At first sight, I think all of us would support this motion, but I prefer to look at it twice. In looking at it closely, it seems to me that it represents a waste of time. I would not go so far as to suggest that it is a deliberate waste of time, but the situation obtaining at present requires something more than a resolution from the Dáil and the Seanad asking the Government to set up an inquiry, an inquiry which will last how long?
I consider this motion as representing a great show of activity and concern on the part of the Government in relation to freight rates, and so on, without conferring the obligation on the Government of doing anything at all. They are going to set up an inquiry. They are going to ask the personnel of the Fair Trade Commission to go into the whole matter very deeply, and to discover what is happening exactly. In his speech in the Dáil, as reported in column 87, Volume 164, of the Official Debates of 23rd October, 1957, they will determine whether there are collective arrangements or restrictive practices operating in the determination of shipping freight rates. At column 67 of the same volume he said that "monopoly pricing exists" and that—I quote—"... cross-Channel shipping is virtually immune from competition and that they are free of all restraint except that imposed by the trade itself."
Instead of doing something, instead of tackling the problem immediately in the light of what we know, in the light of the circumstances, and in the light of our experience over the past 30 years, we decide to do what? To set up a commission. It is not a Royal Commission, admittedly, which is the stock method of the British House of Commons of avoiding taking any action for many years; it is a "commission of inquiry." What sort of confidence has this House got that the setting up of a commission of inquiry at this juncture is anything more than a smokescreen, a way of avoiding taking any useful action now, a "passing of the buck" to some tribunal in the knowledge that they will take a certain time to report back, and that by that time a number of conditions will have changed and the Government may perhaps have decided what they can do?
I do not know how long this commission will sit, but supposing it were to sit for three or six months, or three years as the same body did in fact sit in relation to baby foods and pharmaceutical products; supposing it discovers that there are restrictive practices in cross-Channel shipping which constitute an unreasonable restriction on the supply of those services; supposing they make a recommendation that action be taken; supposing that, say, there is found to be a collective arrangement or understanding between the companies relating to the prices to be charged, that that is "contrary to the public interest", in that it involves an unnecessary and unreasonable limitation on free and fair competition and accordingly should be prohibited; supposing that this ad hoc tribunal makes recommendations along those lines, what will the Minister do about it?
We know the answer to that already, because the same Fair Trade Commission from whose recent recommendations I have just been quoting made precisely those recommendations in those exact terms in relation to the supply of infant foods and pharmaceutical goods, and what did the Minister decide to do? He decided to do absolutely nothing, and would not even appear before the Seanad to explain his inactivity. Now we are asking these same people to take most complicated steps in order to tell him something, which in relation to a whole lot of other goods and services he regards as quite unimportant and unworthy of his attention or action as a Minister. Therefore, I think that this is just a waste of time, a way of stalling, a way of putting off decisions, and I do not think it should be entertained by this House.
I know that it went through the Dáil without even very much discussion, much less opposition; but there was one juncture at which the Minister said:—
"To attempt to decide now what should be done or what can be done would be a rather futile procedure, because the inquiry might show that some of the things we might think of now were unnecessary or, alternatively, might show them to be impracticable."
Then Deputy Dillon intervened and said:—
"I thought the Minister said the inquiry was not to inquire into the steps that might be taken"—
which, in fact, he had stated. The Minister replied:—
"When the inquiry is over we will consider then the steps which can be taken to deal with this problem of high shipping rates on the cross-Channel services."
So he intends to wait until he has had a long and cumbrous inquiry to tell him something he knows already, and when he finds out from that, officially, what he already knows, then he will "consider what steps can be taken" to deal with the situation. I do not regard this as a serious motion at all. I think it is a routine method of pretending to do something and, in fact, doing nothing.
I should like to consider the situation. British shipping companies are raising their rates by the equivalent of 5 per cent., although the rates on British Railways, I understand, have been raised by 10 per cent. Is it the suggestion that British Railways are coining money out of our trade? If so, what has so long prevented our enterprising "private enterprise" from going into this, and competing with them on level terms, or at least attempting it? They may say: "Ah, yes, but we would not be allowed to use British ports," and so on. Have they tried? If there is money to be picked up there, surely our go-getting business community would not have missed the chance? Is it that there is no money to be got there? Or that our private enterprise is not in fact so very enterprising at all? Why is it that this virtual monopoly exists? Has it not been apparent to us in this country for years—if it was not apparent from 1922 on, did it not become apparent in 1939—that we must not depend upon outside shipping?
I think it is fair to recognise that the Labour Party in this country for years before the war had been urging successive Governments to set up an Irish shipping company. It was only when the war broke out that, finally, the Government decided to do so. I think we can be proud of Irish Shipping Limited. The only thing we can regret is that its operations have not been more extensive. I believe the solution to this problem lies with Irish Shipping Limited. I believe they have the experience, and I believe that if they were given the encouragement and the authority it would be possible for Irish Shipping Limited to use its experience, its knowledge and its skill to negotiate a parallel competitive cross-Channel line, if necessary in much the same way as Aer Lingus has been able to negotiate and to get the use of British airports. I see no reason why Irish Shipping Limited should not go into it.
No one can say a State-sponsored company would be interfering with private enterprise. Private enterprise has had 30 years and has not found it possible to do anything in this field. Other people may say that if Irish Shipping goes into it, money will be lost. I believe that is quite possible, because I do not believe that this trade is such a gold mine for the British companies, as is sometimes suggested. But I believe that if money were to be lost it would be well lost, it would still be an excellent investment from the Irish point of view. The loss would be a balance sheet loss, but the gain to the country would be the sort of gain which is made by having, for instance, the condition of our roads and distribution services kept in perfect order. If the flow of goods and people into and out of this country is made as smooth as possible, the fact that there is a technical "loss" in one element in that process does not really matter— provided, of course, it is kept within reasonable proportions.
The point I am making is that a certain loss on a service of that kind, which makes for the smoother export and import of goods and people would be of immense benefit to the country as a whole, and would be the sort of thing which the community as a whole might regard as a profitable investment, a sinking of capital. For that reason, it seems to me we should long ago have set about some such negotiation in order that we should have an Irish shipping line sponsored by the State, in order to cover this pretty extensive field of the shipping of goods and people back and forth.
One could go into a lot of details about the kind of improvement one would expect to see, but I do no think this is the place for it. I believe that now is the time to start that negotiation, that now is the time to go into that field, that now is the time for the Government to ask Irish Shipping for their opinion and advice and to ask them to explore the possibilities of starting a branch of Irish Shipping for cross-Channel trade, even were a temporary balance-sheet loss to be incurred.
I believe that that is the realistic way of setting about it, and not by the setting up of an inquiry to report in six months' or three years' time, to tell us something we already know now. For that reason, I shall vote against this time-wasting motion today, which seems to me not to contribute usefully at all to the solution of our cross-Channel shipping problems.