cannot understand the policy that is being pursued by the management of a great concern such as C.I.E. On the one hand, they are aiming at carrying out economies by closing these branch lines while on the other hand they are embarking on very considerable expenditure in the reriveting, repainting and rehabilitation of a large railway bridge which spans the river Blackwater over one of these branch lines. Why is that being done in view of the fact that the closing of that branch line is under review? We regard that as a waste of money. It seems to indicate that, so far as the management of C.I.E. is concerned, there is room for much inquiry.

The last Deputy who spoke shed what, I feel, were crocodile tears in his concern for the private haulier. We must, of course, remember that he was one of the Deputies who, only a few months ago, walked into the Lobby to vote for a measure that was deliberately designed to drive the private haulier out of business by increasing the taxation on him and by diverting the goods, formerly transported by him, into the hands of C.I.E. The Deputy said that he was in favour of competition. I suggest that what happened in that case was not fair competition. The private hauliers that he spoke about, many of them, have lost their employment over the past six months. They are now approaching us and asking us to try and find some position for them. I think it is rather late in the day for Deputy Cogan to try and recover the ground which helost by being a party to a policy that was designed to drive these people out of existence.

As a result of that policy, we have to bear increased costs to-day for the transport of the raw materials which we require for industry and agriculture. Those engaged in lorry transport either have to take a reduced profit for their labours or else increase the cost on the consuming public. I, therefore, cannot believe that Deputy Cogan has made an honest case. I cannot accept him as an advocate of private enterprise. He was a party to the action of the Government, that he now supports, in trying to drive these people out of business.

I should like to finish on this note, that at the moment there is considerable unrest throughout the country at the increase that has taken place in the rates. It is felt that our roads to-day are carrying vehicles of a weight that they were never intended to carry. Consequently, the maintenance of the roads is becoming a matter of very grave concern for the local authorities. The closing of the branch lines, in our opinion is not going to alleviate that situation. I would appeal to the Minister to have special regard to the continued maintenance of these branch lines. They are required by the rural population. It is on record that, where branch lines have been closed in the past, the neighbouring small towns and villages have disappeared in consequence. I would appeal to the Minister to give them another break. Facts in support of the demand for their continued maintenance are being collected and will be put before the transport authority.

There is no question but that in dealing with C.I.E. we are faced with one of the greatest problems before the country, namely, the problem of national transport. It is conceded that, in time of emergency, it is absolutely essential to have an efficient rail system operating throughout the country. As many Deputies have already pointed out, it is certainly bad business to run road passenger services side by side with the railways. That system has been in existence for sometime. We feel that it is one of the things which has been conducive to the situation with which we are faced to-day. Consequently, we feel that much could be done in the way of having a rearrangement of the internal management of C.I.E., so that buses would be employed only as feeders to main and branch lines. In that way, they would be employed bringing business to the railways instead of being, as they are at present, used to compete with the trains on the main lines.

Mr. Gallagher

I think Deputy O'Sullivan must have completely forgotten that it was the Coalition Government which appointed the present board of directors of C.I.E., the board which the Deputy has claimed is responsible for all the troubles from which C.I.E. is suffering at the moment. I suggest to the Deputy that he should be fair in his approach to a question like this and should state the facts. I think he should tell the truth of the matter. He knows that there was a certain gentleman fired, if you like, by the Coalition Government and that he was blackguarded throughout the length and breadth of Ireland because of his work in C.I.E. The present board of directors was appointed, as I say, by the previous Government. I think it was the present Minister for Industry and Commerce who said on one occasion that they are there and cannot be removed unless they either go bankrupt or go mad.

Mr. O. Flanagan

It is time that the whole lot of them were removed.

Mr. Gallagher

Well, you are the people who appointed them, and if the present transport problem in the country is difficult, you have got to take as much blame for it as anybody else. You cannot have it both ways. I think Deputy O'Sullivan should face the facts. He talked about buses running alongside the railways. We have heard Deputy Corry talk on that, too, from time to time. The Deputy does not want the buses running alongside the trains and he does not want the branch lines closed. What I suggest to the Deputy and to his colleagues isthat, when they are making speeches on this subject, they should remember that if there are any flaws in the transport position at the moment it is the people in their Party who are responsible for them.

Mr. Hickey

I would be anxious to hear your solution to the problem.

Mr. Gallagher

I can only speak in regard to Dublin. I would say at this stage that the board, as bad as they are painted, have certainly made a great improvement in the transport services in Dublin, and I sincerely hope that every effort will be made, and I am satisfied it will be made, to improve bus services to outlying districts such as Finglas, Ballyfermot and other places. Great improvement has taken place. There was a big hold-up due to the electricians' strike. That has been remedied and, as far as Dublin is concerned, we have a very good service of buses in the city which is a credit to C.I.E. I do not think the bus services in other cities in the world are as good as the service in this city. The conductors and drivers are very courteous, and during peak periods do everything possible to meet the big demand on them.

I would ask the Fine Gael people to remember that they put in this board. They put in the present managing director, and he is there for a certain time. They should face the fact that they are responsible for all the faults about which Deputy O'Sullivan is talking.

As far as C.I.E. is concerned, there is a big problem and, as has been said, it is one that will not be solved overnight. Whatever money the Minister is looking for, it is to continue men in employment. If they do not get this money, are they to be thrown out on the street? Are the men in Inchicore, Broadstone and elsewhere to be put on the labour exchanges? If that is to be the position, the Opposition will be looking for the figures of men sacked from Broadstone, Inchicore and elsewhere. There is a big problem. It is a question of giving this extra money to keep men in employment and to maintain the services. At least we arebeing honest about it on this side. We are facing the facts. We are providing the money. We are not like the Coalition. Before they went out of office money was needed for C.I.E. and they failed to give it. They failed to provide the money and when Fianna Fáil came back we had to pay their debts for C.I.E. That is ancient history by now but it is no harm to repeat the truth. It was a task that we had to carry out and we certainly did it.

It is well to remind the people on the other side of the House that they were not defeated in this House; they were not put out; they were not defeated here on a vote. They left of their own accord but, when they did leave, they certainly left us a headache in regard to debts to C.I.E. They scuttled the ship, if you like, and the Tánaiste felt that he would have to meet the debts in order to keep the system going and to keep the workers that are still there in employment. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot keep the system going unless you have money. We are being honest. We are telling you exactly what we want and not leaving anybody else to pay our debts. That has never been our practice and I do not think it ever will be.

Once more, I would pay tribute to the improved services in Dublin and I sincerely hope they will continue.

Mr. O. Flanagan

No matter what Deputy Gallagher may think about the improved bus services in Dublin, he must admit that Deputy Liam Cosgrave, Deputy Alfie Byrne and Deputy Tom Byrne are the three men responsible for that. It is well known and widely known that that is the case. Deputy Alfred Byrne, in particular, has left nothing undone and it is to his credit that there are considerable improvements in the bus services in and around Dublin.

Mr. Hickey

It is little wonder that the transport service and other services are as they are, having regard to the speeches we have had to listen to.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Hickey is quite right. This is nonsense.

Mr. O. Flanagan

There is DeputyCowan expressing his regrets because he did not get a bus service for some part of his constituency.

Captain Cowan

I have nothing to do with buses.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am glad the Deputy is admitting that. May I inquire at the outset if the Tánaiste has travelled by bus or train recently and, if so, when?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

What bearing has that on the Estimate?

Mr. O. Flanagan

In the course of the Minister's statement introducing the Estimate he dealt with the various aspects of C.I.E. But anyone who is in close contact with C.I.E. or who travels by C.I.E. knows quite well the reasons for their failure, the reasons for the bad service and why they are going from bad to worse.

The Great Southern Railway, to a fairly successful extent, carried out transport operations for a considerable time. I imagine that it would have been much better to have left them alone rather than for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Government to bring about the birth of C.I.E. In the event of this Estimate being approved by the House, will we get a guarantee from the Tánaiste that no more employees of C.I.E. will be dismissed either permanently or temporarily? Will we get a guarantee from the Tánaiste that existing services will not be curtailed? Can we have a guarantee from the Tánaiste that the existing services, whether good or bad, will not be taken from the public?

I do not think the Tánaiste has given any guarantee that dismissals from C.I.E. will not continue in future. Surely the Minister must be very well aware that in Limerick, in my own constituency and in Dublin dismissals from C.I.E. have not been on a small scale. Many fathers of families who are employed in C.I.E. do not know whether they will be in their employment next month or not.

Deputy Dr. Esmonde compared C.I.E. with any other business concern. He was quite right in doing so. I am sure the Minister for Industry andCommerce would have to agree with Deputy Dr. Esmonde when he says that if there was any particular board of directors administering the affairs of a company in such a way as to lose, not only thousands, but millions of pounds in the year they would not be left in charge of the concern. It does not matter what Government put them there; I am inclined again on this occasion to agree with Deputy Hickey that after all the talk as to what the first Government did, or what the second Government did, or what the third Government did, it is the Government that is in power that has the responsibility, no matter what other Governments did.

Mr. Gallagher

To pay the debts.

Mr. O. Flanagan

The Government that is in has the responsibility. If the Government of the day finds that a board cannot discharge their duties economically and efficiently, it is their job to change the board. It is their job to replace them by sound and practical business men who will run the concern at a profit, not a loss.

Captain Cowan

What would it cost the State to dismiss them?

Mr. O. Flanagan

I am quite sure that the Government realise that they have their responsibility. But, when they are depending on a number of Independent Deputies to support them in the event of taking drastic action, we cannot expect them to take drastic action in that respect. We know quite well that what is responsible for some of the recent losses of C.I.E. and for a large portion of this Estimate is the last Budget. C.I.E. have a large number of lorries and private cars belonging to the company as well as the buses and that all these vehicles must be taxed.

These vehicles must be taxed by C.I.E. at the Government's increased rates. As has been pointed out, owing to the continued increase in the cost of living, the trade unions representing the various workers in C.I.E. have made just claims for increases in wages and these must also be met. I am convinced that, if it were not for thelast Budget of the Minister for Finance, C.I.E.'s financial position would not be as bad as it is or will be in the future. With regard to employment in C.I.E., it cannot be denied that a large number of workers are at present on half-time or short-time and that every effort is being made by the company to have their staffs very drastically reduced.

Deputy O'Higgins made reference to the closing of the branch lines and expressed the genuine grievance which people in particular areas have at being deprived of their branch lines. We know that in areas where there are no bus services or road services provided the rail services are the backbone of the fairs which are held in the different towns. If you close the branch lines in these areas, you will kill the fairs, which will mean killing the trade in the towns, because buyers and others interested in live stock will go somewhere where there are services provided and the towns as a result of the branch lines being closed will be reduced to deserted villages.

Everybody knows that it is very unbusinesslike and improper that C.I.E. should have railway services running in competition with road services. They should have a definite policy as to whether they are going to operate on the railway lines or on the roads. If C.I.E. developed the railway services on a larger and better and more efficient scale and used the buses to feed the railway services then they might show some profit some time, or at least endeavour to pay their own way. I think it would be well worth a trial. In the West of Ireland we have railway services and bus services, one taking traffic from the other. We have C.I.E. lorries taking the transport of merchandise away from railways. Yet we are told that a case can be put up that such-and-such a branch line must be closed because it it not paying. Figures will be produced by C.I.E. to show that a particular branch line is not paying, while at the same time traffic is being diverted from the railways to the roads.

In my constituency, a number of branch lines have been temporarilyclosed and are about to be permanently closed. The Transport Tribunal invited interested parties to put forward their case for the reopening of the branch lines. That is not the duty of the local people. It is the duty of C.I.E. and the Transport Tribunal to give the local people the reasons for closing down the various branch lines. It is most irregular and most unbusinesslike that the local people in a particular area must put forward a case. I believe it is the duty of C.I.E. to put forward their case for the closing of the lines. The suggestion put forward by Deputies on this side of the House is well worthy of consideration, namely, that copies of the case put forward by C.I.E. for the closing of any branch lines should be furnished to county councils, county committees of agriculture, town commissioners, development associations and other responsible people who have made protests.

I do not know what C.I.E.'s plans are for the development of the canals, whether it is proposed to leave the canals as they are, whether it is proposed to develop them or what it is proposed to do about them. The position is that the C.I.E. has taken over the Grand Canal Company. They have taken over the various canal stores and offices and they are responsible for the payment of rents, rates and taxes and for the administration of the canal company generally. The Minister has made no reference to this. We should hear what C.I.E.'s plans are in connection with the canals. It is only right that C.I.E. should face up to their responsibilities, where they have responsibilities.

Time and again representations have been made to the canal section that they should undertake the repair of certain canal roads or lines, as they are called, and on each occasion C.I.E. have refused to accept responsibility and stated that it was the duty of the local authority to repair the various canal roads and lines, despite the fact that they have put up notices that the canal roads and lines are private property and that transport over a certain laden weight must not use them. I think that C.I.E. and the Minister would be very well advised to examinethat whole situation, because repeated representations have been made, even by Fianna Fáil Deputies representing Laois and Offaly regarding the canal road at Ballycommon, which is the only road to the Catholic church. Repeated representations have been made to C.I.E. That body's engineers have been down and have interviewed the parish priest. Nothing has been done and the position is now so deplorable the local people cannot use any kind of transport along that particular road. The repair of that road is definitely the responsibility of C.I.E.

The railway carriages and the buses that are operated by C.I.E. at the present time are no credit to our transport system in this year of grace, 1953. We hear a good deal of talk of An Tóstal and the advantages that will accrue to the country as a result of that festival. We hear a good deal about the manner in which we propose to receive the visitors to this country on that occasion. If any of the people who come here care to have a joy ride down the country in C.I.E. buses they will take away with them a very strange experience.

The buses on the long-distance routes at the moment were too old for the scrapheap ten years ago. They are noisy; they backfire constantly. There are explosions and stoppages on the route, to say nothing of all the stops in the different towns. There are extraordinary smells from the exhaust. The buses on the long-distance routes at the moment are a disgrace. It is only right that Deputies on an occasion such as this should direct the attention of the company and the House to the disgraceful type of vehicle in which the people are expected to travel.

A bus leaves Mountmellick at 7.45 a.m. It reaches the City of Dublin at 10.25. Mountmellick is only 52 miles from the city. It is odd that one cannot have a bit of comfort in those three hours travelling a distance of 50 miles, and it puzzles me that anyone avails of this service. The services all round are too slow. There are the most extraordinary delays. Take the buses coming from Cork and Limerick. The first inquiry people make at Roscrea is to ask where is the nearestchemist so that they can get plasters or rubs for their backs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy seems to be going into detail on this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I think it is very important that we should go into detail. If we have to contribute towards C.I.E. we equally have the right to ensure that the people will be given a reasonably good service. The buses are draughty. The windows are broken. The winds blow in from every quarter. Everyone who travels by bus knows that. The door at the end of the bus is left open, possibly to enable the conductor to discharge his duties. The windows, as I said, are also open, and there is a through draught right up through the centre of the bus. There are no heating facilities. In fact, one would be far better off running either behind or before the bus. The passengers know that quite well.

The bus services are deplorable. People will now endeavour to travel any other way they possibly can in order to avoid travelling by bus. I am sure the Minister and Deputy MacBride and Deputy Cowan will agree that in the London buses one at least has a comfortable seat. In Paris there will not be 15 or 20 minute stops in every second street.

Captain Cowan

The buses do not travel too slowly either.

Mr. O. Flanagan

They do not travel too slowly. The same can be said of the bus services in Turin.

Mr. Gallagher

The Deputy has been around.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I have travelled. I am sure when the Deputy was at the Olympic Games last year and travelled in buses abroad he was able to compare the mode of transport and the cleanliness of the buses——

Captain Cowan

Poor old Ireland!

Mr. O. Flanagan

——and notice the difference between them and the buses we have here.

Mr. Gallagher

At times I could not get a seat at all.

Captain Cowan

The trains are only dog-boxes.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If the trains are only dog-boxes they would be just what would suit the Deputy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Flanagan should confine himself to the Estimate and get away from these irrelevancies.

Mr. O. Flanagan

I do not propose to offer any more serious criticism of C.I.E. services.

Mr. Gallagher

On a point of order. Did I take it that Deputy Flanagan said that if the trains were only dog-boxes they were fit for me.

Mr. O. Flanagan

Fit for Deputy Cowan. I know that your physical ability is much greater than Deputy Cowan's.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have asked Deputy Flanagan to cease the personalities and get back to the Estimate.

Mr. Gallagher

Is Deputy Flanagan's remark in order?

Mr. O. Flanagan

It must have been in order.

Captain Cowan

It does not matter. This is great gas.

Mr. O. Flanagan

If any step is taken by C.I.E. or by the Government to deprive private hauliers and private lorry owners of the right of discharging their obligations it will be met with very, very serious and strenuous opposition by the people in the country. I hope that the Government will long delay consideration of any decision in that respect. The Minister knows that protests have reached his office from all quarters. I think it would be most unfair to deprive industrial concerns and companies of the right to transport their own goods in their own commercial vehicles. This Party will do its utmost to oppose any action of the Government in interfering with therights of private citizens to use their own lorries whatever way they like and for as long as they like. If any action is taken in that respect by C.I.E. or the Minister and his Department it will have very serious consequences on industry.

There is one industry in my constituency which sends large consignments of their particular products from Clara in Offaly to Donegal, for example. If that concern had to avail of the services provided by C.I.E. it would suffer considerable inconvenience. It would suffer financial loss and that would result in loss of employment by those who are at present engaged in the business.

I hope that even the Fianna Fáil Deputies will have the courage to make themselves heard and felt in order to ensure that nothing will be done to deprive private concerns of the use of their own lorries. I understand that this matter is still under consideration by the Government. On an occasion such as this the Minister should indicate to the House what the future prospects are and he should state whether it is proposed at an early date to restrict the distance over which private lorries can travel or whether it is proposed to give an assurance to the owners of such lorries. I am sure that most of our industries and most of our business concerns are very deeply disturbed by any attempt or even by a suggestion that the mileage of the lorries should be in any way limited.

I am opposed very strongly to this, and the Party with which I have the honour to be associated will certainly do their utmost to defeat the Government in any such attempt to deprive the people of the right to use their own lorries when they like and how they like.

Captain Cowan

We always have a discussion on C.I.E. something on the lines of the discussion this evening, and we always have from Deputy Flanagan a speech such as he has just made. Deputy Flanagan knows that proposals have been made to the Government by the Board of C.I.E. for the purpose of limiting or restricting the mileage of private lorries. Therehave been many serious objections to that course from many parts of the country, but I think that a proposal such as that is a proposal that must receive very deep consideration from the Government and from every person who is concerned with the problem of finding employment for our transport workers in the transport industry. Up to the moment no decision has been taken and no decision could very well be taken.

It is just as well we should remember that the proposal has been made by the board that was appointed by the last Government and that board, as was stated at the time, was the very type of board that should not be appointed by a Government to deal with a problem such as the transport problem. It was a question when they were appointed of trying to reconcile certain conflicting interests. It was a question of trying to provide space on the board for representatives of particular groups. It was obvious that the board, so constituted and so appointed, could not possibly handle the difficult situation which they had to face and, as the Minister has said on many occasions, the Government and the Minister are saddled with this board for a particular period of time. If the Government or the Minister were to dismiss that board to-morrow it would cost the taxpayers of the country quite a considerable sum of money.

Mr. Hickey

I thought it was a five-year period.

Captain Cowan

But the five-year period is not up yet. The position then is that, so far as the particular board is concerned, we have it for a period of five years from the date they were appointed, and what the House will have to consider is not the crossroads type of contribution we had a few minutes ago but this very serious problem in all its ramifications and complications.

The point has been made that there is competition between the C.I.E. road service and the C.I.E. rail service and that competition is objected to as being wasteful and inefficient. But inthe very same breath there is an objection taken to the closing of branch lines that are inefficient. It is very hard to understand the logic of some of the contributions we have in this House from time to time. If competition between road and rail is inefficient and wasteful, and if it is sought by the board of C.I.E. to eliminate some of that competition, I do not think they can be condemned on both sides.

Transport in this and every other country is not a thing that is static. Is is a thing that is changing from decade to decade. C.I.E. bus and lorry transport and C.I.E. rail services are very seriously hit by the private motor-car and by the private lorry. The Minister and the Government can step out of it, and they can let the competition exist between the private motor-car and the railways and the buses or between the private lorries and the goods services of C.I.E. road or rail. They could do that, but we would have a position of absolute chaos. I do not think anybody wants the form of regimentation that is suggested by Deputy Flanagan and other Deputies; in other words, that people will be obliged to travel in a particular way. That is a suggestion that is there. There is the suggestion of absolutely free and unrestricted competition, and in the same breath there is the suggestion of regimentation so that unfortunate people will have to travel the way they are ordered to travel.

Taking our rail and bus services by and large, they are as good as you will get in any other country in the world, and they are better than the transport services that are provided in quite a number of countries. As far as I can judge it, the whole trade union movement would be anxious that there should be some organisation of goods services and some organisation of passenger services. It has always been a plank in Labour Party policy that transport should be completely under public control. If we have the competition that is there at the moment between very heavy lorries and the lorries owned by C.I.E. and the trains run by C.I.E. it is obviousthere must be waste and inefficiency everywhere. I move to report progress.

Progress reported.

The Committee to sit again to-morrow.

Votes 58 (Pr. 1452), 58 (Pr. 1498), 17, 34 and 47, reported and agreed to.