When the debate on this Supplementary Estimate was adjourned last night, I was referring to some aspects of the unfair competition which C.I.E. has to meet in the operation of its road freight services —this unfair competition which has bedevilled the success of C.I.E. in that sphere of its operations down through the years. I was referring in particular to the fact that, in the main, the people against whom the C.I.E. road freight department have to compete are people whose vehicles are manned by crews who are paid very low rates of wages; are compelled to work extra hours on duty without any overtime pay and whose conditions of employment generally are not at all comparable with those payable by C.I.E. to the people manning their lorries.
One way of giving C.I.E. a fair crack of the whip to enable them to compete on equal terms with their competitors would be for the Minister to establish a joint labour committee for road freight transport under the Industrial Relations Act. The establishment of such a committee would result in the prescribing of set rates of wages, conditions of service and all people, whether C.I.E. or other concerns, would then have to compete for the available traffic on the road on equal terms.
The Minister referred to the illegal haulage which, of course, is one of the chief difficulties confronting C.I.E. There is no need for me to outline at any great length the extent to which illegal haulage is being operated in every county and town in Ireland. Every Deputy with an eye in his head must be well aware of it. The Minister knows the extent of it and I know it. He indicated that he hoped, by administrative action, to combat the illegal haulage activities of the people who are engaged in it at the moment.
I am suggesting to the Minister that, in the very first instance, he will have to allocate to that duty a greater number of Gardaí. The detection of illegal haulage is a very difficult job for the ordinary Garda stationed in our country towns. The law itself is very complicated and the Gardaí are reluctant to bring people into court. Several devices are used to get away with illegal haulage. My information is—and I am open to correction—that in the whole Republic the number of Gardaí specially allocated to this duty is only two. Only two members of the Garda are allocated specifically to the detection of illegal haulage. That appears to me to be a preposterous situation. It is better to have none at all than expect such a small number of men to make any impact on this illegal practice.
I would urge the Minister, when he comes to make a decision in regard to the administrative measures he hopes to employ, to make quite sure it will be easier for the ordinary Garda in the country to detect illegal haulage. I suggest that all commercial goods carrying vehicles should be issued with trade plates by the carriage department and that each vehicle should have prominently displayed on it the name, the address and the business. In that way, you would get away from these nondescript lorries one sees at every fair and market in our Irish towns which are obviously operating illegally. These are some of the administrative measures that I feel might be helpful in combating what the Minister obviously regards as the very widespread practice of illegal haulage.
Turning to the road passenger side of the C.I.E. undertaking, I must join issue with the Minister. He stated— and quite rightly—that the kernel of the problem is the existence here of an excess of transport facilities. I agree with him, but I cannot then sort out in my own mind, if the Minister holds that view, why he made arrangements whereby foreign coaches can operate extended tours in Ireland during the tourist season. The position up to now appears to me to be that C.I.E. were handling that branch of our tourist industry in a very efficient way. In comments by people who have come here on holidays, I have heard nothing but praise for the C.I.E. tours.
These tours were operated with specially-designed coaches built at Inchicore. They provided extra employment in their building and in their operation. I felt that that was a field of our transport endeavour and of our tourist traffic endeavour that was wide open to expansion. C.I.E. appeared to be making quite a good thing of it. The revenue accruing to C.I.E. from that type of traffic was not inconsiderable. I cannot see why the Minister should then change his horses, so to speak, and allow foreign coaches to come in here, manned by foreign crews, to take over this part of our transport industry. I do not know what good will accrue to our transport industry or what good will accrue to our tourist industry by having foreign buses, manned by foreign crews, coming here and foreign couriers with, perhaps, Cockney accents describing the beauties of our countryside and its historical connections to the tourists. There must be some reason which influenced the Minister on that matter. He should make that reason known to this House and perhaps reconsider his decision in the light of further representations.
So far, I have pointed out what this House might do and what the Minister might do to help C.I.E. We all realise that there are many things which C.I.E. themselves can do, many things which they have neglected to do and many things which it behoves them to get "cracking on" as quickly as possible. In one part of their report, the Committee on Internal Transport said there was a regrettable absence of friendly co-operation between the management and the trade unions. It is obvious from that that the committee realised the importance of good relations between the employees and the management of our transport undertaking. It is obvious that the committee realised the value of having co-operation at all levels in the carrying-out of our transport industry.
The position taken up by the board of C.I.E. in that connection appears to be that they said that, in their experience, the unions are not interested in such co-operation. The board claims that the unions are interested only in rates of pay and conditions of service and that they rarely, if ever, go out of their way to take further part in co-operation with the management in running the industry. In a communication sent to the Minister by the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation, after the publication of the Transport Committee's Report, the union deals with the situation there. I think that what they conveyed to the Minister in that communication should be placed on the records of this House so that, once and for all, there will be no ambiguity as to the trade union's approach to co-operation in the transport industry.
They pointed out as follows to the Minister:—
"On the 22nd August, 1956, the secretary of the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation wrote to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce drawing his attention to the series of complaints and grievances which had been brought to its attention and which militated seriously against achieving improved efficiency in C.I.E. and harmonious relations between the board and its employees. At a meeting convened by the Minister and presided over by the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce, held on the 2nd October, both sides agreed to accept ‘the principle of joint consultation between C.I.E. and the staff through the provision of regular means of consultation between the management and the staff and affording opportunities for co-operation and discussion on matters of mutual interest including efficiency in the working of the undertaking and the development of their business and the best use of manpower.' The official statement issued after the meeting stated that the management would take all possible steps to implement this principle of joint consultation and that both sides undertook to approach the concept of consultation in a spirit of harmony and co-operation.
"It was not until the 24th November that the chairman of C.I.E. requested the Provisional United Trade Union Organisation to appoint representatives to discuss with the board the way in which the question of joint consultation should be approached. A meeting for this purpose was held on the 11th December at which the chairman of C.I.E. outlined the board's view as to how joint consultation should operate and the machinery necessary to this end. On the 12th February, 1957, the Provisional United Organisation wrote to the chairman of C.I.E. requesting that discussions with the unions concerned with the setting-up of joint consultation machinery for rail operative and rail shop grades should commence as soon as possible, but it was not until the 10th April that a meeting for this purpose was convened by C.I.E. At the meeting the trade union representatives set out at some length the unions' proposals on joint consultation and a document incorporating these proposals was submitted to the chairman at that meeting."
Nothing has happened since.
Sixteen months ago, the trade unions catering for members in C.I.E. asked the board to take some steps to set up joint consultation. The board, as is obvious from the communication I have just read out, have fiddled with that matter ever since. They have accepted the principle, but it is obvious from the procrastination, the delay and the obstructive tactics which they have employed that they are not interested in joint consultation. In that respect, I may say they differ from similar transport boards in practically every country in Europe, to a large extent, and to the greatest extent in Great Britain.
The British Transport Commission have joint consultation machinery. There are regular meetings between the management and the staff not alone at top level but right down to the local stations. The employees can discuss their grievances. The management can discuss the mutual problems of themselves and their staff in a friendly and agreeable atmosphere. Ready solutions can be found to most problems and petty grievances such as very often arise in C.I.E. and fester into major disputes can very often be hammered out at local level. I hope the Minister will convey to the board of C.I.E. his desire—I feel it must be his desire— to have joint consultation between management and staff.
I feel that C.I.E. have fallen down in regard to public relations. We are all aware of the unfriendly and critical attitude of the Press towards C.I.E. That is unfair, I think, but the C.I.E. Board, themselves, appear to have done little or nothing about it. Any organisation which is unfairly attacked or unfairly criticised should have an up-to-date public relations department to let the people know exactly what is happening and what the difficulties of our transport undertaking are. The public would then be in a position to judge for themselves and much of the unfair criticism against C.I.E. would thus be nipped in the bud.
Furthermore, C.I.E. have not been as active as they might be in getting out after the traffic. Too often, they just sit back and hope the traffic will come to them. Too often, even when they know that illegal haulage is being carried on, they will not get involved. They will not go to the fairs and markets and compete for traffic. They are being given a wonderful opportunity now, as announced by the Minister, in having discretion in quoting freight rates. Amongst their own staff at the moment, there are people who have given many years' service in the transport industry and who would make excellent canvassers. I do hope that, if C.I.E. embark on a campaign of open competition and canvassing all types of traffic, they will not get the idea that some Deputies appear to have of employing experts in that field. The best people that can be employed on that type of work are the people who have served on the railways, who know the railway job, who have been engaged in transport all their lives and who know what the customer is looking for.
I do hope that an active and vigorous campaign will be undertaken by C.I.E. to win back the traffic that has been lost and to gain new traffic. I hope that they will get it out of their heads, once and for all, that the whole concern and every aspect of its activities must be managed from Kingsbridge, Broadstone or Inchicore. I hope they have learned their lesson in that regard and that there will be no small degree of decentralisation of the activities of C.I.E.
There are district superintendents and station masters in large depots who are little more than rubber stamps, as far as the business of the railways is concerned. They have certain minor powers, but, if anything arises outside them, they must get on the telephone to Kingsbridge, or wire or write Kingsbridge, and by the time that is done, the traffic is lost or, if it is a matter of some labour dispute, the dispute has got worse. I repeat what I said before, that I hope the Minister will urge the new board at least to tackle this problem and to decentralise control in these matters.
There is wide scope in the C.I.E. organisation for the introduction of up-to date business methods. From my experience of the clerical side, the system of bookkeeping and correspondence employed by C.I.E. is antediluvian. I hope somebody will be brought along to the C.I.E. organisation who will study that aspect of the matter and, to the benefit of the board, of the staff and of the people of the country generally, modernise the methods employed by C.I.E. in its offices, goods stores and depots.
Before going from C.I.E. to the anticipated merger with G.N.R., of which I will have something to say, there are just two more points. I hope the present transitional difficulties of C.I.E. will not be used as an excuse by the board for rejecting the wage claims that will shortly be before it from the supervisory and wages grades staffs of the company. It could well be that this would be used as an excuse. As we are all aware, the trade union organisations, with the help of the Minister, made a very wise agreement with the employers' organisations to secure increased remuneration to meet the increased cost of living. I think the trade union movement acted in a most responsible manner and I think the Minister appreciates the efforts that the trade union movement made to avoid any kind of friction and major disputes. The railway trade union were not unconnected with that effort and I do hope that the already low living standards of railways workers will not be further depressed by the use of the current difficulties as an excuse to deprive them of the increases that every other worker in the country is getting at the moment.
Lastly on C.I.E., I hope that the old board, before it goes out, will dispose of the moral obligation it has in relation to its older pensioners. In reply to a question in the House yesterday, the Minister informed me that there are over 1,000 ex-C.I.E. men drawing pensions of 6/- per week and there are another 1,000 drawing pensions of between 6/- and £1. I know, they know, and we all know that they have no legal entitlement to an increase in their pensions, that there is no legal obligation on the board of C.I.E. to increase them, but I am suggesting, and it cannot be contradicted, that there is a grave moral obligation on the board of C.I.E. to do justice to these old people who worked in the railways at a time when wages were particularly depressed, who gave 40 to 50 years' honourable service and who are now thrown on the scrap heap on pensions as low as 6/- per week.
There are one or two points that I should like to make regarding the pending amalgamation of that portion of the G.N.R. which is in our territory with C.I.E. These amalgamated lines in future, under the new legislation, will be under a new board charged with operating a new policy. Part of that policy was indicated by the Minister when he stated that they would be charged with keeping open railway lines, except under certain conditions. I want to draw to the Minister's attention developments that are taking place and that have taken place quite recently on sections of the G.N.R. which he might re-examine and he might direct them to stay their hand until they come under the new board which will be operating a new policy.
The Minister is aware that passenger services were withdrawn from the Dundalk-Clones branch as recently as October. That appears to me to be a branch that might profitably be operated by diesel car and it is a branch that quite possibly, in the ordinary course, would be kept open to passenger traffic by the new board operating a new policy. Then there is the case of the Oldcastle branch. There is an application before the Transport Tribunal to withdraw passenger services from this branch. Again, the same argument applies, that that should not be allowed until the new board takes over and investigates the position.
It appears that the G.N.R. have utilised diesel railway cars which were released through the closure of secondary lines in the North of Ireland. They have been used and concentrated solely on the Belfast-Derry route. I do not know why that should be so. They could be used on the lines I have referred to.
I do not know if there is anything in the suggestion that, on the abandonment of the existing agreement, there is some question of the division of the assets of the G.N.R. I find it hard to believe that the agreement is so loose that assets such as diesel rail cars will be distributed between the U.T.A. and C.I.E. purely on the basis of their location at that time.
I should like to know what is the Government's policy in relation to the County Donegal Railways. As we know, the Donegal Railways Joint Committee is jointly owned by British Railways and the G.N.R., which, of course, is jointly owned by the State, jointly under the control of our Minister here. What brought it to my notice was that there was in yesterday's Press an announcement of the intention of the County Donegal Railways Joint Committee to close and abandon the Donegal-Ballyshannon line. The Minister in his statement did not refer at all to the County Donegal Railways and I should like to know from him if it is intended to amalgamate these lines as well as those in the G.N.R. with C.I.E. and, if that is so, again I say the County Donegal Railways should be encouraged to desist from the procedure they are now taking to close and abandon that line, until they come under the new board operating a new policy.
The Minister mentioned the compensation to be paid to redundant employees of the G.N.R. after the merger of the two systems. I know the difficulties that the Minister is facing in this matter and I would advise him to give the option to G.N.R. employees either to come over to C.I.E. or to accept compensation. That would, to some measure at least, meet the problem of redundancy that undoubtedly is going to crop up. I have a feeling that there are many employees in the G.N.R., men approaching the 60 mark, who would readily agree, for several reasons—because of home conditions they may not be able to face transfer —to retire on adequate compensation rather than transfer to C.I.E. That would ease the problem of pushing out the fellow at the bottom and still be meeting, and justly meeting, the wishes of the man around the 60 age mark. I am not too sure that it might not be possible to extend to the C.I.E. staffs around that age the option of retiring on compensation at that particular age.
One other small group that may not have come to the Minister's notice is the staff of the Irish Railway Clearing House. It appears obvious, with the merging of the G.N.R. with C.I.E., that the work in the Irish Railway Clearing House will be considerably reduced and that there will be redundancy. To add to that I am informed that at the moment British Railways are contemplating a new approach to its clearing house system and that we may see in a very short time the position where British Railways will make bulk settlements with other railways as far as their clearing house arrangements are concerned. If that is so you will have large scale redundancy in the Irish Railway Clearing House and I would like to ask the Minister if he has given this matter thought and what he thinks regarding compensation provisions. Up to this the clearing house has been mentioned only once in this House and that was in the 1924 Act when you had a previous amalgamation between the Irish railways.
Before I sit down I should like to say that, all in all, I think the policy outlined by the Minister has much to commend it. But I am very doubtful however if the changes envisaged in his statement are radical enough to meet the problem or radical enough to enable C.I.E. to provide an unsubsidised system of public transport for passenger and freight on rail, road and water, on the basis of satisfying the public and giving a fair crack of the whip to the people engaged in the transport business and their dependents.
