Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Jul 1924

Vol. 8 No. 7

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 53—RAILWAYS.

That a sum not exceeding £61,977 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for payments under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., and for other purposes connected with Irish railways.

I move this Vote. Most of the services mentioned in this Vote under these five sub-heads are services transferred from the Office of Public Works. The amount under (C) is, of course, statutory. Most of the other amounts will be minimised, if not entirely wiped out, by the effect of the Railway Bill. Three of them will almost entirely disappear, and the first will be lessened considerably, and will entirely disappear after the ten years' period. Now, to take them in order, (A) represents repayments to County Councils. This arises under the Tramway and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, and the Light Railways (Ireland) Act, 1889. The Government agreed to pay in respect of the baronially guaranteed lines to the counties one-half of the amount contributed by these counties towards the guaranteed dividends, with this limitation, that there was to be a maximum of 2 per cent. per annum on the paid-up guaranteed capital of the companies.

The estimate of the payment definitely and directly due under that Act for the year for which we are estimating, is £17,594. but there is an addition of £16,575. and that arises in this way. The terms of the Act are that the Government shall repay to the County Councils up to the maximum I have mentioned, sums paid by them in respect of the guaranted dividend. The Government cannot make payments until the counties have paid. The Government sum is repayment; consequently when certain counties fell into arrears in their contribution the Government contribution for past years was not paid, and it is now estimated that certain of these counties that have been, and are up to the present, in arrear will make payment this year, and we have to bring forward, consequently, as the Government contribution a sufficient sum to meet the amount that will be paid by the councils this year. That amount is £16,575, the details of which will be found in the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

The total liability, therefore, which falls to be met this year is estimated at £34,169. That is to be compared with £23,080. The figure above on the top of the page 194 is an error; it is put down as £22,080, whereas it should be £23,080, and the increase for this year is practically all attributable to payments by way of arrears. The second item, "Special Railway Undertakings," is a service also transferred from the Office of Public Works. The estimate here covers the working of the Castlecomer and Wolfhill Colliery Extension and the Arigna Extension. These lines are worked at cost—the first two by the Great Southern and Western Railway and the other by the Cavan and Leitrim Railway. These railways were constructed during the war, and so far the revenue has not been equal to the expenditure. The difference between the sums for last year and this year is about £1,700, and is due to certain additional maintenance works which it was found necessary to have put in hands in order to keep the lines in a safe condition. These lines, it is expected, will be made over to the amalgamated undertaking, and the Government will be saved the loss that has arisen and is arising since their construction.

Will the amalgamated company pay anything for them?

We do not intend to ask for payment for them, but we are not going to pay the amalgamated company anything for them. It is a matter that falls for judgment to the Tribunal. The Government contention will be that as considerable capital expenditure has been involved in the making of the lines, the amalgamated undertaking should be glad enough to get these lines without asking anything further.

The third item arises under the Acts mentioned—the Railways (Ireland) Acts, 1896, and the Marine Works (Ireland) Act, 1892. The object of the 1896 Act was to open up poor districts in the country by facilitating the construction of railways and other means of communication. The object of the second Act was to carry out the construction, reconstruction, and repair and improvement of marine works necessary to the development of any particular industry in the Congested Districts. Section 4 of the Act of 1896 provided that issues on account of grants were to be met by borrowing from the National Debt Commissioners, and those issues were to be repaid by an annuity chargeable on the Vote. That annuity was not in term to exceed 30 years. The total issues amounted to £552,000, and the provision required in this financial year is £28,878. A similar sum was required last year. Those amounts are statutory. The fourth item is the expense incurred by the Government in order to keep these lines in Tirconaill working. In Tirconaill there is the Letterkenny and Burtonport Railway, the Buncranna and the Carndonagh Railway and the Letterkenny Railway. These are worked by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Co.

As a result of the condition in which these lines were found after the period of control had ended, the lines were in danger of closing, and application was made to the Government. On application being made to the Government, an agreement was entered into by which the Government would advance a sum equal to half the loss sustained in 1923 —£13,800. In the last financial year a sum of £1,510 was advanced. There are to be three equal instalments this year of £1,810, making altogether a sum of £6,940, equal to half the loss incurred in these lines in 1923. This was an advance as a grant-in-aid to keep the lines working and to prevent the county being left without any railways operating in the area. It is not exactly a free gift, although there is not much hope as to the recovery of this money. The whole position is to be reviewed at the end of this year, and it is hoped that with the coming of better times in Donegal that the railways may be able to carry on, and that possibly some repayment of the money may be guaranteed.

Can the Minister say whether there is any relation between this and the legislative proposals in respect of this company?

Is the Minister aware that there is an obligation under the existing law upon the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Co. to run a certain number of trains on this particular section? How in the case of their ignoring to carry out that obligation would the State stand in regard to the company?

I am not quite clear now as to what Deputy Johnson is asking. I presume it is how far this sum of money has relation to the legislative proposals with regard to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway——

I am rather asking whether the arrangement made by the Minister has any connection with the new legislation which has been put forward in the British House of Commons with regard to the capital of the company, and whether there is any bargain or understanding between the Government and this company in regard to that matter?

Not directly arising out of this. There is no connection between anything happening in the British House of Commons with regard to this railway company that arises directly or even indirectly from this loan. I am not clear how far I can throw any light on the question raised by Deputy Davin. I think he asked me to say whether there was an obligation on the railway company to run certain trains. If that is what the Deputy asks, there is, I understand, a particular undertaking, but there is an Act, the Abandonment of Railways Act, which would have a certain repercussion. In the case of a railway which has its head office outside the territory, there is, of course, an obvious lack of control.

But the Minister is aware that the rolling stock in this particular company has been constructed at the expense of the State.

I am not clear as to its being constructed at the expense of the State. I am clear that the only asset that I could seize upon on foot of this debt, if I were disposed to do so, and if I could legally do so, is the permanent way. I have no control whatever over the rolling stock. The portion of the permanent way that lies within the Saorstát is the only thing that could be seized. With regard to the last item, it is to be taken in conjunction with Section E, which has reference to the acquisition of land for these two colliery railways. These two railways were constructed during the European war, and owing to the fact that certain owners could not prove their title completely, the land on which the railways were built was not completely paid for. The settlement of the compensation has been delayed owing to the fact that the owners could not immediately prove title. It is anticipated that the outstanding claims will be disposed of in this financial year, and the provision here made is certainly ample to cover the liability.

Take this vote in general, and view it in the light of the legislation now proposed. You find (A), Repayments to County Councils, etc., which stands at £34,169. Next year that item will be substituted by an item the net amount of which will be £21,986, because the provisions of the Railway Bill is that the State pays £48,688 and recoups itself to the extent of £6,804 from the Local Taxation Account, and the amount of £19,898 from the Guaranteeing Baronies. That net sum of £21,986 will disappear after ten years. It is expected that item (B) will disappear completely. The other item will have to continue, certainly to the same amount for the next year. Item (D) is expected almost entirely to disappear.

Indeed, if there was a good season there might be a repayment there. But it would be too optimistic to hope for that. Item (B) will entirely disappear, so that this net amount of close on £78,000 is expected next year to be substituted by an amount of £50,864.

I am not going to raise any question on this Estimate that would be likely to disturb the mind of the Minister, because I fully realise that the Estimate, as presented to us to-night, will be considerably altered if and when the new scheme for which the Minister is responsible comes into operation. There is one item that I would wish to draw attention to. It is the item covered by (D), which has not been provided for in any Estimate that we have hitherto discussed in this House. On the last occasion that this Estimate was discussed I did raise a question as to the general policy of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company. A footnote to this Estimate says:—

"The Government has agreed to advance £6,940 to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company to meet the losses in the working of the Letterkenny and Burtonport, Buncrana and Carndonagh, and Letterkenny lines, payable in four quarterly instalments. Three instalments of £1,810 each fall to be paid in the current financial year."

I raise this point for Deputy Hewat's information. Legislation was passed in the British House of Commons which gave certain concessions to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company and which, at the same time, placed upon them the obligation of running what is known as "parliamentary trains"—two trains each way on certain sections of this line. If, in face of an existing Act of Parliament, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company failed to do certain things, and failed as a private enterprise to carry out their duties to the public, then the railway, which should provide a service to the State and which failed to do so, should revert to the State. I hope the Minister is quite satisfied that the amount which he is going to give to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company will be used for the benefit and development of the traffic on that portion of the railway which is within Free State territory. I complained, on the last occasion this Estimate was discussed here, that the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company was not carrying out its obligations under the Act of Parliament I have referred to. They have refused the request of the people of Donegal for proper facilities for carriage of traffic.

Their rolling stock, which was bought out of the funds of taxpayers in the Free State area, was transferred to another section of the Company where the interests of the people in the Six County area were catered for rather than the interests of the people in the Free State territory. I hope the money to be voted in this case will not be used to the advantage of the people of the Six County area as against the interests of the taxpayers in Free State territory who have to find the money. I would like to be convinced—I am sure it would be difficult to convince the Minister—that there has been a certain and actual loss in connection with the Letterkenny and Burtonport, and Buncrana and Carndonagh sections. It would be a matter of interest, from what one knows of the presentation of railway accounts, to see how that was worked out. I am quite prepared to admit that the manager and directors of this Company are very able men, and that it is quite possible for them to bring forward figures that might blind the Minister in connection with this matter. If the Minister is satisfied that the money to be voted by us and to be provided by the taxpayers of the Free State is going to be used in their interest and not in the interests of the people of the Six Counties, I will be prepared to let this Vote go without further question.

I am afraid I am rather an exploded force in reference to railway matters, and that Deputy Davin's reference to me is more complimentary than effectual. Dealing with the Lough Swilly Railway Company, Deputy Davin propounds the accusation that the railway company were saddled with a liability to run trains on a section of their line, and that they were not carrying out their bargain. I think it is perfectly obvious that if that were a private transaction the people who had the mortgage would foreclose on the railway company for not carrying out the arrangements. I am not clear whether that would be any great hardship. What I would like to see and what I have advocated here is that the people concerned should make themselves independent of the railways in a case of this kind. Modern improvements have placed these opportunities in their hands, and the Minister in advancing this sum that the mentions to the Lough Swilly Company is, in my judgment, throwing away the money of the people. He says himself he is not likely to get it back. I think that that is so, and that the money could be more usefully utilised in other directions. That is my only criticism of the provision which deals with the celebrated Lough Swilly Railway.

You should say "historical" instead of "celebrated."

History covers a multitude of sins. The Minister tells us that there is a liability on the Estimates for £77,000 for the year. If we were to tot up all the seventy-seven thousand pounds spent in this way and find how it would work out as an ordinary business proposition, the profit and loss account would not, I think, be very satisfactory to the shareholders concerned. I now come to (D) and (E). For many years there was a constant agitation in the papers and attacks made on the Great Southern Railway for not making these connections. The railway company, with the knowledge and information at their disposal, thought it was not a commercial proposition, and not being nationalised at the time they declined to spend the shareholders' money on a proposition that had no possible chance of being remunerative. I would ask the Minister in connection with these two headings what is the total amount of money that is being spent on these connections and what is the return per mile in the way of traffic. I ask him, as being successor to the Government who undertook this work, was there any assurance at the time which would lead him to believe that any reasonable return would have been got in any shape or form for the expenditure of the money?

Was there any guarantee to induce the Government to spend the money on them, and what further liabilities are connected with them? Of course, the Minister has, under the Railway Bill, camouflaged the whole situation as far as these railways are concerned, because he said that in connection with the amalgamated railways "You have got to take this in hand." That does not get rid of it. It is like taking a copper out of one pocket and putting it into another. It is the people have got to pay, and changing it from one account to another does not get rid of it. The liability is still there, and will be there for all time. I must apologise to the House for referring to this Railway Bill, which is an obsession with me, and I thought this was an opportunity of leading from the sublime to the ridiculous. I put these conundrums to the Minister, and he will probably bear with me and answer me in accordance with his lights. The others, of course, are hereditary and they are things that have been undertaken in the past, and, of course, as a business man, I do not say that the House should shirk them in any way. These liabilities are there, and I accept them. So far as the Donegal and Lough Swilly Railway is concerned, I have nothing to say on that point.

I could have wished that I had some intimation that this estimate was going to be taken up this evening. I did not anticipate we would have reached it in the ordinary course. It is a very important one from the point of view of the county for which I am one of the representatives. I should like to have it dealt with after more careful consideration, but I have not had time to go into the particulars. However, I do not see why this particular railway company should have acquired a subsidy of £6,940. Here is a line of 100 miles odd in length and has received from the Treasury some £420,000 for the construction of this line as a free grant. That was given for the construction of the Burtonport-Carndonagh Railway, and then through an agreement they got the right to work it. In conjunction with these railways that were constructed by a free grant, they were working as well 13 miles of their own. During the long series of years they have continued to have the use of this money that they got free and the profits they derived from these lines—and these profits were considerable—were carried on to the parent line and found their way into the pockets of the shareholders. When it comes now to a bad spell, and when the weather gets, perhaps, less favourable, they begin to lose money, according to themselves, on the lines that they had formerly made a huge profit on. Whether these losses arise through deliberate action on their own part, which is rather much like the thing, and which has been, so far as the service of the county for which these railways were made to serve, is concerned, disastrous for the county— whether that arises from a deliberate policy or not I do not know, but the fact remains that there has been no regularly maintained service.

The people have been disappointed, the railways are alleged to have been losing, and now they come to us and say: We must close down upon the whole line or ask the Government to stump up to try to keep them running. At the same time some three miles out of the hundred miles they work is within the Six County area between the City of Derry and the junction where the barrier exists. Recently they have been working strenuously to get a Bill through some House or other in order to enable them to erect a station at Derry. The idea of facilitating the erection of a station at Derry for the management and the working of the Lough Swilly Railway does not seem to have much sense at the present time. We, at least, could not afford to give sanction to a proposal of the kind until we find out whether Derry City, which has always been portion of the County Donegal, is to stand in with Belfast or not, or whether this station that is to control the railway within a big area of our county is to be managed, directed and controlled through an agency in the Six County area. Should the Provisional Boundary, as it exists at present, be consented to by the City of Derry and that they still continue to agree to maintain a barrier between themselves and the people in their own hinterland, and thereby ordain that grass should grow on the streets, it is not a question so much for us as for them. In the meantime, the question we are up against is whether we should or not grant a subsidy to this railway.

I think we should call upon them now to have this supplied from the monies that they accumulated in the past on these lines, and that they should not come to us in a time of stress, when in a time of prosperity they got such a huge revenue. It is well known that the Lough Swilly Railway some time ago was the highest dividend-paying concern in the Kingdom. Now they say they are a bankrupt concern. It must not be forgotten that the whole 13 lines referred to in the Schedule are only 251¾ miles altogether, and the capital of them is only something over £1,000,000. That capital was subscribed by shareholders and that capital has got to be paid on. Here we have a hundred miles on which there are no dividends to be paid on the capital that constructed them, so that I think it is preposterous for these people to come here now—I do not know what is at the bottom of it—to ask us to give them a sum of £56,940 to help them out at this particular time. Besides, as Deputy Davin has stated, they have not given any reasonable facilities to those they are supposed to cater for. These railways have been a sort of laughing stock. There is no area where a better prospect of a remunerative service is offered than in the County Tirconnail. That has proved to be so in the past. They could prove it is so to-day. The same opportunities exist now for making profits as existed then, and yet here they come to us with a ledger that is altogether on the wrong side, according to themselves. I think it is not a question for us to take up at all.

They should be dealt with on business lines only, and whatever object they may have in view in coming to us, with a balance of that kind, whether it could be justified or not, whether it is due to any action of their own which could have been otherwise directed towards having a profit instead of a loss, is a question for themselves. They have undoubtedly used great pressure in every direction to try to secure a concession from this Government and at the same time they were charged with using questionable methods in managing their lines, so far as our people could view them in the position in which the country was placed. It was very doubtful whether they were not more or less inclined to give little consideration to the stabilising of conditions in the Free State as they should be stabilised. This was a very doubtful question; and there were arguments on both sides. For my part I would not like to say that they were acting in full accord with a desire for stability here. While I would not say that they were in active opposition, at the same time I would not be prepared to acquit them of passive sympathy with a state of affairs that would possibly bring us in the Free State into difficulty, and I think a great deal of the trouble that they allege now in the way of shortage of returns is largely due to their actions in that respect.

It is well for the Dáil to understand that and to have the position clearly before them on these things before we begin to vote away money out of sympathy with people who perhaps do not deserve very much sympathy, and as far as the interests of the county are concerned, I am perfectly certain that they will not suffer through the withholding of this money, because I am confident that the material interests that are reposed in the parent line are sufficiently strong to induce this railway company, without this grant, to put their line into such working order and to manage their business in such a way that they will bring the company gradually to the same position of profit with regard to the running of this railway as they were in. Times were prosperous before, but it is rather a good idea if a concern runs down, whether it is run down deliberately or accidentally, to come to the State and ask for some subsidy and it is very kind on the part of the State no doubt to give it. At the same time, it is very doubtful policy in the circumstances that exist with regard to this line at present. There is the duality that exists geographically in the area covered by the line and the doubtful question as to where we must have the new headquarters station on the line in the immediate future and as to whether the traffic of the county of Tirconaill is to be in future directed to and from Lough Foyle or whether it is to be taken to and from its own harbours, where there are at least two better harbours than Lough Foyle, and where the possibility is that should Derry still maintain the attitude that it wishes to remain with Belfast and keep a barrier between itself and its customers in Tirconaill, when this traffic must of necessity go the other way, through our own ports.

This new proposed station would then be not the centre and headquarters of this railway, but merely an outpost station of the County Donegal, where the line may run past it towards Derry, should such a boundary still remain. I am very much opposed to the idea that these people should be allowed to get this money at all. However, perhaps the Minister has arguments in favour of it, and I will hear what they are with interest. No doubt he did not set down a sum of money and did not approach the Minister for Finance, who is very difficult to approach on such questions, without having very strong arguments before he was able to secure a concession of that sort. I will be very interested to hear what the arguments are, and unless they are better than I think they are I will continue to hold that we should not give this grant to this Lough Swilly Railway.

Deputy Davin seems to have some doubts as to the date of the legislation which is going to change the face of this Estimate in future. He said "if and when," and he stressed "when." I wonder has he any doubt on this matter, or does he believe that this Estimate will be presented next year in the form in which it now comes, or that it will not take the form that I have outlined?

No; I just raised the question of some amendments which were passed in the Seanad.

The question of a clash between the two Houses. I do not think we will have that. The Deputy said that this Donegal Estimate was not discussed previously. I had thought that the amount which was voted in 1923-24 had drawn certain discussion from the Deputy himself. I do not think that it is likely that an item of £1,510 would have got through without certain Donegal Deputies raising the question of the whole control of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly line, or lines, and I do rather think that Deputy Davin himself passed some comments on the matter previously.

For the Minister's information I could not, because a similar item was not provided in the Estimate for 1924. But I did certainly pass comments, and have reason to remember the manner in which they were answered, upon the general policy of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company, on this Vote.

The Deputy has made very serious charges, that this railway has failed to carry out its statutory requirements, and has been working the line largely for the benefit not of those in the Saorstát, and that the rolling stock and everything else which represents a certain amount of paid-up capital is taken out, that all that has been drained from and turned against the interests of the Saorstát, and for the interests of the people in the Six Counties. That, to a certain extent, is on all fours with what Deputy McGoldrick has stated, but Deputy McGoldrick did answer himself in one respect. He said that there was the question of a subsidy for a limited period until it was seen quite clearly what Derry City intended to do on the boundary question and that is the point that has to be looked at. I do believe that if we in the Twenty-six Counties set out to-morrow deliberately to do so, we could ruin Derry city as a port. As Deputy McGoldrick stated, we could have grass growing in its streets very soon, and I think they know that. But is that going to be a reasonable thing to do until this question has been decided? Is it supposed that the people in Derry city are anything less pugnacious or obstinate than we are, and that they would give in readily to threats which the people here would not give into? I know Derry city very well, and I know the people there.

I do not think you are going to do any good whatsoever by brandishing weapons over their heads. It is all very well to let certain matters sink in, and to let them see that their interests are very definitely Twenty-six County interests, that their whole economic hinterland is really Donegal. Derry is really a city of Donegal, and not a city of the County Derry, and that should be allowed to sink in. But for us to go and open up lines of communication whereby traffic can be diverted through Donegal ports, and where a very small section of line would be all that would be necessary to develop traffic in Donegal and join it up with Sligo, is a matter that should not be considered at this stage. That may have to happen; it is to be hoped that it will not, and when Deputy Davin says that its rolling stock and all the money of the company has been used for the benefit of the people in the Six Counties, I think all he means is that, so far as Donegal is concerned, that Derry has been the outlet.

I want to correct the Minister, because I made that charge last year. I believe what has taken place in the meantime has altered the situation slightly. I want to make it clear to him that I am not making that charge now. I did make it, and endeavoured to justify it twelve months ago.

Yes, I am not stressing so much the fact that he says this or that he did say it previously, but I am trying to point out that the truth of the statement cannot be denied. The facts are there. I do not like the suggestion that it was a deliberate policy on the part of the people who were working this line to do something which was abnormal. What they did happened to work out for the benefit of those in the Six Counties. What they did was what they had done for years. When the Deputy makes a statement which he does make it is open to that construction, and if he argued a certain amount of malevolence on the part of the people who worked this line I say it is a distortion of the facts. Let there be that conflict between us as to what is the motive impelling certain things. Once the boundary question is settled and once Donegal and Derry make their respective stands as regards the boundary, we can see that a different state of things will take place for the future. Deputy Hewat has said that some of these items represent money thrown away, particularly this money advanced to the Derry and Lough Swilly Railway. In the same way the amount of the guaranteed capital may be regarded as money thrown away. It may be that some railways do not bring in profit, but from the point of view of transport and for the wider interests of the country and not from the point of view of the investor it was profitable to have them kept going and used for the general good. That is my answer to the statement as to whether I had reckoned the cost regarding the £77,000 for a number of years. You cannot deal with railways on that basis. You have to view the whole transport conditions together and see whether they have given good service. And they are going to give better service to the people.

That is the refuge of the politician.

I might say that it could also be regarded as a considered answer of the statesman, but it is not for me to praise myself. I cannot give the Deputy figures with regard to item B. If he is very keenly concerned about this matter I will try to supply him with the figures, but I do not know that I could give him the complete returns per mile of these colliery railways even after a search. Deputy McGoldrick, I think, argued mainly on the lines of Deputy Davin, and asked if I could state what were the arguments as the result of which this promise of an advance of money was made. I have only to state that this promise was made before I had anything to do with this Ministry. I find that a promise had been made. These arguments operated on the previous Minister, and all I could do was to see that certain arguments were advanced on a deputation. The argument tended to this, that, be it accepted or not accepted, the shareholders had got considerable dividends in years past, and this has been followed up. Whether that is accepted or not the fact that faced the Minister was that the railways were going to close down. It is all very well for Deputy McGoldrick to say that those men made good profits, and why should they not suffer a loss in the lean years? That was an appeal to philantropy and patriotism.

That appeal would not apply to John McFarlane.

That is a general appeal to railway shareholders. I do not want to particularise them, and I would like if Deputy McGoldrick would pass this Vote for the time being. He can convince me that those railways would continue to run, and that there would be some inducement which would make the working of the lines reasonable without the payment of the money. Then we will see if the money cannot be stopped. It is for Deputy McGoldrick and the other Deputies who represent that county to say that they are satisfied that if you take away this money the railways would still operate in that county. If they are convinced of that and can show to me that I have some other weapon in my hands than the weapon of holding out a certain sum of money then we can see. The main argument was that the county would be left without transport.

Would it not be the right for the Government to take charge of the railway, and prove or disprove the truth of the statements of the directors?

The Head Office is in Derry, and we have no access to the documents. We can demand inspection of the accounts. I presume that was done. I ask the Deputy to remember that the Head Office is in Derry city, and that Derry city is temporarily outside our reach.

The head office would not be much use without the railway.

The Deputies will find a clause in the Railway Bill when it emerges again whereby certain railways will be added in certain eventualities. If Donegal needs development it can then be shown that there are better harbours in Donegal than Lough Foyle and the port of Derry. I doubt if there are any in the same state of development. It is possible those may be developed afterwards, but that will be done when the Boundary Commission has done its work.

I move to report Progress.

Top
Share