Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 20 Feb 1930

Vol. 33 No. 5

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 57—Bóithre Iarainn—Railways.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £7,950 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun íocaíochtanna fé Acht na mBóthar 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 £7,950 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for payments under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc.; and for other purposes connected with Irish transport.

There are two items in this. One is in respect of the acquisition of land for colliery railways. The additional sum required is £2,200. For years past we included an item of £1,000 introduced always in the nature of a token Vote because there can be no finality with regard to it. The schemes had been all brought before the solicitors concerned and the bills of costs finally scaled. These colliery railways have been absorbed into the undertaking of the Great Southern Railways as from 1st January, 1929, but it was on the condition that all out-standing claims would be liquidated by the Government. It is estimated that this amount now asked for will end all this long drawn out litigation with regard to the title of the land which really was compulsorily acquired for the purposes of these areas, but there are still outstanding a few minor claims, and I propose to include a token Vote in connection with small outstanding items which will come to be provided.

With regard to the other item, it is usually a sum which varies according to the amount necessary to be advanced to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway service working two or three small lines in County Donegal. The sum which we are recommending as payment to this line is £5,750. I think it will be noticed that £2,500 has been advanced from the Contingency Fund in respect of this sum, and a repayment of that Vote must be paid. The amounts paid since 1924 run in the following way: in 1924 there was paid £7,240; in 1925 and 1926 there was £7,000 paid in each of these years; in 1927 there was £6,000, and in 1928 £5,600. This year, unfortunately, marks an increase, and it is to meet that that we introduce this. This is on the understanding that the Northern Government foots a bill of a similar amount. The whole working of the line and the whole expenditure has been under careful inspection. The expenditure for the last year as compared with the year before shows a decrease of £5,000. Nevertheless traffic has fallen off, mainly due to the operation of road competition, and this amount is absolutely essential if railway communications are to be maintained in the Donegal district.

Mr. Good

Is it essential that this railway should be maintained? It appears to me that we spend a considerable sum of money each year in maintaining it. From what the Minister said it would appear that that sum is not going to be less in the future. I would be glad if the Minister and his Department would consider whether it is essential under modern conditions that this railway and its expenditure should be maintained.

Mr. Cassidy

It is not my intention to oppose this Vote, but there are some points I wish to raise in order that the Minister would clarify them. I notice when this estimate was first circulated to the House a few months ago the sum the House was then asked to vote was £3,750. That estimate was printed in the month of October last. There was circulated either yesterday or to-day a revised estimate in which that sum has now been increased by £2,000. It now reaches the figure £5,750. I notice the Minister was very silent with regard to the question as to why it was increased.

I understand the procedure which the Minister's Department adopts is to send their auditors to examine the books of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway. If they sent their auditors in October last to examine the books of the company, how was it that the auditors reported that a sum of £3,750 would be necessary? Now we find the Minister altering that estimate and increasing it by £2,000. The Minister had told us that it has been the practice of the Six-County Government in previous years to vote a similar sum to that which was voted in this House. I understand that in the Six-County Parliament that they have already voted a sum of £3,500 this financial year. Does that mean that we are asked to contribute £2,000 more than the Six-County Government to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, or am I to take it that it is the intention of the Six-County Government to contribute a further £2,000? I would like to direct the attention of the Minister to another point. He will probably recollect that during the time the railway estimates were under discussion in this House on the 26th June I directed the attention of the Minister to certain notices that had been given by a number of railway companies to three railway trade unions notifying these trade unions that it was their intention to withdraw from the negotiating machinery in connection with railways. One of the companies which notified their intention to withdraw on the 11th April next is the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway. It is not my intention to go into detail with regard to this negotiating machinery, but suffice it to say that this negotiating machinery deals with the question of wages and conditions of the employees. Some of the companies after having given notice to the railway trade unions that it was their intention to withdraw, after having negotiations with the railway trade unions modified their proposals. They are briefly that the railway trade unions should agree to scrap the Inter-Departmental Committee, the Railway Councils, the Central Wages Board and should agree to certain alterations in the personnel of the Sectional Council and a certain change in the personnel of the Irish Wages Board. In effect some of these proposals are tantamount to making the machinery farcical.

When I raised this in June last the Minister replied saying the notices of the company would not expire until April next, and that he would look into the matter. I would like him to let us know what his intention is with regard to the action these companies have taken. I may say that if the companies persist in the attitude they have adopted it is going to create industrial unrest on the railways.

Mr. McGilligan

On the Donegal railways?

Mr. Cassidy

Not alone on the Donegal railways but——

Mr. McGilligan

Surely we are discussing the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway?

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand from the Deputy that the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway gave notice.

Mr. McGilligan

The discussion must be limited to how far the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company are affected by the giving of these notices.

Mr. Cassidy

As far as the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is concerned the Minister knows that although the employees are doing as important work as the employees on the larger railways they are in receipt of 10 per cent. less in salaries and wages than the employees on the broad gauge railways. Speaking with regard to the action of these Companies, one of which was the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway, on last Saturday at the annual meeting of the Irish divisional council of the R.C.A., Senator O'Farrell said that the relationship between the railway companies, and amongst those he included the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company

Mr. McGilligan

Did he include it precisely?

Mr. Cassidy

He included it.

The relationships between the railway companies and the unions, he said, had now become even more confused than before. At first four companies had notified their withdrawal from the machinery. Negotiations had taken place between them and the union, and it looked as if a settlement was likely, but now they found that the four companies had split, two being in favour of a certain policy and two against, so that the present position was that there was no recognised authority to speak for the four companies. In two months the notices would expire and then a serious position would have arisen. Until this and other matters were settled there was going to be no real progress on the railway, and railwaymen could not settle down to their work until they had some guarantee of security and some protection against injustice.

I was glad to hear the Minister mention that one of the reasons why this House has to vote a certain amount every year for the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is owing to the bus traffic—I might say the unfair bus traffic—which takes place in County Donegal. I believe the Minister's Department has a certain responsibility which it has not shouldered in this matter. Buses are operating in County Donegal against the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company, which are owned by companies in the Six Counties where the buses are registered. These buses use and abuse the roads of County Donegal to compete against the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.

Mr. McGilligan

Where is it registered?

Mr. Cassidy

Some of the Railway buses are registered in the Saorstál.

Mr. McGilligan

The Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company?

Mr. Cassidy

It is registered in Derry; in the Six Counties. I understand. The facts are that as far as Donegal is concerned buses come there from the Six Counties, use and abuse the roads, but pay taxation within the Six Counties which goes to the British Exchequer. Not one halfpenny goes towards the upkeep of the roads in Donegal. I raised this question before, and the Minister stated it was a question of reciprocal arrangement. I do not think that goes down too well, inasmuch as some bus companies registered in Belfast and plying for hire in Donegal, run exclusively between one village and another in Donegal, and do not go into the Six Counties. That is a matter the Minister might take into consideration. I believe if he did there would not be the same necessity for the sum that the House is now asked to vote. I believe that one of the reasons why the Dáil is asked to vote this money, to subsidise the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Company, is that as far as railway companies which cross the Border are concerned, the Minister's Department seems to have no policy. Railways operating exclusively within the Saorstát have been amalgamated, but for railways crossing the Border the Minister's Department had not, and I believe has not yet, any policy. Deputies will remember that when the Treaty was signed certain provision was made for what was known as the setting up of an Irish Council. One of the functions which the Irish Council would have to deal with was the question of railways. But the Minister or the Executive Council saw their way in 1925 to agree to the scrapping of the Irish Council, with the result that they have no policy at present regarding railways crossing the Border.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

There is another point I would like the Minister to deal with when replying. Has he any information to give the House as to any negotiations which have recently taken place as to the amalgamation or absorption of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway by any other company? I understand negotiations have taken place. Probably the Minister will let us know whether his Department has been consulted if the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway is to be taken over by any other companies. Personally I will vote for the Estimate, as I do not agree with Deputy Good's statement. I believe it is necessary that this railway should be kept open in the interests of the farmers, the traders, and the travelling public in Co. Donegal, as well as in the interests of the employees.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Cassidy dealt with a variety of matters that I do not want to go into. Whatever small points were relevant to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company they have very little relevance to the exact matters dealt with in this Vote. A revision of £2,000 has been made because of the full appreciation of the losses. We have the actual accounts showing the ascertained losses on the line, and how far expenditure exceeded gross receipts. Anything we pay is on a fifty-fifty basis with the Northern Government. The Deputy said that it was peculiar that in the month of October an estimate was sent round which he alleges was founded on an auditor's report made some time earlier. That is quite so. It is quite easy to see that at that time there were all sorts of plans in regard to railway working in Donegal. I thought we would not foot any bill at that time higher than the original sum of £3,750. Later on it became apparent to us, in the interests of keeping railway communication open in Donegal, that the additional fifty per cent. of the loss had to be paid. That is without prejudice to the question of whether or not it is essential to keep railway communication as such open in Donegal. The question of the machinery of the Wages Board is a matter I will discuss hereafter on the main Vote. It has very little reference to this. At the moment all I am concerned with is, apart from the machinery for disputes, by virtue of keeping the lines in order, that a certain amount of railway work should be done until other plans for the preservation of transport in Donegal are a little more forward than at the moment.

Mr. Cassidy

The Minister mentioned that he will discuss the negotiating machinery, but I would point out that the notices the Company have given expire on the 11th April, and that the estimates may not be discussed in this House probably until after that.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not propose to discuss such a big item on a Supplementary Estimate for the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway which, as the Deputy announced, is registered outside the area of the Free State. If it seems to be an urgent matter it can be raised by notice by the Deputy or in various ways. It is not a proper matter to drag into this Estimate. I put it to him that he will get no satisfactory answer to the question raised by this particular motion. As to absorption or amalgamation, there have been various suggestions as to what ought to be done by this Railway. Suggestions were made in regard to an amalgamation process. The difficulty there is what headline there would be for amalgamation. Whatever negotiations were going on have ended in nothing, and any proposal that is being considered is on the lines referred to by Deputy Good, namely, how far can transport in Donegal be maintained by the railway mainly, plus some bus service, or by buses mainly, plus some traffic services on the railway, or by some intermediate stage as between bus and railway. There is no doubt that the prospects in regard to the railways in Donegal are far from bright. Receipts have fallen since the year 1924, when they amounted to £62,000, to £60,000, £54,000, £52,000, £51,000, and this year to £44,000 roughly. All that time expenditure has also been dropping, but nothing like in proportion to the dropping receipts. Expenditure has dropped from £71,000 in 1924 to £70,000, £67,000, £63,000, £59,000, and this year roughly to £52,000.

Mr. Cassidy

Is the Minister aware that the Company purchased four buses which are now in operation, and do these figures include receipts from buses?

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy must give me time to examine the figures. I would prefer not to go into the question of the buses which are running at present. There is a prospect of the railway receipts decreasing. There is a continuous decrease, an extraordinary decrease, and it cannot be said in answer that expenditure has been out of the ordinary. It has been reduced year by year and we are not without hopes that further reduction in expenditure may take place but we have little prospect of meeting such expenditure as the railways are at present operated. In that situation what has to be done is a very serious matter. It may be that traffic in that part of Donegal ought to be operated by bus. It may be that the company in amalgamating with the bus services may be able to meet expenses or that they, or some other company, might have to run on a different basis, but at the moment if we want to keep railway communication going until the question can be settled we will have to foot this Bill.

Mr. Cassidy

Possibly the Minister would reply to the point I made in regard to the unrestricted use of roads by Six-County buses.

Mr. McGilligan

I am informed by the people most concerned with this that reciprocal arrangements are arrangements which are definitely to the benefit of the 26-County area as a whole but whether they are to the benefit of that portion of the area in Donegal I cannot say. They probably are not. We could not get the parties to the reciprocal agreement to consider the situation in areas and we have to take it as a whole and it is definitely stated that the reciprocal arrangements are to our benefit.

Vote put and agreed to.