Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Jun 1931

Vol. 39 No. 1

Supplementary Estimate. - Vote 57—Railways.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim bhreise ná raghaidh thar £4,487 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1932, chun focaíochtanna 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 £4,487 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for payments under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc.; and for other purposes connected with Irish Transport.

This sum of £4,487 is divided into two parts; half of the estimated loss is given under the heading of what was one-half of the estimated loss during 1931, £3,862, and then half of the estimated loss during the period from 1st January to the 31st March, 1932. That is the entire sum we propose to give in regard to the Londonderry and Lough Swilly railway for the working of the Burtonport and Carndonagh Railways in this financial year. Deputies will remember that there has been a subsidy for many years past in this concern, and that the Londonderry and Lough Swilly people, running a Government line on a particular basis, have, in recent years, been unable to meet their working expenses, and have been kept going by advances made by this Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. At the beginning of this year the Government of Northern Ireland indicated that they did not propose to give any subsidy whatever this year. In these circumstances we felt that we could not be expected to bear the full cost on the three Government lines. We considered that if there was any subsidy given it should be shared on a fifty-fifty basis, seeing for one thing that the headquarters of the line is in Northern Ireland, and that the greater part of the traffic originates or ends in Derry.

A critical situation in the company's affairs was reached in March, and pressure was used by the directors on both Governments. I had taken my stand in previous years, when I had been first in the field to vote a subsidy, always on the condition that owing to the indication given by the other Government I could promise nothing. To an extent the pressure was relieved, as far as I was concerned, and pressure was apparently exerted on the other Government. Towards the end of March a new scheme was put up by the directors of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway. It amounted to this, that they were to be granted permission to discontinue the running of passenger trains, which was previously an obligation upon them, and that they would be granted a certain sum of money which was to be strictly limited, to acquire road transport which they would operate in order to supplement the passenger services where they were discontinued, and that they would bear the entire cost of the road transport themselves. They guaranteed that they would keep the loss on the working of the reorganised railway and on the passenger carrying buses to £7,724, and that next year and every succeeding year the amount would not exceed £5,000. When that scheme was put forward the Government of Northern Ireland agreed to the payment of half the amount of the maximum loss incurred this year, £7,724, and half of the £5,000 for at least one year. On getting information that the Northern Government had agreed, I also agreed and undertook to introduce a Supplementary Vote to give this amount of money. I am asking the House to grant £3,862, half the estimated loss this year, and £625 which is our portion of the estimated loss of £5,000 during next year. The other conditions of the arrangement I have tried to carry out. The first was that they were to be allowed to discontinue the passenger train services and to supplement the old passenger services by motor services. They were to bear the losses on motor transport themselves. A certain similar agreement was made with the Company except that no further financial assistance would be considered by this Government in connection with this railway.

Do I understand the Minister to say that this is the entire amount of the financial assistance this financial year, or is any payment to be made in respect to motor services?

No, they are to bear the cost of the motor services themselves. Part of the actual conditions which I put to the Company in writing was that no portion of this advance was to be used for meeting the Company's commitments or losses in respect of road transport facilities.

This only deals with the current year?

The financial year. They put the loss on the past calendar year at £7,000, and £5,000 for next year, and I am meeting part of that.

The Government does not audit the accounts of the railway?

Yes. We investigate their accounts every year.

I understand that the reorganisation of the railway resulted in the disemployment of a number of men who were for a very long time in the service. Has any arrangement been made as to the payment of compensation to these men?

None at all.

None at all.

Was any question put to the Minister at any time with a view to having an investigation carried out owing to complaints that were made that the management of the line was not all that it might have been? Was it suggested that if there had been such an investigation carried out it might have resulted generally in the railway being in a better financial position? Might not that reduce the amount that we have to vote?

As a matter of fact I am always entitled to examine, and have examined year by year, the management of the Government lines which this Company works for us. I am quite satisfied that no fuller investigation could have been made than that carried out since the subsidy was granted. No defect in the management was revealed on any of the investigations.

I fully realise that certain difficulties confronted the Minister with regard to the negotiations to which he referred, and which resulted in the closing of the passenger services on this line. I would point out to the Minister that in giving a subsidy for the current financial year he is giving a subsidy to a company which is closing down the passenger section of the railway service and indirectly subsidising the road service of the same company. I presume the motor buses under the new arrangement have been purchased out of funds, portion of which may have come indirectly from the subsidies provided already.

I do not think so.

Apart altogether from this question, the transport service in Co. Donegal appears to be going into a chaotic condition. Before I consent to this Vote I want to know from the Minister whether he has made any examination into the possibilities of the situation so far as they may affect future transport facilities in that county, whether there is a danger of a total closing down of the railway system and of it being superseded by motor lorry system as far as carrying goods is concerned, and a motor bus system as far as passenger traffic is concerned. I want to know whether the Minister has made any investigation from the point of view of future policy regarding transport facilities in Co. Donegal.

I would be glad if the Minister could give the House any information concerning the number of employees of the railway whose services were dispensed with, and the number that were citizens of this State.

The number of employees dismissed is 97. They are 50-50, as far as one can divide an odd number, between Northern Ireland and the Free State. The number of employees originally on the line was, I think, more than twice as many for the Free State as in Northern Ireland.

There has been a certain examination made of the railway and transport situation in northern Donegal. At the moment it looks as if the best solution there would be a passenger bus service and having this railway as it is at present, operating only for the carriage of goods.

Is the Minister prepared to set up a committee, or a commission—I think it is important enough from the point of view of policy—for the purpose of reporting to him in regard to the future transport arrangements in the county, especially in view of the peculiar situation of Donegal as between Northern Ireland and the Free State? Following on the query put by Deputy Lemass—and on that point I happen to be in possession of detailed information—will the Minister say whether the general manager who resigned recently—I emphasise the word "resigned"—received any compensation following his resignation?

I do not know about the last point, but so far as the first point is concerned, necessarily our attention has been directed to the working of the system on the three Government lines in a very detailed fashion. Next year I think we will get all the information we require without the appointment of a commission.

Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Top
Share