Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Dec 1960

Vol. 185 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Export of Rails.

On Monday, 28th November, I saw in the Cork Examiner that:

...the Costa Rican freighter, Kyriakoula, arrived from Belfast light to collect a cargo of rails at the John J. Horgan wharf.... The rails were those of the branch line from Headford to Kenmare and from Farranfore to Valentia Harbour, both of which were closed by C.I.E. at the beginning of this year. It is believed to be C.I.E.'s first shipment of rails from the port of Cork. ... altogether she loaded 1,400 tons of rails before sailing for the Italian port of Spezia. As three lines usually make up a ton in weight, she took aboard altogether 4,000 tons. It is understood that the Board procured an export licence before arranging the shipment.

When that matter was brought to my attention, I put down a Question for answer today. As I am not satisfied that the Minister has fully replied to it, I thought it right to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I am not satisfied, nor are many other interested parties, with the manner in which an export licence was granted to C.I.E. for the export of these rails. I should like to know what opportunity was given to Irish citizens, or to Irish Steel, of tendering for these rails. What opportunity was given to farmers and builders to tender for them? Farmers might require them for the erection of haysheds and other farm buildings, or they might be required for other building purposes. Why were C.I.E. granted this licence for the export of 1,400 tons when an ordinary citizen cannot export scrap, even to the amount of 10 tons? The export of scrap is entirely prohibited and an Irish citizen cannot export scrap but is obliged to sell to Irish Steel.

I should like to ask the Minister if advertisements were inserted in any of the newspapers asking for tenders. I should also like to ask him why did C.I.E. not reserve those rails in case it might be necessary subsequently to relay the lines that were closed or for the construction of new lines or the repair of existing lines? What was the reason for the indecent haste in lifting and disposing of these rails?

It is doubtful if C.I.E. had ownership of the rails at all, so far as the Kenmare-Headford line is concerned. When that line was first constructed, the ratepayers in the Kenmare-Headford area had to act as guarantors and any losses incurred on that line had to be made good by them. A rate was struck right up to 1945, until the Transport Act became law. Thereafter, the ratepayers of South Kerry, as have the ratepayers of the whole of the Republic of Ireland, have had to pay rates and taxes to subsidise C.I.E. and to make up the losses incurred by that company.

The shareholders, the people who invested money in these railways when first constructed and whose money was eventually lost, should have some claim to these rails. That applies also to the ratepayers of South Kerry and to the ratepayers and taxpayers of the country.

None of these matters was included in the Deputy's Question, which deals with a special export licence.

Very good. Was the money obtained by the export of these rails for the purpose of helping the balance of payments? Would the Minister tell us what sum was obtained for the rails? After all, C.I.E. are not like a private individual or even a private company. They are subsidised by the taxpayers and surely, in these circumstances, we should be told the price obtained, seeing that the people's money is invested in this company.

This whole question of closing railways and the haste in removing these rails and exporting them without, perhaps, a right to export them, has certainly caused a great deal of dissatisfaction because in other cases where trains ceased to run, the rails were left there. In some cases, the rails are still there, although the railways were closed many years ago.

Would it not have been possible to give an opportunity to see how the alternative transport system worked before lifting the rails? Indeed, it would be very useful if people travelling from Valentia Island and Cahirciveen to Dublin, Cork or elsewhere could travel on the railway line, instead of skidding along the roads in cars.

That matter does not arise out of the Question.

I also gave notice that I would raise the subject matter of this Question on the Adjournment. I did so because of the indecent haste on the part of C.I.E. in disposing of these rails and the indecent preparations they are making all over the country to do away with railways.

On a point of order, that goes entirely beyond this Question and I am not prepared to discuss it.

We cannot have a discussion on C.I.E. The Deputy must confine himself to the Question, which deals with one specific case.

Is there not indecent haste in rushing these rails to Cork, in not advertising them so that Irish merchants would have an opportunity of bidding for them? Are there not people in Ireland besides Irish Steel Holdings who would be interested in purchasing these rails? Are there not people who build haysheds for farmers, and farmers and groups of young farmers who would buy some of these rails? Why was the same procedure not adopted as was adopted in Sligo-Leitrim where the rails were put up for public auction?

Before C.I.E. can show that they can give an adequate alternative service, they are rushing off on these strange Costa Rican boats, dashing away with these rails to strange ports all over the world, not giving an opportunity to purchase the rails to Irish firms.

Another thing that shocked me today was that when I asked a Question about this, I was given a figure only up to October, 1960.

That does not arise out of Question No. 37, which is the subject of the debate.

That is what brought me in on this matter. I did not ask the Question now under discussion. It was asked by Deputy Palmer.

Question No. 37 on today's Order Paper is the only matter on the Adjournment.

There is a reluctance on the part of the Minister to answer any question about this matter. I put it to the Minister across the House today that if he would say that the rails had been. sold without being put to public tender, I would be satisfied. They were sold without being put to public tender but the Minister would not say that. Why deny it now? Why this reluctance?

Everybody knows that they were sold without public tender. There is nothing secret about that.

Everybody did not know. All that the people knew was that a picture appeared in the Cork Examiner of a ship with a very strange name, flying a very strange flag of convenience, as if they were trying to smuggle these rails out of the country.

The Deputy is talking nonsense.

I am not; I am stating facts.

It is absolute nonsense. Millions of tons of shipping carry flags of convenience. The suggestion of smuggling is ridiculous.

The Minister must admit that it was an extraordinary get-up, that we had this ship with an unpronounceable name flying the Costa Rican flag, taking away these rails to Italy for parts unknown, probably going behind the Iron Curtain. The Minister is nettled about this because it is a fact. The Minister said that everybody knew that the rails had been sold privately. I did not know. I wanted to know had they been offered for public tender and if not, why not.

The Deputy is now discussing another Question. The matter for debate is the subject matter of the Question in the name of Deputy Palmer, which relates to an export licence in respect of rails.

If you will allow me, Sir. A drawback that I suffer from here is that not only am I getting blurred and foggy answers from across the House but I have a blurred brief addressed to me. One relates to a Dail Question addressed to the Taoiseach by Deputies Thaddeus Lynch and Patrick Palmer. The other relates to Question No. 37 put down by Deputy Patrick Palmer. Deputy Patrick Palmer wanted the details of the licence, including the name and address of the purchaser and the quantity of the rails involved and the price. When a Question such as that is put down by a Deputy, the answer should be more freely given — we should not have to drag it out of the Minister. The reluctance of the Minister, acting for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to answer questions regarding rails or railways is extraordinary. I am sorry the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here because I was going to ask a Supplementary Question today.

The Question put down by Deputy Palmer relates to an export licence.

The supplementary question I asked today was: would the Minister for Industry and Commerce be prepared to grant an import licence for some of these rails in case some Irish manufacturer would need to buy them back? I should like the Minister to answer that question.

The Question relates to an export licence, not to an import licence.

I asked a Supplementary Question: would the Minister be prepared to grant such a licence?

The matter that has been raised is one that can be explained very simply. There was no special or indecent haste in regard to the export of these rails. There is a general export control that applies to all classes of steel and iron manufacture and covers a wide variety of goods. The general export control is applied in order that firms cannot get export licences for material which they describe as re-usable which in fact is really scrap. In this case the material is regarded rightly by the Minister for Industry and Commerce as re-usable. It is composed of rails of over nine feet in length, bridgework and wheels — material which is manufactured of steel and not cast iron. It is scrap only in so far as Irish Steel Limited are concerned. They are the only firm that could make use of the material. In no other way could it be described as scrap because it is re-usable. Córas lompair Éireann were given a licence to export a large quantity of this re-usable material.

What would the Minister call it then?

It is re-usable.

Is it not possible to re-use it in this country?

Deputies must allow the Minister to speak.

The Deputy is going to listen now to what I have to say. The company were given an export licence because they were able to increase the supply of scrap — and it is scrap as far as Irish Steel Limited are concerned — by 70 per cent. over a period of eighteen months as compared with the material they were selling to Irish Steel Limited in the previous period before the closing of these lines. The granting of the licence was perfectly proper in the circumstances.

If any merchant who collected scrap could prove to the Minister that he could supply an additional quantity of 70 per cent. over an eighteen month period of the scrap he collected, the Minister might be prepared to grant such a firm a licence. But quite obviously no firm would be likely to do so. If the total supply of scrap to Irish Steel Limited could be increased enormously — and incidentally a licence given for the export of such material —the Minister would have to consider the application. The transaction in question is unique in character.

Let us hope it remains unique.

This material is exported in defined quantities to very special markets — to people who are specialists. Some of it may be used for railway lines, some of it may be re-rolled without being converted into scrap and used for reinforced concrete. C.I.E. are entitled to get the best possible price for such material. The Company have been ordered by the Dail to pay their way by 1964. C.I.E. have a very formidable re-equipment programme, in terms of better rolling stock and new diesel engines, and the less interest they have to pay on fresh capital the better for their balance sheet and the better for the taxpayer.

Could the Minister state——

I will not be interrupted. The company are entitled to get the best price they can.

Could the Minister not get a better price here as a result of tender?

C.I.E. offered this material to a number of firms. They did not go to tender and they were perfectly entitled not to, because this is entirely a specialist business. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has received no complaints in regard to these transactions that have been going on. Everybody has seen the rails being removed. The demands for this type of material here for purposes in which it can be used in its present form are negligible and there have been no representations that this material was required for haysheds or other local requirements. In fact, I understand that C.I.E. have sold a certain amount of this type of material to local persons for haysheds and I understand the use to which it could be put is very limited. One cannot build a whole hayshed with rails. They could be used only for part of the corners. I repeat that I understand the local demand for such material is negligible and that there have been no representations made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that exported materials could have been used at home in a form in which they could be described as being re-used.

In what form was the Sligo-Leitrim line used?

That is a completely different question.

On the question of re-usable scrap——

The Deputy must allow the Minister to proceed.

In so far as the ownership of the rails is concerned, I can assure Deputy Palmer that he need not have any doubt that C.I.E. is entitled to sell. In reference to the price, I would not dream of giving this to the House. The point is that C.I.B. should try to get the best possible price. That should apply to the disposition of material by any State firm. Unless there was a public inquiry, involving a public scandal, I would not dream of publicly announcing the price paid to C.I.E. There is nothing strange in this matter at all. C.I.E. have to deal in a highly specialist market in so far as the sale of such material is concerned. No harm has been done here in any respect, I would assure the House, and it is very important that C.I.E. should be able to get the maximum price for a certain quantity of re-usable material.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.35 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 14th, 1960.

Top
Share