Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Dec 1934

Vol. 54 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if representations have been made to him by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company and by the railway trade unions requesting a continuation this year of the Government subsidy paid in previous years towards the maintenance of this line; whether in response to these representations he has declined to consider the payment of any subsidy for the current year and, if so, whether he will state the grounds upon which he made his decision; further, whether he has indicated to representatives of the company, in reply to suggestions that in the absence of a subsidy the line might have to close down, that such a development would be favoured by the Government and, if so, whether he is aware that the closing down of this railway line, or parts of it, would not be in the best interests of the travelling and trading community in the districts affected.

Representations of the nature indicated in the first part of the question have been made by the railway trade unions but not by the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company.

As regards the second part of the question, the grant of a subsidy to this company in respect of the year 1933 was conditional upon an undertaking that no further application for a subsidy would be made, and that steps would be taken forthwith under the powers conferred by the Railways Act, 1933, and the Road Transport Act, 1933, to effect such a reorganisation of the undertaking as would obviate the necessity for further subsidies. Until the economies in working, possible under such a reorganisation, have been fully explored, the question of any further subsidy does not arise.

The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Has the Minister given any authority to the general manager of this company to state that the Government favour the closing down of this line; or, if not, does he himself favour the closing down of the line even under existing circumstances?

That is a separate question.

Has the Minister given any authority to the general manager of the company to make the statement, which I believe he has made, that the Government favour the closing down of the line? That is in the question.

In view of the very evasive and most unsatisfactory answer of the Minister, I propose, with your permission, Sir, to raise the subject matter of this question on the adjournment next Wednesday. That will give the Minister some time to look into the matter.

Perhaps the Deputy will also reread his question in the meantime.

Top
Share