Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 25 Feb 1927

Vol. 18 No. 10

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ESTIMATES FOR PUBLIC SERVICES. - VOTE 57—RAILWAYS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar dheich bpúint chun íoctha an mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Iocaíochtanna fé Acht na mBóthair Iarainn, 1924, fén Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., agus chun crícheanna eile a bhaineann le hIompar 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, 1927, for payments under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., and for other purposes connected with Irish transport.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

This is a supplementary sum of £1,500 in addition to the original supplementary estimate of £5,000 granted in respect of the losses on the working of the railways named. When the original estimate was brought in it was considered that the sum of £5,000 voted, plus a similar sum granted to those railways by the Northern Government, would have been sufficient to meet the losses of working on the year, and had it not been for the coal strike the estimate that £10,000 would have covered the loss in working was likely to have been fulfilled. However, in consequence of the coal mining dispute in Great Britain, the company has suffered. Its traffic receipts have suffered to the extent of about £1,100 —loss on carriage of coal to parts of Donegal. In addition to that they have been faced with very heavy expenditure by reason of the increased cost of coal from May last. If the company had been in a sufficiently strong cash position to be able to buy coal early, the additional loss on the line would have been cut down somewhat, but owing to their particularly bad cash position they had to carry on from hand to mouth and the loss has been fairly heavy. The £1,500 which we are asking the Dáil to pass now represents 50 per cent. of the increased loss on working, over the £10,000 previously allowed for. There is actually a heavier loss than that, but that heavier loss includes certain charges which we have not yet considered to be a matter of which we could approach the Dáil— certain fixed charges. It is possible that there will be a demand to meet those which, if it were divided in the same proportion as between this Government and the Northern Government, would probably entail a further advance of about £600. But I am not proposing to meet that at the moment. I have not had the case made to me. I simply want to indicate to the Dáil that the additional sum of £1,500, even if looked upon only as 50 per cent., or approaching half the additional loss incurred on this railway, is not sufficient. It does not meet the entire loss, and there may be a demand for an additional sum.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is the Minister able to say how many tons of coal are represented by this sum in question, which is £2,900? I make up the £2,900 in this way: £3,000, being two sums of £1,500 each; loss of receipts, £1,100; so that I take it that the increased cost of coal will be £2,900 on a certain tonnage. Can the Minister say what the tonnage would be?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Is the Deputy speaking on the matter of the purchase of coal.

Mr. JOHNSON

The loss on receipts is £1,100, and the explanation given is that it is due to the increased cost of coal. I take it that this explanation is a little defective in that respect; that £1,100 of the £3,000 is due to loss in receipts, but that the remainder, £2,900, is due to the increased cost of coal. Can the Minister say what proportion of that coal would be burned on the portion of the line that we are concerned with, and what would be the tonnage?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

I am not sure if this will answer the Deputy completely. The amount of coal purchased for the whole year was 5,200 tons, at a cost of £12,000 odd. If the coal was purchased at a price obtaining from January to April, which was round about 24/9 per ton, it would have cost £6,435. The extra cost of the coal purchased between May the 1st and December 31st was £5,572. The average cost from May to December of coal per week was £266, as against the average weekly cost in 1925 of £144. Now the mileage run which will have an effect on the coal consumed in 1925 was 14,000 miles more than in 1926, so that if the mileage in 1926 had been the same as the mileage in 1925 the cost for the coal would have been increased from £12,000 to £14,670. Taking an equal mileage as between 1925 and 1926 the weekly cost for coal can be compared on the basis of £144 in 1925 as opposed to an average cost of £282 per week in 1926.

On the other matter as to what amount of this coal can be properly applicable to the three lines, I cannot give the details of that as to the mileage of these lines. The Londonderry and Lough Swilly is a very small fraction of the total, but a far larger proportion is on the Government-owned lines. The actual mathematics will not tally because there was a reduced expenditure, apart from coal altogether, amounting to something over £3,000, on the working of the Government railways during the year in comparison with the year 1925, but that has been upset by this item for coal, which is absolutely the main item making towards increased cost. I am not sure if I have answered Deputy Johnson.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am curious to know whether in the examination of these figures the accounts are audited by the Government's own auditor.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

An official of my Department has been up there from the 15th of this month.

Mr. DAVIN

Are we to understand, as I think it is generally understood, that the obligation of the House in a matter of this kind only concerns the working of the Letterkenny and Burtonport section?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

No; there are three Government lines shown there.

Mr. DAVIN

I am talking of the note on the back of the estimates which is supposed to be an explanation of the causes leading up to this demand for a supplementary estimate.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It does not refer to one line; it refers to three lines.

Mr. DAVIN

Are we to understand that the rearrangement which has brought about the demand for this small supplementary estimate is considered by the Government in relation to that particular section of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, the Londonderry and Lough Swilly line is alleged to show a profit. The loss is entirely on three sections; that is the allegation.

Mr. DAVIN

I see the Minister has made no reference to the tonnage of coal burned on this section of the line. Has the official who is sent to make an examination of the accounts to be supplied with the figures in connection with all these accounts? Are we to take it that he had at his disposal when he went there to examine the accounts on behalf of the Minister all the facts and figures of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly railway? I am not quite sure what his authority is when he goes up there to make an examination of the Company's affairs.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

His authority is that there is a special definite agreement that owing to the provision of this money we get the most accurate and detailed investigation by any official or auditor I send down. The accounts are entirely at his disposal. But there has been an arrangement, I think, that in order to effect certain economies and not keep a separate staff employed we should not insist upon the completest separation of the accounts of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly portion of the Donegal lines as apart from the three Government lines. The Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company are working these lines on that particular basis established pre-war. There has been a question of a change for a long time. Personally I think it is more economical, from our point of view, even though perhaps it is not formally so correct to have this supplementary estimate coming along from year to year. It would be better if the thing could be settled and put in as a normal item in the estimates, but I think, on the whole, the advantage financially comes to the twenty-six counties by having it done in this way.

Mr. DAVIN

I want to have it established and made clear that the Minister's Department should have access to any document they require regarding the working of this line even if such documents were regarded as confidential to members of the Board.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

When the Deputy speaks of documents that are regarded as confidential to members of the Board I should have details as to what he is referring to. What my official has is the directors' report and the statistical report of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company, including the lines that are worked. These are the only accounts. There are vouchers and everything else to be looked into to see that they are correct. My official can get all these matters and I do not know what else the Deputy wants. If he informs me here now openly or later, secretly, I will see what can be done.

Mr. DAVIN

All I want to know is can his official demand any documents that may be required in order to substantiate any items in the shareholders' report and statement of accounts?

Mr. McGILLIGAN

Yes, I believe so.

Mr. DAVIN

I am satisfied with that.

Mr. HEWAT

Does the Minister look upon this subsidy as a permanent figure? Is there any hope of these railways paying their own expenses? If this is to be a permanent charge are these lines of such stragetic importance that we should be fixed with this subsidy?

Vote put and agreed to.