asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware of the resentment of the people of West Cork because of the refusal of the Chairman and Board of Córas Iompair Éireann to meet a deputation from that area to discuss the question of rail services; and what steps he will take to have Córas Iompair Éireann honour the promise given in the Dáil with regard to deputations.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - West Cork Deputation on Rail Services.
35.
As I have already explained in reply to a Question by Deputy Murphy on 2nd November, 1960, C.I.E. have informed me that they have never refused to receive a deputation from local interested parties in connection with the closing of a branch line. The Board have, however, confined such discussions to the proposed substitute road services. The Board's attitude in this respect is in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Transport Act, 1958, and is not in any way inconsistent with the statement on this subject made in Dáil Eireann by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce on 8th May, 1958, to, which, I presume, the Deputy's question refers.
Oh!
Would the Minister agree that that is a most misleading statement to make as regards the procedure of C.I.E.? C.I.E. have definitely refused to meet a deputation of representative people of West Cork in connection with the closing down of the railways. Will he now ask C.I.E. to reconsider that position and to receive a deputation in connection with the closing down of the West Cork railways?
C.I.E. are meeting any deputation that will request that facility to discuss with them the substitute services in relation to the closing of the line.
Is the Minister aware that the present Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, promised, in introducing the Bill to which the Minister refers, that any line would not be closed without prior consultation, that there was no reference to restriction in that consultation to the question of alternative services but that it would be in relation to the actual closure; that this applied to branch lines, and that the line to which Deputy Wycherley and I are referring is not a branch line but a main line from Cork to Bantry; that C.I.E. have adamantly refused to discuss this matter with the Cork County Council, the Bishop of Cork or any authority who desired to do so, on any basis in relation to the closure of the line and wanted to restrict any discussion that would take place to alternative services? Is he further aware that this is entirely apart from the undertaking given by the Taoiseach when introducing the Bill in 1958?
Why do not the people of West Cork use the line?
Do you not think that the Minister ought to answer that question? There are points of principle arising. My recollection is that when we discussed the Transport Act the present Taoiseach was asked to incorporate a provision in the Bill requiring C.I.E. on request to discuss a decision to close railway line. He is on the official record as saying that he does not think it is necessary because he has provided a fortnight during which it would be ridiculous to imagine that Córas Iompair Éireann would not discuss the proposed closure with local authorities or other representative bodies. On that personal undertaking of the Taoiseach the matter was dropped. Córas Iompair Éireann now——
The Deputy does not appear to be asking a question. He is making a series of statements.
Does the Minister for Transport and Power consider it a fulfilment of that undertaking, given by the present Taoiseach, for Córas Iompair Éireann to receive a deputation and to tell the deputation that they will not discuss the closing of the line, that they will discuss only the alternative service they propose to provide?
There is nothing in the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce made in the Dáil on 8th May, 1958, which would oblige C.I.E. to discuss the question of whether to close a line or not.
Wait a moment. What did the Taoiseach mean us to understand? I understood him to mean that he was giving his personal word I that he would not put in the section because he was satisfied that the Board of Córas Iompair Éireann would use the fortnight——
Deputies
Two months.
—— two months; I knew it was either two weeks or two months —to discuss with local authorities the question of closing the line.
Read what I said again.
I read it again only this morning. I do not feel that it is a fulfilment of that undertaking to say that you will meet the people but that you will not discuss the closing of the line, that you will discuss only what you are going to do after you have closed the line, and I do not believe that any Deputy believes that it is a fulfilment.
I will quote the Taoiseach from the Official Report.
The Deputy will not make quotations during Questions.
The Taoiseach asked me——
I repeat that the Deputy will not be permitted to make quotations during Questions.
The Taoiseach said: "Indeed the whole purpose of the two months was to give C.I.E. an opportunity of meeting the deputations".
Question No. 36.
If the matter were raised on the Adjournment the Deputy could use the quotation.
As far as the closing of the West Clare Railway is concerned, is the Minister aware that he clearly refused to meet a deputation from the Clare County Council——
The West Clare Railway has nothing whatever to do with the question with which we are now concerned. Deputy Murphy must resume his seat.
I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
We will all be here with you.
As one of the representatives for West Clare, and knowing all the circumstances surrounding the closing of the West Clare Railway, it is quite obvious that the Ceann Comhairle will be interested in the debate—probably more interested than I am.