Can I not give the reason to the House why CIE should not be allowed to retain these powers? I have tried to suggest that damage is being done in the areas where the Royal Canal has been closed; that damage is being done to the farming community and to tourism. In addition to that, the canals themselves are, in my opinion, a public nuisance at present.
Let me get back to the section itself and to what Deputy Cunningham wanted to know. He wanted to know what were our views on the closing of branch lines. Let me make it quite clear. We do not stand for, advocate, or want to see inefficiency or waste operating in the transport system. We have plenty of examples of incompetency at the top in the running of CIE. We do not propose to deal with those during the course of this debate but we do say that it is not in the national interest to insist by law that CIE shall operate without financial loss. We cannot put it simpler than that. We maintain that the road system is completely inadequate to carry the present—and I emphasise that—heavy commercial traffic which uses the road system, to say nothing at all of the ever-increasing number of vehicles coming on the road from now on. In my opinion, the roads as they are are not good enough in many areas to carry the light cars that run on them. Under the 1958 Act, the Board of CIE would have responsibility for the safety of operation of vehicles. I think they are forgetting about it, in their mad rush to get rid of railways.
No good, sound evidence has been adduced to this House or to the public that the capital cost involved in the purchase of lorries, heavy machinery, spare engines, tyres and spare parts is less than the capital cost of replacing or improving the rail system. It is beyond denial that our roads today are a death trap. What do the Minister and CIE propose to do? They propose to divert more and more of the heavy merchandise from the rail and to have it carried by these big CIE trucks on roads that are inadequate to carry them. It would be a simple thing, in a few years' time, for CIE to suggest that they are a paying proposition, having got rid of the railways and got on to road transport, but who is paying for the roads?
Who is paying the capital cost of making the roads? Is it not the taxpayer? It may be suggested that CIE are paying portion of it. They are paying only a limited portion. However, for the damage they are doing, they are not paying anything like what they should.
In the matter of the maintenance of roads, we have a still heavier charge. Anybody who knows anything about roads knows that the upkeep of steamrolled roads is a very heavy cost on the Exchequer and on the rates. County and link roads are now being used by heavy CIE lorries although these roads are not fit to carry that type of traffic.
Where is the money to come from to put these roads in a condition to enable them, over the next ten or 15 years, to carry those heavy trucks? The cost of making these roads per mile is fantastic. We hear nothing from the Minister about these costs. They must be borne in mind.
Without again referring to the canals in any detail, I suggest that many heavy and bulky goods could be carried by rail and canal. It should be mandatory that such goods—I shall not specify them now—be carried by rail and canal.
There is no justification for allowing certain types of goods which are transported by road at present to be carried by CIE or indeed by private hauliers. I mention petrol as one of them. We have the fantastic position that every day of the week a stream of monstrous petrol lorries move out from this city on all the trunk roads and move from the trunk roads to the county roads. They go down as far as Galway, and to the South and up to Sligo. Is there any reason why that petrol, in bulk, could not be transported by rail to key centres—say, in Sligo, Carrick-on-Shannon, Galway and others—and then the deliveries made by light petrol wagon?
Consider the saving to the rates and to the central Exchequer in respect of money that is now being expended on roads to facilitate foreign combines to make profits at the expense of the Irish people.
It is a crime on the part of the Minister to allow a vested interest the use of the roads to destroy them, as is happening at present. There is every justification for legislation which will make it mandatory on a group such as the petrol retailers to carry their goods by canal or by rail. There is no justification for suggesting that a few thousand gallons must be delivered in a hurry from Dublin to Athlone.
If an example were made there, if the decision were made so far as petrol is concerned, it could be followed up in many other spheres in respect of many other types of goods which are at present being carried on the roads. I believe that this will have to be carried out. Somebody has said that there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. If they are not prevented by law from doing it then motor taxation of a very heavy nature could be imposed in respect of these weighty vehicles. That would be one way of dealing with it. Get them off the roads by making it so expensive for them that they will carry their goods by rail. If the Minister were serious about keeping our railways and about preventing them from being disused, that is the action he would take. However, we know that his interest lies in the road system, for a start, and finally in getting back to the private haulier.
Deputies have mentioned the responsibility on the Board of CIE to look after the interests of the workers. We know the position well. There is no co-operation at the moment. There is no understanding between management and men. There is a feeling of complete mistrust brought about by the actions of a dictatorial board, backed by a dictatorial Minister.
The livelihood and the future of men does not seem to count with the Government or with the Board of CIE. They are the Government who talk about the steps they propose to take when we enter the Common Market to look after the welfare of our workers. If their attitude is anything like their attitude towards the workers of CIE, who will be redundant in the next three to four years, it is a poor outlook for our workers who are not in State or semi-State employment. What will happen to those who are depending on private employers?
A long-term view should be taken of the question of transport. The fact that hurried decisions were taken in other countries that railways are a thing of the past, are old-fashioned and are out of date—a view held on parts of the Continent and in parts of America—is no reason why we should ape these people in every respect. A decision has now been taken in a number of continental cities, in particular, and even in America, to restore rail services in heavily-populated areas because the situation had been arrived at that the huge volume of traffic on the roads had led to chaos and the police and the authorities cannot cope with the traffic problems. Coming into certain cities it was a frightening position to find traffic jams brought about because people were no longer using rails and they have decided in many places, as far as I can gather, to restore the rail system, especially leading to industrial centres.
Is it not common sense to use the railway as often and as much as we can and keep as many people off the roads as possible while, at the same time, giving them a good, constant, ordered, efficient and punctual service? Apart from any other consideration, it would probably save lives because we know what has happened in this country in the past twelve months— the accident rate is something frightening. The Minister and the Government should take a long term view of this.
I have nothing more to add, except that this is an opportunity being given on this very important measure to Deputies on all sides to express their disapproval of the policy of the Board of CIE in getting rid of railways and canals and leaving this country, as may well happen at some stage in the future, dependent on its transport on countries abroad. We know what happened in Suez. We do not want the position that this country would be dependent on petrol supplies and other forms of liquid fuel from abroad, if any serious international situation arose. We would be a nice sight in such a situation. That is what this Government are bringing about, unless we are accepting completely defence commitments in a new European bloc. Undoubtedly in those circumstances, we would get plenty of petrol but we might get a hell of a lot of other things as well.