Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 1956

Vol. 155 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 51—Transport and Marine Services.

Mr. Norton

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £344,700 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1956, for certain Transport Services; for Grants for Harbours; for the Salaries and Expenses of the Marine Service (Merchant Shipping) Acts, 1894 to 1952, and the Foreshore Act, 1933 (No. 12 of 1933); for certain Protective Equipment for Ships; for certain payments in respect of Compensation, including the cost of medical treatment (No. 19 of 1946); and for the Coast Life Saving Service.

The original Estimate of £500,000 for the State's share of the G.N.R. revenue losses and capital expenditure has proved insufficient to meet the Board's requirements up to the 31st March, 1956. It is necessary to provide a further sum of £396,398 by way of Supplementary Estimate bringing the total provision for the Board to £896,398 for the year.

The original Estimate included provision for £350,000 to cover our share of the Board's revenue losses. Detailed estimates recently furnished by the Board indicate that a further sum of £297,429 will be required to meet revenue losses up to the 31st March making a total provision of over £647,000 for the year. This, however, is not a true measure of our share of the Board's losses within the financial year. In the past the procedure was that so far as our share of the losses was concerned the Board operated on temporary bank borrowing against their own securities and a State guarantee of £200,000 and applied for advances only when these resources were nearing exhaustion. Previous estimates of the Board's losses were framed therefore on the basis of meeting the Board's requirements substantially in arrear. It is now, however, proposed to provide for the Board's full requirements up to the 31st March and in future to make more frequent advances to the Board so as to reduce the extent of their temporary borrowing. The present total provision for the financial year, therefore, contains an element for paying off the Board's overdraft.

The Board's accounting year ends on the 30th September. The accounts for the year ended 30th September, 1955, have not yet been published. They were due for submission to me by the 31st December but I have authorised an extension to 31st March. Because of the detailed apportionment of receipts and expenditure between the two areas provided for in the scheme of apportionment drawn up under the Great Northern Railway Acts the preparation of the accounts requires more time than would normally be the case especially in the first few years' operation of the Board. It is understood that our share of their losses for the year was in the region of £360,000 including interest payable on the acquisition price of the undertaking and subsequent Government advances, as compared with the corresponding figure of £207,598 for the Board's first accounting period of 13 months ended 30th September, 1954. The present indications are that for the year ending 30th September, 1956, the loss will be still greater. These heavy losses are to be deplored and if there were no hopes of reversing the present trend and eliminating the need for subsidy the outlook would be very grim indeed. But the G.N.R. Board, after an investigation of the position, has made proposals to both Governments for the reorganisation of the railway involving conversion to diesel traction and the renewal and modernisation of rolling stock. Having regard to the experience of C.I.E. I believe that the dieselisation of the railway would put a very different complexion on the problem and would hold out good hopes of putting the railway on a self supporting basis within a reasonable period. For that reason I am prepared to approve in principle of the Board's proposals. As Deputies will be aware, however, the Six-County Government has proposed the closing of three cross-border lines and statements made in the Six-County Parliament yesterday suggest that further pruning of the railway system in the Six Counties now under consideration may include the line from Portadown to Derry. If the Six-County Government have made up their minds irrevocably to close these lines and, in effect, to confine the G.N.R. system in the Six Counties to the main Dublin-Belfast line, then the Government here will have to reexamine the whole matter very carefully.

The estimate of £150,000 for the State's share of the capital expenditure of the board for the current financial year has also proved inadequate and an additional sum of £97,000 is required to meet the board's requirements. Since the original Estimate was framed further capital projects by the board were approved. The additional sum will enable the board to discharge fully their commitments on capital account up to the 31st March, 1956.

In addition a sum of £1,985 is due to the board in respect of expenses incurred in connection with Greenore Hotel. This property has now been disposed of to an industrial firm.

It is also necessary to provide for a sum due to C.I.E. in respect of an overhaul of the Dún Aengus carried out in 1952. The operation of the Galway/ Aran service was taken over by C.I.E. in 1951, but legal transfer of the Dún Aengus to C.I.E. was not effected until October, 1952. In the meantime a sum of £23,302 was incurred on an overhaul of the vessel and this sum falls to be recouped to C.I.E. The C.I.E. claim for recoupment of this sum was not made until September last as claims made on the insurance company and underwriters were not finalised until then.

The total of the additional sum which it is necessary to provide for the G.N.R. Board together with the sum necessary to recoup C.I.E. the cost of the overhaul of the Dún Aengus amounts to £419,700. Against this sum may be offset a saving of £65,000 arising on sub-head B of the Vote (Grants for Harbours). In addition Appropriations-in-Aid of the Vote (sub-head O) are expected to realise approximately £10,000 more than was estimated for due to a payment of interest by the G.N.R. Board being made in the present financial year instead of in the previous financial year. The net excess of the Vote is, therefore, £344,700 and a Vote for this amount is now required.

Mr. Childers

In connection with this Estimate, I think everybody feels very distressed that the progress we had hoped would be made under the new administration, in 1953, has not been realised and, as I understand it, the total losses incurred by the G.N.R. and the Ulster Transport Authority system, taken together, since that time, amounted to several million pounds.

In the first report of the G.N.R. Authority, issued in September, 1954, the directors seemed to express hope that there would be considerable savings through the purchase of rail cars, through the purchase of hydraulic diesel engines and through the scrapping of old equipment and its replacement by new equipment. It was also considered necessary at that time to close certain branch lines and to ensure further co-ordination or, rather, the avoidance of overlapping with road transport and there seemed to be some hope that the deficit would be at least contained.

The Minister has already alluded to the statements that were made yesterday by the Northern Ireland Minister for Finance but I think he gave them insufficient emphasis. We should like to know from the Minister whether any advance information was given to him of this proposed action and, in particular, the decision taken for the first time, to act ruthlessly to eliminate a very great part of the entire railway system, at least in Northern Ireland. I should like to ask the Minister whether the economies that were supposed to be realised through the purchase of rail cars and diesel engines had in fact been realised or whether the G.N.R. Authority have had sufficient experience with rail cars on various parts of the system since the new authority came into being and whether they purchased a sufficient number of diesel engines of the hydraulic variety to be quite certain that they need to act, in their own words, so ruthlessly towards a great part of the system.

As the Minister will be aware, ruthless pruning of the system in the Six Counties will have inevitable and unfortunate effect on the numbers of persons employed in the Dundalk workshop and, if it is really true that a considerable part of the railway system will be scrapped without delay, which is an abbreviation of what the Minister said, then there would be adverse reactions and a considerable increase of unemployment in Dundalk where the rolling stock, the engines, and so forth, are maintained, serviced and reconstructed.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, during the past 12 months, he has been made aware of any change in the general viewpoint of the G.N.R. Authority and whether this increased subvention, which will bear hardly on the taxpayer, is due to some sudden change in the number of passengers carried in the last year, the amount of freight carried or to what he can ascribe this disimprovement in the general position.

I am quite aware that on all sides of the House there has been a totally unrealistic attitude towards very minor branch lines and the use of railways in this country and I am perfectly certain that within the next ten or 15 years there are likely to be substantial changes in the attitude of all parts of the House towards this problem but, nevertheless, we were given to believe that the use of diesel oil and the general reshaping of the organisation of both the main railway concerns would enable us to make transport pay and, for that reason, although we are bound to support this Estimate, we can only deplore the increase in the amount of the deficit.

Mr. Coburn

As everybody knows, the position at the moment in the railway sphere is very parlous. I, coming from Dundalk, speak on behalf of the employees in the Dundalk works. It is good to see that our Minister for Industry and Commerce has a certain amount of faith in the eventual success of the modernisation programme that has been drawn up with regard to the dieselisation of the system but, unfortunately, his counterpart in the North does not share the same optimism and it is significant that the Northern Minister is not very keen to continue the implementation of this modernisation programme.

From the papers recently we see that meetings have been held here, there and everywhere protesting against the proposed closing of any of these branch lines and the unavoidable unemployment that would ensue. I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any likelihood of a further meeting being arranged with the Northern Minister for Commerce. When this new board was set up it was confidently expected that things would change for the better, but we all must admit that, instead, things are going from bad to worse. The crux seems to arise in the northern part of the country and, on behalf of the workers in Dundalk, I should like to voice sincere appreciation of the efforts of our Minister for Industry and Commerce to keep things going on the railway. I should like to ask him now whether he considers it advantageous or not to meet the Northern Minister once again and to try to evolve some system whereby the least damage will be done as regards the employment of these railwaymen.

Mr. McQuillan

Personally, I believe, taking the long term view, it would be tragic for this part of Ireland to follow the line that it is proposed to take in the North of Ireland, to scrap the railways. It may sound very attractive, from the point of view of cost in the immediate future, to lay emphasis on the advantages of road transport, but, without dealing in any detail with it, I want to emphasise the dangerous situation that could be created here in Ireland if we were totally dependent on road transport in time of emergency. We had during the last war the position here that our transport system, slow and inefficient though it may have been, did a tremendous job and gave great service to the community through the utilisation of our native fuel resources——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Estimate refers to the G.N.R. only.

Mr. McQuillan

I am drawing a comparison at the moment. May I suggest to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that my opening statement was designed to point out the necessity to ensure that the railway system here be continued and that every effort should be made to modernise it and at the same time to ensure that in that modernisation programme alternative use can be made of native fuel?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid there is nothing in the Vote about fuel.

Mr. McQuillan

On to-day's papers there was a bombshell in connection with the railway system in the Six Counties and I do not know whether the Government was given prior information as to the announcement or decision taken in the Six Counties, but it has been evident for some time past — not within the last 12 months — that there has been a very strong movement built up to eliminate the railway system there. We have only to look at the expenditure in the Six Counties on roads, secondary and third class roads, over the last couple of years to realise that the stage was being set for the announcement that was made yesterday.

The situation becomes still more serious — I am sure it is the case — that the Government here had no prior indication that this drastic action was being envisaged by the Government in the Six Counties. Unquestionably, this decision is going to have tremendous repercussions not alone in the Six Counties, but also in the Twenty-Six Counties. No matter whether this House disowns, or suggests it has no responsibility for, what may take place in regard to the railway system in the North, that decision will have a bearing on the situation here in future years. I do not know whether it has struck members of the House that it is absolutely essential that this Government should make the strongest possible protest against the decision that has been conveyed to us in connection with the railway system in the North. What will be the ultimate result of this? It will mean that the people in the Six Counties who want to see Partition cemented have now one of the greatest weapons at their disposal to ensure that Partition is a matter that will last for all time.

If the railway system is scrapped in the Six Counties, it means that the Six Counties become completely dependent on the importation of foreign fuels for the transport system and we know that in the road transport system there is nothing available in Ireland, either in the Six Counties or Twenty-Six Counties, in the way of raw materials necessary for road transport. The rubber, the machinery and everything is imported; the energy necessary to drive these vehicles whether it is through diesels, oil or petrol or in any other form is an imported commodity. If this decision is final, it means in five years' time, the Six-County Government can say: "We must stay close to Britain because if we do not we will be left on our own and our transport arrangements will cease to operate because we have no raw materials in the Six Counties."

That is the strongest possible argument that can be made for the cementing of Partition under present-day circumstances. It is an extraordinary situation that in Britain so much more is contemplated and no matter whether these people in the Six Counties like it or not, their legislation is based on British legislation, and it is a rather sinister matter to find that the British Government is prepared to allow the Six-County Government to take a decision that will have vital consequences on the future — unless, of course, we find that the British Government has taken into consideration that the removal of the railways in the Six Counties will mean that the Six Counties will come more closely within the British control.

I did not hear fully what Deputy Childers had to say on this matter, but I want to ask the Minister whether the Government has had previous knowledge or information given to them by the Six-County Government, on the announcement that was made in to-day's papers by that Government, and if so, did this Government make any protest or discuss the matter with the Six-County Government, and if they — I believe myself the Six-County Government did not notify our Government here of this drastic and inexcusable decision — did not do so, does this Government now intend to request the Six-County Government to meet them so that a discussion can take place with regard to the issues involved both North and South concerning transport arrangements for the future?

I think no time should be lost by the Government in requesting the Six County Government to meet them and discuss the whole problem. I hope that the Minister will inform us to that effect when he is replying.

Mr. Cunningham

The figures given by the Minister for losses were rather startling. We note a very serious increase, and what makes matters worse is the fact that he holds out no hope that there will be any improvement in the year ahead. That is one headache with which the Minister is faced, and with which the country is faced, but over and above that there is the more serious problem of the future of the G.N.R. in the Six Counties. Those of us who travel in the North could see, as Deputy McQuillan has said, the build-up leading to to-day's announcement in the papers.

We could see that representations were made, or are being made, in the Six Counties for a complete change over from rail to road. If we take for example the main road from Belfast, leading through Armagh and Omagh on to Strabane and Derry, we will see that millions of pounds are being poured into it to widen bends, to level bumps and to improve the road generally. That road runs for a good part of the distance along the G.N.R. route and it is because it was decided some time ago by the Government up there to close down the stretch from Portadown to Derry that this huge sum was poured into that particular road.

I think the time has come when the Minister should seek clarification of the whole position, when he should seek a meeting at top level with his opposite number in Stormont. I am afraid that the board which was set up as a result of the purchase of the railway is not being consulted by the Minister up North; I am afraid that decisions are being taken without any advice from or consultation with the G.N.R. Board. I believe that eventually we will find ourselves faced with a close down in the Six Counties of not alone the branch lines but of some sections — fairly large sections at that — of the main lines. It was rumoured about six months ago that the Portadown-Derry main line was to be closed down. Judging by recent statements that seems to be an accomplished fact and it is time that we did something concrete about it. I would urge very strongly that the Minister would have a conference with the Minister for Commerce in Belfast on this whole question. In his reply I hope the Minister will indicate if that is his intention and what the result of any preliminary talks have been.

Any drastic changes such as those feared and rumoured would have serious effects on the whole transport system not alone of the Six Counties, but of the other three Ulster counties, and of Louth and other neighbouring counties like Sligo. There would be a serious transport problem to be solved there if a breakdown of relations took place between the Department here and the Department in Belfast. It would be very wise for the Minister to have some alternative in mind in case such a deadlock would occur.

There is no doubt that if such a state of affairs does crop up, transport problems galore will arise along the Border. It will affect all counties from Donegal to Louth and some alternative arrangement should at least be considered now so that we would not be faced later with a crisis. The best way to deal with it is to make sure, if possible, that such a close down will not take place. I know there are difficulties in that, but the fact that we have a financial interest in the G.N.R. with the Six Counties Government does strengthen our hands. If we did reach a stage where we would have to operate the G.N.R. as it exists now, it would be a rather heavy task. It is something that will have to be considered and if that is not possible, then some alternative transport system to meet such a situation should be considered.

County Donegal especially will be very seriously hit if these proposals materialise. It will mean we will be entirely dependent on road transport and even as it is, with the services now provided by G.N.R., the position is not too satisfactory. We have had several complaints in the past that the transport provided was not anything like what could be expected although it was thought that there would be many improvements when the railway was taken over by the new board.

It was hoped that these improvements would include a better service to the North generally and to Donegal especially, but it does not appear now as if our hopes will be realised. I think that even since the new G.N.R. Board was set up, difficulties have been put in our way in the Six Counties. You have buses leaving at the exact times that the trains leave and you have lorries competing with the G.N.R. system. You had, as I already mentioned, roads put into such a state of repair that we anticipated at the time the idea was to get rid of rail transport in the North.

Of course, as Deputy McQuillan pointed out, there is the political aspect of this. I do not want to make things more difficult for the Minister. He will, in the time ahead, have to take steps to deal with the situation which is showing itself at the moment and he will have to negotiate some agreement or at least to try and get some agreement. Definitely the political situation is cropping up. This will mean a complete cutting off of the North from the rest of the country as far as rail transport is concerned. There is another matter to which I should like to refer and that is the proposed closing down of the Bundoran line. Representations have been made to have this line kept open because it is a line which certainly pays its way and carries a great deal of tourist traffic. That line carries a considerable number of passengers and should be kept open.

As I said at the outset the Minister has a very big problem here. It is one which will require serious thought and effort. I know the Minister will do his best but he should take immediate action and the least that should be done is to have representations made immediately to the Minister's opposite number in Belfast to ensure that nothing will be done without the Minister's consent and his knowledge and agreement. I would advise him strongly to keep in mind, in any negotiations he has, the fact that the G.N.R. main lines especially, and some of the important branch lines as well, would be kept open to serve not alone the Six Counties but some of the Twenty-Six Counties along the Border. It would be a very serious problem if this rail system were closed down.

Mr. Finlay

I wish to intervene only for a short while in this debate. The suggestion just made by Deputy McQuillan is not only thoroughly unsound but it is particularly unhelpful as well. He has suggested that recent events in Northern Ireland indicate a general policy of changing the whole transport of that part of the country from rail to road. I do not know whether that suggestion is sound or not. The Deputy mentioned that one indication was the tremendous road widening and improvements going on in the North. That would not, of itself, seem to be absolute proof. Anyone travelling the first 20 to 25 miles of the Cork road might be led to believe that we were abandoning the whole southern railway system.

It may be that there is a tendency in the Six Counties to move from road to rail but the fantastic suggestion has been made by Deputy McQuillan that that is being done in order to solidify Partition. The reason given is that if you have a road system of transport in the Six Counties it would be dependent for its fuel supply and equipment on sources outside the Six Counties. That suggestion does not seem to me to bear any examination at all. We ourselves are dieselising our whole railway system. I do not believe that since the time of the emergency any railway system in this country, North or South, has found its fuel in Ireland. Whether you are trying to buy oil from America or the Middle East to run buses or lorries, or coal from England to run trains, the fuel is still coming from outside the country.

The suggestion that a change from rail to road in the Six Counties would have the effect of making these Six Counties dependent on outside sources of fuel does not seem to me to bear any examination. It would be an unwise and unhelpful attitude for us to take up. The whole business of the Great Northern Railway is one of the, unfortunately, few matters in which we are able to get together with the Government of the Six Counties to consider matters which affect both parts of the country.

If we start to make that arrangement a sounding board for political arguments about Partition it will make all future economic collaboration extremely difficult. If we are going to approach this problem of the changing policy of the Six Counties with regard to transport, it is essential that we should consider it as an economic problem and concern ourselves simply and solely with how any such action on the part of the Six-Counties Government is going to affect this part of the country economically.

The Deputy who spoke last dealt with the matter in a reasonable manner when he spoke of the concern of the other three Ulster counties. That speech was a sensible one but to suggest that this is the first stage of some move on the part of the Six Counties for some political purpose is not only unsound but most unwise as well. I can see that there would be a justifiable reaction on the part of the Six-County Government if matters concerning the G.N.R. are going to be approached in that way. I can foresee a very justifiable feeling that no further collaboration should take place. That is the only reason for my intervention in this debate, to suggest to the House that the suggestion made is unwise and calculated to do considerable mischief as well.

Mr. J. Brennan

I cannot let this occasion pass without assuring the Minister that there is grave concern in the counties of Fermanagh and Donegal in regard to the closing down of the branch lines. This concern has reached a climax with yesterday's pronouncement from Stormont. It is not confined to any particular section of the community. People of every creed and class in Fermanagh and Donegal are determined to do everything in their power, by protest or otherwise, to assist the Minister in any action which he may take or to continue any action which he has already taken to prevent the closing of their life-line.

The main line via Clones and Enniskillen to Bundoran is the life-line of Donegal. If we are to have any future development of industry in Donegal, that line will be absolutely essential. In fact it is essential in so far as we are engaging in the decentralisation of industry in Donegal at the moment. We could hardly hope to hold out any inducement to any industrial concern to come to Donegal if we did not have that good broad gauge line.

With the formation of the Great Northern Railway Board, we in Donegal and Fermanagh looked forward to an improvement in our services. We did not think that the action now proposed would be taken by any one Government without thorough consideration and consultation. I am in agreement with the other Deputies who expressed doubts as to whether that consultation has taken place. I would like to assure the Minister that he has the support of everybody concerned in these two counties in any action he may take to prevent the closing of this branch line. I wonder if he has followed up the action he has already taken by constant liaison and consultation with his counterpart in the Six Counties.

I thoroughly agree that this thing should not be put on any political basis. There is no political issue involved. All sections in the counties concerned, Fermanagh and Donegal, irrespective of political or sectarian affiliations, have joined in protest to prevent the closing of this line which to them is the vital life-line for the existence of their towns and villages and for the future development of Fermanagh and Donegal as well as other areas.

We cannot hope for the development to which we look forward in the matter of the decentralisation of industry, if we start off by closing down the life-line of our county. To the people of Bundoran, as has already been mentioned, this would be a serious blow. The line to Bundoran has brought tourists in their thousands. We hope it will bring them in increasing numbers in the years to come. To close this line would deal a death blow to that important resort, to say nothing of the neighbouring towns of Ballyshannon and Pettigo. I hope — I am sure I am not hoping in vain — the Minister fully realises the seriousness of the position in so far as an isolated county like Donegal is concerned. If these arteries of communication are to be severed, we shall find ourselves even more isolated in the future.

I have not yet heard even those who try to make a case for the severance of these lines, not even the dry-as-dust economists in the Stormont Government, who can justify the proposed action by pointing to the losses, because they failed to point out that the thousands which have to be paid at the moment in subsidy in order to maintain those lines may in the future have to be paid to maintain the roads necessary to carry the transport diverted to them. There is nothing to justify the closing of these lines. I am opposed to the closing of any railway lines, even the narrow gauge lines leading into the heart of the county. The railways have brought civilisation to many areas. They are as important to-day as they were when they were first laid even though communications and transport have advanced beyond the dreams of those who engineered railways in places like the Rocky Mountains. The closing of railway lines is always a retrograde step.

We have a special reason for concern. Donegal is cut off from the rest of the Twenty-Six Counties and it has been rightly described as the "Cinderella" county. If these two main arteries of communication are severed we will be left in the position where our main worry will be transport to carry the people who are emigrating. I appeal to the Minister — I am sure I am not appealing to one who will turn a deaf ear — to consider our special circumstances. We are seriously perturbed and we are prepared to give him every support and assistance in order to avert this disaster to our future economy. The mere mention of this being some political subterfuge does not in any way help the situation. That has nothing whatever to do with it. This is purely and simply a case of dry-as-dust economics without the necessary foresight on behalf of, or the necessary consideration for, others. Getting the G.N.R. to show a profit, or break even, is not nearly so important as the future economy of the counties concerned. I hope the Minister will bring home these facts and persistently pursue every channel of exploration before this precipitate action is taken.

We are determined to give all the assistance possible by way of co-operating with all concerned to prevent the closing down of these lines. The people of Fermanagh are equally concerned. They are gravely perturbed. They can see the economic life of many of their towns threatened as a result of the proposed action. That is not confined to any particular section and they can rest assured that we in Donegal, in the Donegal County Council, the Bundoran Urban Council and other public bodies will give all the co-operation and assistance necessary even at the eleventh hour to avert the closing down of these branch lines. The closing down of these lines will have a contrary effect from that suggested in some quarters; this proposal has cemented together people in Fermanagh who have not seen eye-to-eye in the past. They are determined to fight as one in support of the retention of these lines despite sectarian or Party affiliation. Public bodies have passed resolutions expressing appreciation of the stand the Minister has taken. I hope the Minister's mind has not changed and that he will, as I have said, persistently pursue every possible channel to ensure this closing down does not take place.

Mr. Breslin

I want to intervene briefly on this very important Estimate and to endorse what has been said by the other Donegal representatives, Deputies Cunningham and J. Brennan. The announcement yesterday by the Six County Government that the closing down of three cross-Border lines was in the offing came as a bombshell, not alone to my county of Donegal but to the people in the towns and villages in many parts of the Six Counties — to the people of Dungannon, Omagh and Strabane and to the people in other towns and villages in these areas. It came as a bombshell because we were hoping that, as a result of the deliberations of the G.N.R. Board, something effective would be done to keep that important artery open between Dublin and Derry City and, incidentally, between Dublin and Donegal. It is surprising that, when the G.N.R. Board, which, I am sure, went into every point and took every point into consideration and recommended the reorganisation of the railway in question, a reorganisation which would involve conversion to diesel traction and the renewal and modernisation of the rolling stock, such a recommendation should now be made. One would imagine that the Six County Government would take that advice to heart and do something to make the line prosperous. I know this line very well because I have travelled it twice weekly during the last 20 years.

On another occasion in this House I took the opportunity of pointing out to the Minister that no effort was being made so far as the line from Portadown to Strabane and Derry was concerned to improve matters. I pointed out, too, that after 20 to 30 years, it took longer for a passenger to come from Derry City to Dublin to-day than it did in those far-off days. In those days it was possible to complete the journey in four hours. Now one is lucky if a train comes in anywhere within five-and-a-half hours from the time it leaves Derry City. I feel that those tactics could only have one result, and that has been the steady deterioration of the G.N.R. lines over the years. What has been accomplished by the good business methods of the dieselisation of the C.I.E. could equally be accomplished in the Six County area if the authorities there took the matter seriously. But, as I said, no effort has been made and we are faced with this situation to-day.

We often hear mention of the hard-headed businessmen of the North, but when one contemplates the position that will prevail when this line and the other lines that have been mentioned are closed down. I am afraid we can look forward to nothing but chaos in the transport industry in the Six County area. It certainly does not speak well for these hard-headed businessmen of the North, about whom we hear so much from one end of the year to the other.

The effect on our principal industry in Donegal, namely, the tourist industry, if this line and the other lines mentioned close down, will be disastrous. We in Donegal, unfortunately, have not very many large industries, industries capable of employing from 400 to 500 people at a time but one of our industries — and it has been a growing one during the last 20 to 30 years — namely, the tourist industry, certainly provides employment in most villages and towns. It will be a serious thing for the county and tourist development generally if the railways are allowed to close. It will mean more unemployment and emigration from a county that has, God knows, already too much of those two serious ills. As other Deputies pointed out, I also can assure the Tánaiste that he will have the support, not alone of everybody in Donegal but also of the people in Derry City, Dungannon, Omagh, and all the other towns in any effort he makes to keep open our principal life-line between Dublin and the isolated county of Donegal.

The proposed closing of the Bundoran line also came as a shock to the people at that end of the county. Bundoran, as the Minister is well aware, is one of our principal tourist towns not alone in Donegal but in Ireland. On Sundays during the holiday season into that town come perhaps 20, 30 or perhaps 40 special trains. How are the tourists to be catered for if the railway is allowed to close? Can anyone imagine the number of buses that would be required to take those tourists in and out of Bundoran? So far as Bundoran, Ballyshannon and Pettigo are concerned, if the railway is allowed to close it will mean the closing down of the fine industry that they themselves built out of their own resources before there was any Government assistance of any kind. Again, it will lead to more unemployment at that end of the county. I do not need to refer to the effect it will have on Ireland's national pilgrimage to Lough Derg.

I hope the Minister will keep all these things in mind — I know he has the welfare of that area at heart in so far as their system of transport is concerned—and that he will be able to prevail on the Six-County Government to change their views. I hope also that the last word on this serious matters has not been said and that we will shortly have an announcement that these life-lines that have been mentioned here will remain open to help in the building up of one of our finest industries — the tourist industry.

Mr. Donegan

The first duty of every speaker on this measure must be, I think, to congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the stand he has taken and the overtures he has made to the rulers of another part of Ireland to keep these lines open. We in the South are united in this regard. As the previous speaker said, this is not a political measure. Everybody stands behind the Minister in his efforts to keep these lines open, to keep the rolling stock moving and we wish him well in his efforts. Let him proceed in the knowledge that we are all to a man behind him.

Deputy Brennan said that nobody but the dry-as-dust economists of Stormont's Parliament would want the lines closed. Here I want to take issue, not with the speaker but with the opinions expressed because, in fairness and in truth, the dry-as-dust economists in any part of Ireland should want to have those lines kept open. In the course of business I have occasion to keep a few lorries myself and I pay what seems to me as I pay it quite a large road tax. But I do admit, and it is obvious to the meanest observer, that if I were to pay the proportionate cost of what it were costing to keep the roads open for those lorries, in fact I would be availing at present rates of the railway services that are provided.

The greatest argument that can be adduced for the keeping open of these lines — and I speak now from a 32-County aspect — is the fact that they probably constitute the most economic method of moving goods. If we approach this problem from the point of view of last year's Book of Estimates or any year's Book of Estimates over the last ten years, we find that the road tax collected on vehicles has not kept the roads going. A very large grant from Government funds has been necessary to keep the roads even in the rather mediocre condition they are in to-day. When one approaches the finances of C.I.E., one finds that included in those finances is the total cost of the upkeep of the permanent way. That is the salient point of argument in the whole matter, the fact that included in those accounts is the cost of the upkeep of the permanent way.

Must not the dry-as-dust economist balance the cost of upkeep of the permanent way against the cost of upkeep of the roads? It is a fact that the most economic haulage of goods can be effected by cohesion between road and rail services, the goods going a certain distance to the railhead and being hauled by lorry to the business house, say, a few miles distant therefrom. That is the natural conception of business as it should be. But I have not the slightest objection to admitting that if, as a lorry owner, I have to pay the total cost of keeping the roads open so that I can move my goods in one movement, without double handling, it would be completely uneconomic. We must face this problem from the point of view as to whether or not all transport of goods is uneconomic at present rates in this country. In order to succeed in the export drive, it behoves us as a Government and it behoves the Stormont Government, if they only knew, to keep these lines open at present rates for movement of goods.

That is my line in regard to this matter. It may be a voice in the wilderness. If the figures are examined —I shall not go so far as to produce them to-night—it will be found that in a country with such a small population per square mile as we have and, therefore, such a small consumption of goods per square mile as we have, all transport shall be, must be and will be uneconomic until we have achieved a greater measure of industrialisation and a greater measure of productivity in agriculture. If you paint with a tar brush the Department of Local Government, which provides the roads, it is only fair to paint the other and to say that we must accept a loss. Therefore, we must wish the Minister well in his efforts with the Stormont Parliament.

Personally, I should like the Minister to make every effort and not to deviate from his present goal, if at all possible, for the simple reason that we hope at some future time to have a 32-County Parliament and that it is necessary to set up industries in the rural areas. That has been the concept of Governments over the last 15 years. Both major Parties and, I think, the Labour Party have been as one voice in their efforts to set up industries west of the Shannon. Why then, if we can avoid it, cut off an area completely from communication? What are the hopes of an industry being set up, even with a Government grant, if there is no railhead within 15 or 20 miles of the proposed factory? We must face this as a very serious situation and do our utmost. I have the utmost confidence that the Minister will do all in his power to avoid the closing of the lines concerned.

Bluntly speaking, it is only fair to say that the Minister has the worst end of the stick. Perhaps it is only fair to say that, I suppose, in the opinion of all of us, if the Great Northern Railway works were on the other side of the Border, perhaps Stormont would not be just so keen to close these branch lines in Dundalk. The main male labour potential in that town is provided by the Great Northern Railway works and any curtailment of lines in any part of Ireland must of necessity affect that potential.

The Minister must weigh in the balance whether or not certain sacrifices shall be made to keep these lines open. The railway works in Dundalk are a most economic unit and are doing their best to keep the railways running. They are providing the main male labour potential for a town which is generally accepted as one of the most progressive provincial industrial towns in our country. I ask the Minister to consider the industry in Dundalk when he comes to make a final decision, if such decision rests with him.

As one who has very great regard for the County Donegal and its people, I should like to join with those Deputies from Donegal who spoke here to-night. In this respect I suppose we can think, not of a 32-County Ireland but, selfishly, of a Twenty-Six County Ireland. I should not like to see Donegal cut off from its main line to Dublin. Donegal is one of our major tourist counties. In Donegal there is a great potential for industrial expansion. In Donegal there is a tweed industry; there is one of the finest oatmeal industries in this country. Often, when industries are old their use tends to be minimised. Donegal produces probably 50 per cent of the flake oatmeal that is produced in Ireland. There is a very great industry there in the production of potato-oats. To cut off the potato growers of Donegal from Dublin City would be a major catastrophe. Let us do all we can to avert that.

With regard to Lough Derg, I do not mind admitting that I went there once, but I do not think I will ever work up the religious enthusiasm to go again, but I would ask the Minister to consider what the effect of closing the line will be on pilgrimages to Lough Derg. We hope the Minister will succeed in his endeavour and we congratulate him on his efforts to date.

Mr. Bartley

The Minister is asking for £23,000 in respect of certain repairs to the S.S. Dún Aengus in connection with its handing over to C.I.E. from the private company who formerly operated it. He made some reference to insurance. I should like him to explain whether the sum of £23,000 represents merely the share of the cost which is borne by public funds. If that is so, would he say what the total cost of the repairs to which he has referred has been? Perhaps I may also, with relevance, inquire as to the amount which was paid to the former owners of this boat for their interest.

I, like other Deputies, am interested in the main question which has been discussed, but it is not easy to follow exactly how the curtailment of railway services in the North is connected with the inflation of the demands which are being made on the Minister to honour his obligations under the agreement which he made in the Transport Act, which places responsibility on him and his opposite number in the North for the G.N.R. services. The Minister has pointed out that there has been a considerable increase in the demand. He has not stated what curtailment of railway services took place concurrently with the growth of the demand or whether the present demand would be greatly increased in the near future unless, in fact, the further curtailments which have been protested against here this evening take place. I would like to add my voice to those of Deputies who deprecated making a political issue of this question. Deputies on both sides of the House appealed that that should not be done as it would only bedevil the whole question. At least one Deputy on the far side, the last Deputy who spoke, seemed to ignore those appeals and did introduce a political element by saying that if the Dundalk works were on the other side of the Border possibly this action would not be taken.

We have had examples here in the Twenty-Six Counties of the damage— and also of the futility — of the damage that can be done by making questions of this kind political questions. I remember when the G.S.R. decided to close about 150 miles of line between Clonsilla and Clifden and 120 miles of that were closed before the change of Government in 1932. There was no political row about the closing of the 120 miles, but there was a terrific row about the closing of the other 30. The general question of transport arrangements was not made any easier of settlement, particularly in the western part, by the political row raised. I know that the railway authorities of the time were very anxious to keep the western part open and when appealed to and asked if they got a capital sum would it help them to solve the problem, they said it would not, that it was traffic they wanted and not subsidies.

I do not know exactly whether the railways mentioned here by Deputies to-night are in a similar situation; I do think the Donegal Deputies have made a very fine case for the maintenance of these lines as links. If there must be further curtailment of the services, perhaps the mistake made, or at least what is now being declared to be a mistake when any reference is made to it, should not be repeated in regard to these lines, and that is, that if there must be complete curtailment of services over a period, the lines themselves should not be removed. I do not know what implications would be created by retaining those lines even where services are completely abolished, but it would assuage public concern and indignation when services are abolished if the lines were not forthwith removed. It seems to be a burning of boats, so to speak, which prevents any reconsideration of decisions subsequently being made. I do know that the occasion which I have in mind and which impels me to speak on this northern question is possibly not quite analogous to the circumstances with which we are now dealing.

I do not know that the lines I am referring to ran through an unpopulated area and that the people of the populated places would have considerable journeys to make to connect with the lines. Even dieselisation or reduction of running costs would not solve the question, but the Minister did seem to indicate in relation to these particular lines now that the G.N.R. Board has hopes that dieselisation may solve the problem and may, in fact — if it does not bring about a reduction in the demand on public purses both North and South—contain these demands within their present limits. It is a pity if that is so, that dieselisation was not proceeded with when it was first proposed. We would have gained a great deal of experience and would possibly have saved a great deal of money if it had not then been interfered with for what appeared to be political reasons. That is a further reason which induces me to rise to support Deputies on both sides even at this late stage who deprecate making this a political issue.

Deputy McQuillan's case in respect of the political significance of the change does not hold water, as has been pointed out by Deputy Finlay. Deputy McQuillan seemed to think that this decision would eventually render public transport in the Six Counties entirely dependent on Britain and British resources. That can be a double-edged weapon and I would suggest that Deputy McQuillan and others who are inclined to be attracted by that argument and to make a political issue out of this, should visualise the political situation in which the resources upon which they think Northern transport will be compelled to rely should fail, that is, in the case of another world war. Will not the shoe be completely on the other foot and will there not be such a degree of resentment against having put them into that unenviable and irremediable position that the political consequences would be very favourable to us down here?

I do not think there is anything to be gained, in any event, by trying to give this situation any political significance. I think it is inadvisable. Even if one could make a fairly plausible case, taking the long view, I think it would be most inadvisable to do that. We have had sad experience of the yielding to temptation to make political issues of other situations here among ourselves from 1932 on. I do not want to introduce any political contention into this matter by naming the matters—they come to mind quite readily in the case of anybody who has been acquainted with political life here for the last 20 years. I do feel that the appeal to the Minister particularly by the Donegal Deputies is well based; their case is a very strong one and Deputy Donegan's case for subsidies even to a much greater extent than is now demanded, is reasonable in view of the Donegal position.

Deputy Donegan — I do not know whether he was ingenuous or ingenious —certainly was a bit disarming in his line of reasoning. He pointed out that he himself was a lorry owner and that all lorry owners are using road transport in preference to railways because it is more economic, because it reduces handling. He does, however, admit that users of these lorries are not paying a fair amount of the cost of road improvement and maintenance, and that being so, he criticises the system of accounting which includes the maintenance of permanent ways as a burden on the railways; he suggests that the public purse should come in here and maintain these lines and that after that, if the operation of the railways proved uneconomic, the accountant's case is quite sound.

I do not know what one should say to that type of argument. I think the general approach would be that if the railways are maintained and that if there is a possibility of their becoming an economic proposition in the future, say in 20 or 30 years' time, one could follow Deputy Donegan's line of reasoning. We could also have that attitude in relation to the Post Office services and possibly one could make a case for it in relation to the railways particularly where the railways can be visualised as being main arteries either for passenger or goods traffic in the foreseeable future. But you cannot make that case for lines which are stop end and which do not serve dense populations. I think the two cases mentioned here to-night do not come within that particular category. I believe that the closing down of railroads is one of the most serious decisions with which the Minister's Department is concerned and because of the nature of the road over which trains travel, a decision to curtail the service and follow that up by the lifting of the line is one that calls for the greatest consideration the Minister can give. A decision to expend public money to stave off the lifting of the line as long as possible is one which will have general support. Looking at the question from that general viewpoint I have great pleasure in supporting the appeals from all Deputies that no wrong or irremediable decision would be taken in this particular matter.

Mr. Kelly

As one of the representatives of County Monaghan, I should like to add my voice to those of the other Deputies who have spoken so strongly in this matter of the closing down of the G.N.R. lines. There is no county in the North which will suffer more by the close down than will Monaghan and its very progressive towns. The lines run entirely through the county and their closing down will be a severe blow. The matter came up for discussion at a meeting of my county council last week and while there were many voices there ready to make political capital out of it I am very pleased to say on the whole that there was great appreciation for the Minister's efforts to keep the lines alive. The people of the northern counties are fully alive to the efforts of the Minister in that direction and I think that the people who get up in this House or in any other assembly in Ireland — in county councils, urban councils or rural councils — and introduce a political tinge into the argument are doing a considerable amount of harm.

This is a matter over and above politics and I do not agree with speakers who talk about the people in the North taking a different view of things if the railway works in Dundalk were on the other side of the Border. I do not think the people of the North have come down to that. They are practical people. They have always met us in a very liberal way and I know, living very near them, that any representations I made to the people in authority in Belfast about employment I get the greatest consideration. There is no political ill-feeling there. They are helpful in every way. There is nothing I wish to add to what has been said about the merits of this other than to emphasise that we in Monaghan are very much concerned about the closing down of this branch line. I hope it does not happen. I support the appeals made by the Donegal men and whether I am right or wrong I feel a special word of praise is due to the Minister for the firm stand he has taken in this matter.

Mr. Norton

I want to thank the House for the understanding way in which it has approached this whole problem of the position of the cross border railways. It is quite clear that the House appreciated there are very serious difficulties ahead. It was anxious in an understanding way to see if any steps could be taken to avoid what must mean for many people in many areas and particularly Donegal, a very serious difficulty. May I take this opportunity of congratulating Deputy Kelly on his reasoned statement in what I think was his maiden speech? If it was not his maiden speech I, nevertheless, congratulate him on its substance.

I think the House should get a picture of the whole business. The G.N.R. Board, about 1954 I think, were anxious they should get the green light from the northern Government and from the Government here for a policy of re-equipping and dieselising the G.N.R. system. There was some delay, not on our part, in clearing the issues involved. The northern Government felt, apparently, that it was necessary to give the matter some prolonged and detailed consideration. The G.N.R. Company then felt they would soon want to go ahead and incur some capital expenditure unless they were stopped from doing so. I was not prepared to stop them because I took the view that dieselisation and re-equipment were the only hope of putting the undertaking on a sound financial footing. Even then that could not be done immediately, but one had to approach the problem with a feeling of understanding and be satisfied if reasonably substantial strides were taken to bring the undertaking from utter insolvency back to solvency.

As a result of the talk which I then had with Lord Glentoran, the Minister of Commerce in the North, arrangements were made whereby the G.N.R. Company would be given an advance for the purchase of 24 diesel railway cars. Tenders for these were invited and I am not quite sure at the moment whether all of these railcars are in service. At all events, that portion of the problem was cleared. Then the whole question of further reorganisation of the service and the dieselisation and re-equipment of the lines was further considered. I understand that the directors of the G.N.R. Company set up a sub-committee to consider the problem and to ascertain what was the best remedy for the financial difficulties surrounding the company at the time.

I understand further that that sub-committee recommended that the undertakings should be dieselised and that no branch line should be closed down until the dieselisation policy was in operation and given a chance to prove its merits. I think that that sub-committee of the directors of the G.N.R. submitted their report to the board of directors and that the board of directors accepted the report of the sub-committee as the best means of dealing with the problem of the cross-border railways.

Last October Lord Glentoran asked me to meet him in Belfast for discussion of these problems. The previous meetings had been held in Dublin and the arrangement was that the meetings would alternate between Dublin and Belfast. At that meeting in October last the position of the cross-Border railways was discussed. It was then intimated by Lord Glentoran, the Minister of Commerce, that the Six County Government had come to the conclusion that they would abandon all branches of the G.N.R. within the Six County area; that they had made up their minds that there was no future in these branch lines; that they were uneconomic and that suitable alternative transport could be supplied by means of road services.

There were, however, cross-Border services. Those are the services known as common services, services common to both areas, and in the case of these the Minister of Commerce in Belfast is obliged to consult the Minister for Industry and Commerce here with a view to ascertaining what the point of view of both Ministers is with regard to these. When I met Lord Glentoran then he told me that the Six County Government proposed to close the branch lines which are common to the two areas. These are the ones from Portadown to Armagh and Tynan, another to Enniskillen and Omagh and the third from Bundoran to Belleek. He asked me would I consent to the proposal to close these three lines and I said that I was not prepared to consent to any proposal to close them, that I felt that the sub-committee of the board of directors and the G.N.R. Board, many of whom are practical railway people and transport experts, were right in taking the view that dieselisation ought to get a chance to prove itself before we took the irrevocable step of closing down a railway line and finally abandoning an undertaking.

I pointed out that down here we had taken the view with C.I.E. that dieselisation held out a prospect of success and that C.I.E., in common with the Government, had decided that they would not close down any further branch lines until such time as they had given dieselisation an opportunity of succeeding. I pointed out that even in cases where C.I.E. had got authority to close branch lines they had decided not to close them until such time as dieselisation had got a chance.

I intimated to the Minister of Commerce that I was not prepared to join an agreement with him to close three-cross-Border services. That position having been reached, therefore, the position under the Great Northern Railway Act is that the matter at issue, the closing down of the three cross-Border branches, must be referred to the chairmen of the transport tribunals in the two areas, for joint advice and report. I understand that the matter has been referred to the chairmen of both tribunals and that they propose to hold a public inquiry in the matter. Notice to that effect appeared in the public Press of the 3rd February inviting parties wishing to make representations to submit particulars of their representations to either tribunal before the 5th March.

The Great Northern Railway Act provides that, if after considering the report of the chairman, one Minister decides to terminate the service and the other Minister decides that the board should continue the service, the dissenting Minister should be liable for the loss sustained by the board in the continuation of the service. It is quite clear now that the Six County Government are anxious to close these three lines. I have said to the Minister of Commerce in the Six Counties that I think we should give dieselisation a chance before we close the lines. Not withstanding that, the Minister of Commerce in Belfast might decide that he will close these lines. In other words, he may either accept or reject the recommendation of the chairmen of the tribunals but, if he finally comes to the conclusion that these lines will be closed, then we can keep them going. We can keep them going on the understanding that we will pay the losses involved in the continued operation of these lines even though these lines will not be in our own territory.

In other words, if the branch line is closed, we can continue to operate our own portion of the line even if the Six County Government wishes to close their portion of it. The other portion is in their territory. If the portion in their territory was to be kept going, we would be required to pay whatever loss was involved in the continued operation of that portion.

That brings up a number of problems all of which I am not prepared to discuss here and now, nor am I prepared, having seen only a newspaper report of the statement in Stormont, to discuss the matter at any length. If words mean anything it is clear now that the Six County Government is going to close these three lines. It does not matter what the report of the chairman of the tribunals may be. It is not going to affect the policy or decision of the Six County Government because the Minister for Finance in the Six County Government yesterday stated that the Government was determined to act swiftly, strongly and ruthlessly in so far as the closing of these lines is concerned. That means, I take it, that so far as the Six County Government is concerned they are not going to give dieselisation a chance on the three lines which have been referred to the tribunal. They have apparently complied with the formality of referring the matter to a tribunal but the Six County Minister for Finance says, tribunal notwithstanding, the Government is determined to act swiftly, strongly and ruthlessly. I think, therefore, we may take it that so far as these three branch lines are concerned the Government in the Six Counties is determined to close them so far as lies within their power; and I take it that that means that they have rejected a policy of dieselisation as a means of reducing and ultimately eliminating loss.

Another problem is thrown up by what the Six County Minister of Finance said yesterday. He is reported as saying that there are two lines running between Belfast and Derry— taking different directions of course— and that one of these lines must go. One of these lines is that which runs from Belfast up through the County Antrim and along the coastline to Derry. The other runs from Belfast to Portadown, in Six County territory, through Dungannon, in Six County territory, through Omagh, in Six County territory, through Strabane, in Six County territory, and into Derry. One of these lines, according to the Northern Minister for Finance, is to go. Apparently the Northern Government is not prepared to continue both of them. What the House has to think about now is whether they consider it good policy and within our financial capacity to underwrite every penny of loss which arises on a transport system on a branch line — it may, indeed, be a main line railway — which operates entirely through Six County territory, running from the City of Belfast, to Portadown, Dungannon, Omagh, Strabane and Derry.

Mr. Cunningham

Not entirely through Six County territory. Part of it is in Donegal.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. O'Donnell)

Half a mile of it.

Mr. Cunningham

An important half mile.

Mr. Norton

It is microscopic from the point of view of the line from Strabane to Derry. Do not put it out of perspective.

Mr. Cunningham

I know it is, but it is a key line.

Mr. Norton

What the House has to do is ask itself the question, as this matter must be resolved at some later stage: Is the House prepared to subsidise a Six County mainline from Belfast, sweeping round the county to Derry, with the exception of a small portion in County Donegal? We are not subsidising transport down here. C.I.E. is not now subsidised. It has to make good its deficit by short term borrowing. Therefore, the House and the Government will have to make up its mind as to whether or not it will subsidise Six County transport.

Mr. Kelly

May I ask the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Unless the Minister gives way I cannot see how the Deputy can ask a question at this stage.

Mr. Norton

Certainly.

Mr. Kelly

The railway line from Strabane to Portadown is the main line from Donegal to Dublin. It serves all Donegal.

Mr. Norton

I am aware of that. That is true in the same way as the railway line from Paris to Prague serves Switzerland; it goes through another country's territory. One cannot say this is our railway line. If this line were entirely in—I am not saying this with any legal certitude—the Six Counties they would have the power to close it without consultation with us. It happens to be a cross-Border service because it touches portion of our territory. It may well be that they do not intend to disturb this line and it may be the other line they intend to disturb.

Mr. Childers

Does the Minister not think it is more likely it is the other one they will disturb?

Mr. Norton

It would look as if it might be the other one.

Mr. Cunningham

Whichever it is, it will affect us.

Mr. Norton

One cannot be sure. There may be other considerations involved. At all events this is a problem thrown up now for solution down here and we have to discuss the matter in the light of yesterday's statement. I assume from what has been said that it does not matter what the chairmen of the tribunal say: the Six County Government will endeavour to close down these lines and, in so far as Deputies think we should keep open the cross-Border services—that is the common service—they should understand that if we want to do that, after the Six County Government has decided to close, we will have to pay the entire operating cost in the area where the line is not closed. Deputies ought to think on that, and it is only after it has been thoroughly surveyed that we ought to have comment.

The question has been raised as to what caused the serious deterioration in the position of the G.N.R. I understand that the deterioration is due in the main to the railway section. There they have had not only a general increase in operating costs but a fall in traffic as well and at the moment the end of either of these difficulties is not yet in sight and we may have to contemplate the continuance of a situation in which until there is dieselisation, one may find the losses not merely being maintained but increasing beyond their present figure.

I had hoped in the discussion I had with Lord Glentoran that it would be possible for us to get agreement on a line of policy of giving dieselisation a chance. I still think the operation of these branch lines by means of diesel railcars, by means of using a much lighter locomotive, by substantial economies in fuel and by a concentrated campaign to induce the people to use the railways in order to save the railways from extinction, it should be possible to continue to operate these branch lines. Apparently the Six County Government do not share that view and are determined, in their own area at all events, to discontinue the services which they operate.

This is a matter which affects not merely our people down here from the standpoint referred to by the northern Deputies, particularly the Donegal Deputies, but it affects the people in the Six Counties as well. What steps they will take is of course a matter for themselves. All I would like to say is that so far as I am concerned and so far as the Government is concerned we are prepared to enter into any discussions with the Six County Government or with the Minister of Commerce in Belfast to try to evolve some system, as economic as possible, which will keep the branch lines open and obviate the very severe hardship which will be visited on large sections of our own people and on large sections of the people of the Six Counties if the Six County Government proceeds with its proposal to close these cross-border services. I am prepared to go into these discussions with a completely open mind so long as the objective is to try to save the branch lines from extinction in the case of these common services.

Mr. J. Brennan

Can I take it from the Minister's speech that the Northern Government have ignored the obligation placed on them by the legislation which established the Great Northern Board to consult the chairman of the two tribunals?

Mr. Norton

I take it the next thing that will happen is that they will ask me am I prepared to agree to the closing of these lines. If I dissent they will probably refer it to the tribunals.

Mr. J. Brennan

Have they not yet done that?

Mr. Norton

No, they have not.

Mr. J. Brennan

Would the Minister not say that there was an obligation on them to do that?

Mr. Norton

I have not read the official report yet. Like the Deputy, I have only read the story of the newspapers. This might be merely foreshadowing the closing of the lines and not a formal decision to do it.

Vote put and agreed to.