Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Feb 1926

Vol. 14 No. 10

SUPPLEMENTARY AND ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES. - VOTE 52—RAILWAYS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar Suim Bhreise, ná raghaidh thar Deich bPúint, chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1926, chun Iocaíochtanna fé Acht na mBóthar Iarainn, 1924, fén Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., agus chun crícheanna eile a bhaineann le Bóithre Iarainn in Eirinn.

That a Supplementary Sum, not exceeding Ten Pounds, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Payments under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., and for other purposes connected with Irish Railways.

This Vote is required for the Sligo and Belmullet Steamer Service. That service has been in existence for a very considerable time—I think since 1899. There is no railway or other regular transport system between Sligo and Belmullet except this steamer service, which is very largely availed of for merchandise and live stock, and the failure or disappearance of the service would be a very great hardship on the people of the district. In the first instance the service was worked by the Sligo Steam Navigation Co. under contract with the Board of Works. Then, for three years ending the 31st May, 1919, the company had a subsidy from the Congested Districts Board. From May, 1919, to January, 1920, the company continued to carry on the service without a subsidy. Then, in order that it might be maintained, the SS. "Tartar," which is Government property, and which is at present on the service, was handed over, at the request of the then Local Government Board, for the conveyance of foodstuffs, particularly, to Belmullet. From January, 1921, the service was continued by the company under an agreement with the Board of Works, which provided for the use of the steamer free of charge and a guarantee to the company against loss, limited to £1,000, for twelve months. Payments on that basis were made to 31st July, 1924. Since that time the service has been carried on from month to month on the basis that the Government accept liability for working losses. The sum required to meet these losses from 31st July, 1924, to 31st March, 1926, is £2,150. It is estimated that £2,140 can be provided out of savings on other sub-heads of the Railway Vote.

At present the channel to the Belmullet town wharf is not navigable to the ship that is used on the service and the cargo has to be loaded and discharged at Pickle Point Pier, which is one and a half miles from Belmullet. The service cannot be self-supporting unless the steamer can proceed to Belmullet, and the question of dredging the channel at an estimated cost of £6,600, or selling the SS. "Tartar" and procuring a steamer of a lesser draught, is under consideration.

Mr. JOHNSON

Can the Minister say what are the prospects in respect to the steamer for the period from 31st March, 1926? Is there any anticipation that the service is likely to be a self-supporting one for any period of the year?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think so. At any rate the view is that the only chance of it becoming self-supporting would be by dredging this channel, and I do not think it is certain even then that the service would become self-supporting. But, unless that can be done and the cargo can be carried to and taken from Belmullet pier, it could not be self-supporting. I have not the figures which would enable me to say whether it would be self-supporting for a particular few months of the year.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am really concerned to know whether it is intended that this shall be a permanent State-carrying service, and whether the opponents of such projects are going to be loud in their protestations.

Mr. HEWAT

I have not any knowledge of this service, except what is contained in this document. According to the Minister, there is a charge of £2,150 for the service. That is not the full cost, as in addition to that the service is being carried on by a Government steamer which has been given free of charge. The Minister has not given a very rosy picture of the prospects of this service, and there is very little information on the paper. This is a charge of £2,150, plus etceteras, which do not appear on the paper, and apparently it is to be carried on in perpetuity. One would naturally ask what use does it serve, is there no alternative, and what amount of cargo is carried? Is the service indispensable, and is there no other means of carrying on the service than in this way? It is rather illuminating to hear that under private ownership the service paid during a certain period and that the company were willing to carry it on. What are the circumstances that now involve a State subsidy? I am afraid my geography is not sufficiently good to criticise the matter in detail, but on the face of it the document is not convincing to me, at all events, that there is adequate value being given for the money which is asked for as a subsidy. I should like to have a more complete statement as to what we are asked to vote the money for.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am afraid, in the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who will not be available for some days, that I cannot give a great deal more of the history of this particular service than I have given. The subsidy was given—at the stage when the arrangements were entered into—solely for the purpose of preventing the service coming to an end. If there were anybody to carry on that service without the subsidy, no subsidy would be given. This was the best arrangement that could be made. It is at present simply a month to month arrangement. It can be dropped at any time. If some other arrangement that will serve the interest of the district can be come to, there is no need to continue this particular one. I do not know whether any other form of service would do. We know very well that lorries are not very suitable for the transport of certain kinds of material. You could, I suppose, transport live stock by lorry, but I do not think it would be an economic proposition. You might drive live stock a considerable distance, but whether that is a necessity that we should impose upon the people of this particular district is a matter which would require further consideration. This particular sum of money that is asked for now will enable the service to be carried on until the end of the present financial year. If, as I have said, some different arrangement or some new arrangement can be come to, and if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that the needs of this very poor district can be met in some other way, he will try to do so and will inform the Dáil on the matter. The Government has heretofore voted considerable sums for providing transport in various districts that require them. If Deputies will turn to the volume of the estimates for the current year they will find on pages 213 and 214 that there have been sums voted for transport services. Deputies will find that under sub-head (A) there is a payment to the Great Southern Railways Company under the Railways Act of 1924 of £48,688 in respect of the various light railways that were constructed for the poorer districts of the country. Special grants have been given to keep the Donegal railways going. A subsidy has been given for a steamer to the Aran Islands. I do not say in every case in which assistance has been given that it was absolutely necessary. I do say on the other hand that there are districts in which the only way to help the people to make the best they can of the resources at their disposal is to give them assistance in this way. I think that a district like Belmullet, an extremely poverty-stricken district, which has no railway running through it, which is very remote from the ordinary centres for the procurement of supplies and the marketing of its own products, does on the face of it require and merit some assistance from the State.

Mr. WILSON

I have been amused listening to the Minister for Finance trying to make a case for the Deputies for Mayo, who should be au fait with the varied activities of this particular steamer. These Deputies are smiling at seeing that the Minister is all wrong.

Professor TIERNEY

Does the Deputy say that the Deputies for Mayo have said anything?

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It is better that they should not. It is much safer for them.

Mr. WILSON

I said that they were not defending this particular service which is in their constituency, and on the necessity for which it is their duty to inform the Dáil. It is their duty to inform the Dáil as to the necessity for keeping up a service to Belmullet. I do not think I have done anything wrong in directing attention to the fact that on this matter they are dumb and that they have not attempted to explain the necessity for this service. Why is it that from Arklow to Liverpool you can have a freight with a motor steamer at 6/- a ton, and why is it that from Sligo to Belmullet it is necessary to run this steamer, which does not go beyond Pickle Point Harbour, one and a half miles from Belmullet? Why should it not be possible to run a motor service to supply this neighbourhood? That is one of the things that ought be explained to the Dáil.

In regard to the matter of sending cattle from Belmullet to Sligo, it is clear that the Minister for Finance does not know the district at all, because cattle from Belmullet would be sent to Ballina, which is about 40 miles from Sligo. They would not be sent to Sligo at all.

Mr. JOHNSON

They would go to Glasgow from Sligo.

Mr. WILSON

They would not be driven across from Belmullet to Sligo at all. I can very well understand how, in the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance is not conversant with the particular details of this matter. That is why I say that I was expecting that the Deputies who represent Mayo would have explained to the Dáil the necessity for this particular service.

The PRESIDENT

Deputy Johnson asked a question. In reply to that question I might say that the latest period for which we have a return would be from May to July, 1925. It was only £170. During other periods it went to twice that amount.

Mr. JOHNSON

If the Minister will turn to the Estimates for 1925-1926 he will find that this is not a new service. In page 216 he will find this footnote: "This service, which was suspended from January to April, 1920, has been resumed by the Sligo Steam Navigation Company under a subsidy from the Local Government Board, and has been continued since the 1st February, 1921, under a guarantee to the Company against loss, limited to £1,000 in twelve months, for which the Congested Districts Board and the Board of Works have made themselves jointly responsible."

We find that the total expenditure under this, for this steamer, has been £84,758 over a series of years. Under this Vote we are voting a sum which exceeds by, I suppose, 50 per cent., what was the arrangement up to 1925. I have no doubt that can be justified, but in the original arrangement the maximum amount of the subsidy was £1,000 per year. The present subsidy is certainly more than £1,000 a year. The point I am making is that there has been an increase in the amount of the subsidy payable under the new scheme, compared with the sum payable under the previous arrangement. This is not a new Vote: it is a continuation of an old expenditure which was considered necessary as far back as 1876. The conditions in parts of the country have not greatly improved from what they were in the time of the C.D.B.

The PRESIDENT

I think there was a service contribution out of the Railway Acts of 1896 which was exhausted in the year 1924. Consequently, the incidence of this particular service was much heavier after that date.

Mr. HEWAT

As the matter does not seem to be very urgent, I suggest that it be left over until the Minister for Industry and Commerce is present, so that he may explain the position more fully to us. The House, I think, ought to be satisfied at an early date as to whether or not there is a need to continue this service. Periodically we get rather voluminous documents in connection with the railways from the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Therefore, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask that some particulars should be given to us as to the importance of the service that is being carried on under this subsidy. I do not say that it is not a good charge, but from the documents put before us and the discussion that has taken place, I, as one opposed to Government subsidies, am not satisfied that we are justified in continuing this charge for a subsidy.

Mr. BLYTHE

This particular service has been going on for 26 or 27 years, and has been paid for under various headings. The payments have been made out of the public funds heretofore. As Deputy Johnson points out, it is not a new service, though we have had to provide a new sub-heading for it. We have money under the Vote to pay for it, but as it was not in the original estimate, we had to prepare a new sub-head for it, and we thought it well to call the attention of the Dáil to it. I do not think it is necessary that we should postpone the taking of this particular Vote, as well as the passing of the Fund Act in which this Vote will be incorporated, for the presence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If it is thought that this service ought not to be maintained, or if it is felt that it requires some special justification, I will bring that to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce so that he may look into the matter before the estimates for his Department for the coming year come before the Dáil. If the service is going to be continued beyond the end of the present financial year, the estimate of the Minister for Industry and Commerce will require to show the proposed expenditure on this particular service for the next financial year. I think that will meet sufficiently the points raised by Deputies.

Mr. HEWAT

I do not press for the postponement of the Vote, but I should like to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity we ought to have information from the Minister for Industry and Commerce about this. There is a means of transport available now that was not in existence when this service was first subsidised.

Vote put and agreed to.