Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 18 Dec 1956

Vol. 46 No. 16

Adjournment Debate—Use of Public Transport for Goods Traffic.

Dr. McHugh

I gave notice to-day of my intention to raise the question:

To request the Minister for Industry and Commerce to use his good offices with C.I.E. to ensure that during the fuel shortage the commercial policy of that organisation is directed towards securing the greatest use of public transport for goods traffic.

I think all Senators will be agreed that the conservation of our transport resources is a crucial matter at present. Spokesmen for the railways and the lorry owners very rarely agree on anything, but they have agreed on this, that our transport facilities are in excess of the amount of goods carried. They differ, of course, on how transport is to be conserved. The railways hold that road transport should be restricted and vice versa. Recently, the Chairman of C.I.E. stated that the railways should not be constricted until the possibility of making them pay has been fully explored. It is rather late in the day to say that, but we can agree with him.

The present crisis offers a unique chance of making the railways pay. The question of making them pay is not to be solved, I think, simply by restricting road traffic. That would entail confusion, dislocation and a costly administrative machinery. I think that should be done only as a last resort. I think there is a way to overcome the difficulty and it is to persuade C.I.E. to initiate a new commercial policy, quite a simple one, that of securing by an intensive campaign the maximum amount of goods traffic. It is obvious that such a campaign would benefit C.I.E. and also relieve the pressure on goods transport by road and consequently assist the national economy during a crisis. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that C.I.E. realises the advantages of such a policy. So far, it has not launched an intensive campaign to secure goods traffic during the shortage.

What has it done? It has called upon the Government to help the railways by restricting road transport, its chief competitor. It has done nothing to relieve the pressure on road transport by a sound commercial policy. It should have a policy of attracting custom for goods traffic by quoting to traders exceptional rates on the basis of their individual circumstances. C.I.E., in fact, holds a world record alone among the railways of the world, with the possible exception of the Lough Swilly railway. It is unique among the railways of the world for, except in very rare instances, it refuses to quote exceptional rates negotiated with special traders on the basis of their individual circumstances. That is a normal practice with all railways in the world except C.I.E. It is true that it does quote specified categories of rates, but they are usually rigidly maintained and there is no flexibility.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will realise that on a motion such as this the whole problem of transport economics may not be discussed. This motion relates to the fuel shortage and the Senator should confine himself to the terms of the motion.

Dr. McHugh

I submit I am doing so and making my case for requesting the Minister to use his good offices to introduce a certain policy for C.I.E.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair is of the opinion that the Senator is unduly widening the terms of the motion.

Dr. McHugh

I will try to restrict myself as far as possible.

Professor Hayes

The Senator cannot adopt the attitude that he will try to confine himself; he must obey the Chair. Is that not so, Sir?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair has been very generous in accepting this motion for discussion. The Senator's terms relate definitely to the fuel shortage and not to the general economics of transport.

Dr. McHugh

I am trying to show how C.I.E.'s policy should be directed towards securing the greatest use of goods traffic.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

In relation to the fuel shortage.

Dr. McHugh

Exactly. I think that it may benefit C.I.E. during the present fuel shortage if road transport is restricted. If the traders are forced simply by governmental restrictions to carry their goods by rail, I submit that they will abandon that practice as soon as the crisis passes and as soon as fuel is available again. What steps do I ask the Minister to take to persuade C.I.E. to do this? Simply this: during the fuel shortage, and before we have felt its worst effects, to get C.I.E. to go to the traders and to attract them by terms which are favourable.

During the fuel shortage of 1945 and 1946, there was a time when, before traders had decided to go back to road transport, C.I.E. had a unique chance to canvass them and keep them. They could only do that by rates based on the cost to the trader of carrying his goods on his own lorry. That was not done and many traders found that C.I.E.'s rates were too high and that it would pay them to carry their goods in their own lorries. Therefore, they went back to road transport and I submit that the taxpayers have been paying for that ever since, through increased grants to C.I.E.

I presume I am allowed to say what I think is the proper method by which C.I.E. should attract custom. I think this is not to be done by an all-round reduction in goods rates. That could not be done in view of the present financial state of C.I.E. I think it could be done by varying rates according to the circumstances of individual traders. I would argue that it is not sentiment at any time that makes people use railways instead of roads. It is the cost to the individual trader. This may seem quite obvious and platitudinous, but all the railways of the world, except C.I.E., act on this principle, by canvassing individual traders and then offering them individual rates based on those circumstances. By individual circumstances, I mean loadability of goods, regularity of despatch and diffusion of destinations. Once these factors are ascertained, a rate can be offered based on the individual circumstances. Simple as that technique is it is not applied in Ireland.

We hear, in the Seanad, from time to time, denunciations of people who wait for the Government to do everything for them. Let us turn our attention occasionally to these public concerns, supported by public funds which at a time of crisis urge the Government to help them by putting their competitors out of business but which, before and after each crisis, do not do what the public is paying them to do—to go after business.

Present circumstances favour a change in C.I.E. commercial policy which will bring them into line with established practice. The pressure of the fuel shortage will dispose traders to use the railways. If they are merely forced to do so during the crisis they will repeat their action of 1945-46, when possible. I believe that goodwill and continuity of policy mean a great deal to traders. If they are encouraged by a long-term policy which attracts and holds custom, they will stay. It is in this spirit that I advance my contention that such a policy would help the Government, for it would sift out traffic suitable to rail transport from that which moves by road for purely economic reasons. For example, sand and gravel haulage from pit to building site is completely unsuitable for rail carriage. Obviously, in the greater number of cases that must be done by road, while it makes little difference to our breweries if they had to shift all their beer by rail.

The alternative for the Government is to issue decrees which severely restrict road traffic. Besides causing unnecessary hardship to lorry owners, this will set back many industries. But if the Minister can persuade C.I.E. to adopt the policy I have indicated, he can then issue an appeal to the traders to co-operate with C.I.E. I believe that such an appeal would have an immediate response.

To sum up, I have recommended to the Minister and, through him, to the Board of C.I.E. a policy which is orthodox, traditional and universal outside Ireland, namely, that of going after business and securing it permanently by the attraction of economic rates arranged with individual traders. Further, I think it is a policy which would enable the railways to pay their way not only now but subsequently.

I made this statement because I believe that, at a time of crisis, Senators should have some constructive suggestions to offer. I believe that such a course of action would make a powerful appeal to traders and lorry owners worried about the threat of harsh restrictions. Lastly, I am fundamentally against government by decree would it is avoidable and I believe that an easy choice of government by decree would be as fatal a mistake in the economic field as it would prove to be in the political field.

Mr. McGuire

I must say that I am in agreement with Senator McHugh's proposal. I feel, as was suggested, that we should have a degree of flexibility in railway rates in connection with the transport of goods. As is well known, I am an advocate of private enterprise and I think one of the greatest advantages of private enterprise over State enterprise is the flexibility of private enterprise. I think that nationalised industries are very rigid and unimaginative. That is their great fault.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I very much regret having to interrupt the Senator but it is clear that on a motion for the adjournment the whole field of transport economics may not be discussed. If this matter is to be discussed, it should be moved by way of ordinary motion.

Mr. McGuire

Under the terms of the motion which refer, I think, to the commercial policy to be adopted, I think I am relevant. Under that heading, I should like to say that it is commercial policy to adopt a system of flexibility as distinct from a system of rigidity. I agree with Senator McHugh when he suggests that the railways should adopt a policy of quoting separate terms for separate customers in conformity with their particular circumstances and with a view to getting the business.

It is a principle of private enterprise that each customer is treated as a separate customer and a separate case. The object is to get the order. Sometimes you may get it at a good price. At other times you may have to cut the price. I agree with Senator McHugh's proposal that this principle should be introduced into C.I.E. quotations.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is there any arrangement as to what time the Minister may get in?

Professor Hayes

I suggest that the Minister should get ten minutes at least.

Mr. Murphy

First of all, I think it is a pity that Senators did not contribute their viewpoints to the Transport Inquiry which has been sitting during recent months. The motion deals with the fuel shortage and commercial policy. On the question of fuel shortage, the first point is that Senator McHugh is quite right in saying that in the conditions of fuel shortage fuel would be far more useful when used on rail than on road.

I have some figures which show that a trainload of merchandise travelling from Dublin to Cork, carrying 600 tons, would consume 186 gallons of fuel oil, whereas in regard to the same amount of goods you would need 30 of the most modern heavy lorries and trailers and they would use 669 gallons of fuel oil. There is almost a fourfold saving through shifting the goods by rail.

In regard to the commercial policy, public transport are obliged by the legislation passed by the Oireachtas to be common carriers and to quote equal rates to all comers. They can reduce their rates for special lots according to the tonnage offered but that same concession must be given to all people who offer the same tonnage. They cannot discriminate between one merchant and another. That is an obligation laid upon them by the Oireachtas.

May I make this further point? This is common practice on all railways, including the Lough Swilly railway, which is no longer a railway actually. It would be very fine if public transport could go out and quote individual rates. Perhaps they would be able to do better. I wonder if those who advocated that viewpoint have considered all the aspects of that matter? I wonder whether they would think that it would be a good thing for the community that C.I.E. or any other public transport organisation should go along to any trader privately, make a bargain with him and, in effect, give him a cut in transport and come along to some other competitor and mulct that trader? It may be good for the finances of C.I.E. but it would not be good for the community.

Mr. McGuire

We are talking about the emergency.

Mr. Murphy

I think the proposal is qualified, as it should only occur during an emergency and, of course, that makes it more daft altogether. People who do not use public transport want a special cut now when they have not enough petrol to keep their lorries operating on the road.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Norton)

If Senator McHugh were not a scholarly and experienced Senator, I might understand his putting down this motion, but I cannot understand why the Senator put down a motion of this kind to argue the kind of thing which he tried to argue this evening, which in fact was the whole question of transport policy. I am sure —as the Senator will agree on reflection, and certainly the Chair seemed to notice the impossibility of what he was attempting—one cannot discuss the whole transport policy of the national transport undertaking in the country on a motion on the adjournment within the compass of half an hour. If Senator McHugh wants to know what the functions of C.I.E. were—and one would have imagined that he would have made himself conversant with those functions before he asked me to advise the board what they should do —I should say that Section 15 (1) of the Transport Act of 1950 provides:—

"It shall be the general duty of the board so to exercise its powers under this Act as to provide or secure or promote the provision of an efficient, economical, convenient and properly integrated system of public transport for passengers and merchandise by rail, road and water with due regard to safety of operation, the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment for its employees and for that purpose it shall be the duty of the board to improve in such manner as it considers necessary transport facilities so as to provide for the needs of the public, agriculture, commerce and industry."

Then the section goes on to say:—

(2) It shall be the duty of the board so to conduct its undertakings as to secure, as soon as may be, that, taking one year with another, the revenue of the board shall be not less than sufficient to meet the charges properly chargeable to revenue.

In other words, the board is given a comprehensive charter of its functions as a transport authority. It is to provide an efficient, economical, convenient and integrated system of public transport for passengers and merchandise by road, water and rail. Therefore, the board has all the powers to do what the Senator now asks me they should do and which the board have been endeavouring to do since it was established. I cannot say anything more to the board than to call their attention to Section 15 (1) of the Transport Act of 1950 which constituted the board. I am sure the Senator would agree that it ought not be necessary to tell the board of C.I.E. what their functions are as set out in the section.

If that should be necessary, what would appear to me to be much more urgent would be to remove the board because the board surely ought to know what its functions are. They are clearly set out in Section 15 of the Road Transport Act of 1950. I know, of course, that one can make complaints against C.I.E. and I am a long distance from saying that C.I.E. has reached perfection. I do not agree with Senator McGuire that the remedy for all our difficulties is the private enterprise system of transport. It is because private enterprise had failed so dismally and significantly——

Mr. McGuire

I replied to that recently. It was never allowed to work since 1914.

Mr. Norton

It seemed to me it was never formed to work. In fact, there was no need to set up C.I.E. if private enterprise——

Mr. McGuire

Can you not have flexibility in Government enterprise as well?

Mr. Norton

C.I.E. was handed over not only a bankrupt transport system but a thoroughly dilapidated transport system as well——

Mr. McGuire

Paralysed by the Railway Tribunal since 1914.

Mr. Norton

——with its railway rolling stock, equipment and carriages out of date. C.I.E. unfortunately has had the job of trying to rebuild the transport system based on what was not only ruins but something worse than ruins.

Mr. McGuire

They have £2,000,000 of the taxpayers' money. If private enterprise got that, it would have been a great success.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The debate is being widened unduly.

Mr. Norton

I do not mind these interruptions at all. I am not going to whinge about Senators. When people who made comments are replied to, they must not be disorderly. I listened to the admiration of private enterprise, knowing what private enterprise had landed C.I.E. into and landed the whole nation into. I cannot permit these comments to pass while sitting here, lest my silence might appear to indicate that I acquiesce in the belief that was expressed.

Dr. McHugh

There is no danger to private enterprise in the motion before the House. I do not disagree with Senator McGuire in that, but why go on to argue about what he said? Why not take the motion?

Mr. Norton

I have explained to the Senator that the board have all the powers to do the things he is asking me now to tell the board it should do. Does the Senator, therefore, think I should say to the board what they already know?

Dr. McHugh

Yes. Maybe they would be efficient in their commercial policy if the Minister did.

Mr. Norton

The policy of the board is to implement Section 15. They know what their function is. Does the Senator suggest I should see the board and refer them to Section 15?

Dr. McHugh

Yes.

Mr. Norton

Is it not to be presumed they know it already?

Dr. McHugh

It is to be presumed that if the Minister calls their attention to the fact that they should be doing something, they are more likely to do it than if he does not do so.

Mr. Norton

The Senator wants to know what the board is doing in the present emergency. Let me take something at random. Here is an advertisement which has appeared: "Save your petrol supply, use public services, leave your car, take a train." Lower down it says: "Use C.I.E. freight services; they will be able to cater for all transport needs at reasonable rates for all consignments, from the smallest to the largest and most awkward load." That only appeared yesterday and the Senator raises this question to-day. There are cuttings from the newspapers to which, in fact, the Senator made reference: "C.I.E. can handle all transport in the fuel crisis." That is a fair intimation to the public. Here is another one: "Railways are now ready to give greater service." Is that not clear, at all events? No matter what you think about C.I.E., either now or in normal times, at least they have indicated that they are willing, that they recognise the value which railways can provide in transport for the people of the country. What more does Senator McHugh think should be done with the railways?

Railways cannot be run from Kildare Street or from Leinster House; they cannot be run from the Department of Industry and Commerce. A board has been set up to run the railways. If the board cannot run the railways, the remedy is to find another board. You cannot have the board nagged at by Dáil or Seanad, or nagged at by the Minister or the Department of Industry and Commerce. It knows its functions, as set out in black and white. The board ought to know and I believe does know what its functions are in this respect.

So far as making provision for public transport is concerned, we had a discussion with the C.I.E. people on the 3rd of this month and I indicated to them that the public transport would rank with other essential services for first priority for supplies of petrol and diesel oil and that the bulk issue of diesel oil and petrol to C.I.E. would have regard to the company's present user of these products. I intimated as well that if, after making their best efforts at economy, C.I.E. could not maintain their services on the allocation made to them, an application for a supplementary allowance of petrol or diesel oil would be sympathetically considered by the Department of Industry and Commerce. At that discussion, the representatives of C.I.E. indicated that their rail and road services would be in a position to handle all traffic offering and that their steam engines, which are at present fully employed on beet traffic, would be continued in operation for general use when available in order to reduce the use of diesel locomotives.

In the face of those facts, it does not seem to me to be necessary to tell C.I.E. what their obvious duty is under Section 15. At all events, some of the views expressed by Senator McHugh are the kind of views which might have been more appropriately expressed at the recent Committee of Inquiry into road transport—and may have been expressed there in one form or another.

The Dáil and this House will have an opportunity of examining the whole transport policy in the light of the report which should be forthcoming shortly from the Transport Inquiry. Perhaps then some of the points mentioned by Senator McHugh can be discussed, in the light of the desirability of formulating a transport policy which takes cognisance of the requirements of to-day and of the immediate future. It seems to me, however, that this is not the appropriate occasion on which to discuss transport policy. Certainly, I do not think the House would desire to discuss it against the background that we have already set up a Committee of Inquiry to advise the Government and Parliament on what should be done in the formulation of a transport policy.

Dr. McHugh

I would like to thank the Minister for his reply.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 19th December, 1956.