C.I.E. Report and Accounts, 1959-60: Motion.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I move:—

"That the Dáil takes note of the Report and Accounts of Coras Iompair Éireann for the year 1959/60."

There are many satisfactory developments to note in the Report and Accounts of C.I.E. for the year 1959/60 which I will mention in the course of my speech. The immediate reason for arranging this Debate at this time is, however, the anxiety of many Deputies for a discussion on the subject of the closing of branch lines. The question of closing any particular branch line cannot usefully, or even intelligently, be considered in isolation from the overall position of public transport. It is not yet even three years since the Oireachtas passed the Transport Act, 1958, which gave to C.I.E. carefully expressed powers to close uneconomic branch lines.

There was then no opposition from any side of the House to delegating these powers to C.I.E. and the only point of difference which arose on the relevant Section was whether C.I.E. should have an absolute obligation in all circumstances to provide a substitute road service whenever they terminated a rail service. As C.I.E. have in all cases provided such substitute services, this question has never become a practical issue.

To consider why the Dáil unanimously voted these powers to C.I.E. it is necessary to cast one's mind back to the circumstances which led up to the enactment of the Transport Act, 1958. In June, 1956, the Chairman of C.I.E. submitted to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce a report which indicated that despite Exchequer assistance to the amount of £12 million over the seven years 1949-50 to 1955-56 and the raising of £7 million by means of stock issues guaranteed by the Minister for Finance to meet the cost of dieselising the undertaking and providing new rolling stock, losses nevertheless continued to grow and the railways continued to lose both freight and passenger traffic. Annual losses, which had then reached £1.6 million—representing £2 million for the railway alone—had to be borne by the Exchequer. The only remedy which C.I.E. could suggest was drastic and entirely unacceptable restriction of private transport.

The precarious condition of public transport in this country revealed by the C.I.E. report raised as a practical and urgent issue the question of whether public transport, or at any rate the railway undertaking of C.I.E. should or could be maintained at all. The then Government decided to refer the matter for urgent examination to a special Committee of Inquiry—the Committee of Inquiry into Internal Transport, known popularly as the Beddy Committee after its Chairman, Dr. J.P. Beddy.

The Committee's report, which was published in May, 1957, was a most comprehensive and informative one which subjected our transport problems to the most rigorous examination and analysis and which arrived at some challenging, but in all the circumstances, heartening conclusions. The Government decided that in the main the recommendations in the Report were soundly based and, with some important modifications, should be implemented. The Minister for Industry and Commerce when introducing the Supplementary Estimate for Transport and Marine Services on 27th November, 1957, indicated that the necessary legislation to implement that decision would be prepared and the Transport Bill, 1958, was subsequently introduced in May, 1958.

The Committee of Inquiry had reported that they could see no reasonable justification for the continuation of the railway undertaking of C.I.E. as then constituted and operated, but they considered that the railways should be given a limited period of years under conditions wholly different from those then prevailing to show whether their continuance could be justified in the national interest.

The Committee rejected decisively and categorically the proposals made by C.I.E. for limitation of private transport. They also considered that subsidies for the railways could not be justified save for the transitional period during which the railway undertaking could be reorganised on the lines proposed by them.

In regard to the reorganisation of the railways, the Committee recommended reduction of the length of line and number of stations while still providing that as many as possible of the areas served by C.I.E. should be within convenient reach of a railway station by short motor transport.

The Committee made it clear that they did not possess the necessary information to make firm recommendations as to the precise lines and stations which should be closed, but, as shown on the map at page 186 of the Report, they suggested relatively drastic pruning of the railway system which would reduce the mileage of line from 1,918 to 850.

The Committee also recommended the closest co-ordination of rail and road transport, and urged that C.I.E. should operate with strict impartiality as between road and rail, using to the fullest extent the advantages of each type of transport.

In other words, the Committee looked unsentimentally on the railway as a means of transport, and not as an end in itself They could see justification in retaining railway services only in so far as they contributed to an economic and efficient public transport system and they believed that a large part of the railway could usefully and profitably be retained for that purpose, if the hopelessly uneconomic parts were pruned and if the "railway-first-at-any-price" system of operation were abandoned.

On the second stage of the Transport Bill, 1958, the Minister for Industry and Commerce made it clear that the Government did not accept the specific suggestions in the Report relating to the reduction of the mileage of railway lines or the number of stations, which in any case the Committee had put forward only as an illustration.

It was the Government's view that the actual implementation of a reorganisation policy on the lines suggested by the Committee could be undertaken only by the Board of C.I.E., who alone had day-to-day administrative responsibilities and access to all the relevant facts and who alone, therefore, were able to judge the value of any particular section of a line or any particular station to the community and the prospects of operating it economically within the foreseeable future.

The Bill, therefore, empowered the Board to close down any line or station for which there was clearly no future and to do so on their own decision. They were, however, given a statutory direction not to terminate any rail service unless they first satisfied themselves that there were no prospects of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period.

The Board were also placed under a general obligation so to conduct the undertaking as to eliminate losses on its working by 31st March, 1964. These provisions meant that the fate of any branch line or any station depended on whether sufficient business was generated to justify its retention and, in effect, therefore, that the future of these lines and stations fell to be determined primarily by the amount of local support given to them.

When this Bill was introduced, almost two years after the submission of the C.I.E. report to which I have referred, the financial position of the undertaking and particularly the railway had deteriorated still further. The losses, which had amounted to £1.6 million in 1956, had grown to £1.7 million in 1956/57 and for the year 1957/58 had swollen to £2.3 million.

It was clear to every Deputy that the powers proposed for C.I.E. were essential and if public transport were to be preserved, that C.I.E. might well have to use them drastically and the probable measure of the pruning which would be required was inevitably estimated in the light of the suggestions made by the Committee of Inquiry. These powers were, nevertheless, voted unanimously. The only point of difference arose on whether C.I.E. should have an absolute obligation to provide a substitute road service.

The extent to which the Government and the House believed that relatively drastic pruning of the railway system and the general reorganisation of C.I.E. might be necessary was further evidenced by the provision made in the Bill whereby the heavy cost of compensation of redundant employees would be met by the Exchequer in the case of redundancy occurring within the five-year period of reorganisation provided for.

The capital was drastically written down to relieve the Board of the load of deadweight debt and provision was made for the payment of a subsidy to the Board at a fixed rate over the five-year period of reorganisation, after which it would be expected to continue entirely without State assistance.

The Bill was accepted by the House as a measure to enable a once-and-for-all, realistic and rational reorganisation of our public transport system to be undertaken which would necessarily involve the pruning of hopelessly uneconomic railway services and the rational co-ordination of road and rail traffic.

The decision to give sole statutory responsibility to C.I.E. for deciding whether any particular rail service should be terminated was a new departure, carefully considered and deliberately implemented by the Oireachtas. It was obvious to every Deputy that C.I.E. would use these powers subject to the limitations provided and that public opposition and agitation could be expected to greet every proposal to close a branch line no matter how uneconomic it might be.

Against this background, it is difficult to see why the closing of a few branch lines by C.I.E. should now cause consternation or should be regarded as a matter of urgent public importance. C.I.E. have, in fact, closed lines and stations to a far more moderate degree than was envisaged in 1958 and the reorganisation planned by them, which will be completed with the closing of the West Cork line, will leave in existence many services not featured in the railway pattern envisaged by the Committee of Inquiry. They will have closed only 420 miles of railway as compared with over 1,000 miles suggested by the Beddy Committee.

It is still more difficult to understand these protests when regard is had to the progress made by the new Board of C.I.E. in improving services and restoring the finances of the organisation in the short time since they took over. The losses, which amounted to £2.3 million in 1957/58, fell to £1.9 million in the year 1958/59, but in the year ended 31st March, 1960, the first year of the 5-year period during which the Board was required to reach solvency, the loss fell to £709,000, a reduction of £1.2 million over 1958/59 and of £1.6 million over 1957/58.

In this connection, it should be remembered that the loss of £2.3 million in 1957-58 was for C.I.E. alone; the loss of £709,000 in 1959/60 covered losses on the portion of the G.N.R. taken over in 1958, the losses on which in the year ended 30/9/58 amounted to £238,000. On the other hand, it does not take account of the liabilities written off in the 1958 Act, representing £632,000 per annum. If these adjustments are taken into account, the net improvement in 1959/60 over 1957/58 due to the Board's own efforts is £1.2 million.

This most astonishing improvement in so short a time was not secured merely by reducing uneconomic services. The Board's report shows that there were substantial increases in railway receipts for both goods and passengers and improvements in every department of the undertaking. This result was achieved notwithstanding that the full effect of the closing of certain uneconomic branch lines during the year will not be apparent until the accounts for the year ending 31st March, 1961, are available.

C.I.E. have since reported further successes in their drive for new business, particularly in the form of package deals which enable them to give competitive comprehensive services which were not possible until the Board was relieved by the 1958 Act of a number of obsolete legislative restrictions on their commercial adaptability.

The Board are confident that provided their costs are not increased by new wage increases not related to increased productivity, they will be able to break even well before the expiry of the five year period.

This extraordinary change, which was undreamt of two short years ago and which marks the virtual resurrection of an almost moribund undertaking, is not attributable merely to the closing of some uneconomic lines, though this necessary surgical pruning of the unhealthy extremities of the railway system is essential to the reinvigoration of the whole undertaking.

The results reflect even more the energy and drive which is now evident in the organisation. There is a new wind blowing through C.I.E. There has been a remarkable improvement in the morale of the employees, who are now conscious of being members of what is becoming an efficient and successful undertaking and who feel that their efforts are worthwhile to themselves and to the community.

The company are exploiting the commercial freedom given the C.I.E. for the first time in the 1958 Transport Act with aggressive salesmanship and improved services. In the past year C.I.E. have carried more freight than ever in their history and their freight carryings are increasing.

In the year ended 31st March, 1960, C.I.E. concluded some 400 package deals with an annual revenue potential of £235,000. A further 240 package deals concluded since then are worth £365,000 per annum of new business. Both rail and road freight revenue are sharing in new business.

The most modern management methods and new equipment are bringing about increased efficiency and economy in the organisation. The opportunity for these developments was provided by the 1958 Transport Acts and by the supplementary Government measures, including the reconstitution of the C.I.E. Board. It is only right that I should pay tribute in this connection to the Board and, above all, to the remarkable impact on the organisation of its chairman, Dr. C.S. Andrews. Dr. Andrews has brought to his new post in C.I.E. the practical idealism and sense of purpose, the same concern for the development of the country, particularly of rural Ireland, which distinguished his pioneering career in turf development. He has already infused C.I.E. with something of his own adventurous spirit.

These advances have been secured in consultation and co-operation with the trade unions. There has been inevitable redundancy and there may be more, but the redundant workers are protected by the generous compensation provided for in the 1958 Act. It is evident, of course, that only the achievement of a self-supporting and efficient public transport service can guarantee permanent stability of employment in C.I.E. It has been argued by critics of C.I.E. that the improvements in the finances of the undertaking have been secured only by reducing standards of service to the community and that the Board have become more concerned with their statutory obligation to achieve solvency than with their equally important statutory obligation to provide reasonable, efficient and economical transport services. This accusation has become a chorus among those who have been opposing the closing of hopelessly uneconomic branch lines. The critics do not appear to have bothered to find out whether the evidence supported their views. I have already pointed out that the improvement in C.I.E. finances reflects not merely a reduction in uneconomic expenditure but a substantial increase in business.

The remarkable growing increase in freight traffic to which I have already referred is, as anyone acquainted with the history of C.I.E. will know, a most significant index of improvement. As any businessman knows, increased business is the first and acid test, not only of the efficiency of his organisation but particularly of the services it offers to his customers.

The agitation against the closing of branch lines has been carried on on the basis of another assumption, for which there is, equally, no evidence— that the existing rail services in the areas concerned are necessarily superior to any substitute road services that can be provided. C.I.E. who are the national transport authority and the only body in possession of all the necessary experience and know-how, are satisfied that they can provide substitute road services which will be at least as efficient and probably more satisfactory than the rail services which are being terminated. It is, I think, in any case, obvious that for many purposes road transport is superior to rail transport, especially in rural areas. In the case of passenger services, the existing rail service may be more convenient for a limited number of people who live and work adjacent to the stations, but the substitute road services will give a door-to-door service to a great many more people.

In many rural areas, the provision of road services is a step forward and advances the prestige and amenities of the district. There are thousands of industries, hotels and places of interest throughout the world which do not depend at all on rail services. In the case of freight services, it is equally evident that for shorter runs the door-to-door service which cuts out double handling offers many advantages to customers.

It has been argued, particularly in the case of the Waterford-Tramore line, that road services could not deal adequately with heavy summer excursion traffic such as from Waterford to Tramore. C.I.E. are fully satisfied that they can supply adequate services and, as every Deputy knows, C.I.E. are already meeting such needs by road in many parts of the country. The buses to be used on the Waterford-Tramore summer services will be specially adapted to carry prams.

In some cases, the change to road transport has meant some small increase in fares, but this was inevitable sooner or later, even if the railways remained open. As part of the old policy of directing all traffic to rail, fares on many of these uneconomic lines were kept below the corresponding road rates. This was a practice which was criticised by the Beddy Committee. There is, in any case, no good reason why the relatively limited number of persons in a few areas who enjoyed subsidised fares under these conditions should expect to retain them indefinitely at the expense of the rest of the community. Recently the weekly charges for provincial buses have been substantially reduced to bring them into line with rail charges. This should eliminate the principal source of complaint about substitute road passenger services—that they were more expensive than rail, particularly for children.

So far as freight transport is concerned, C.I.E. have decided to retain the railway rates and through rates in order to facilitate the change-over for all concerned. Much play has been made with problems of beet haulage in West Cork and I have examined the statements made in this connection very closely. I find that in the West Cork area there has already been a gradual shift from rail to road haulage of beet. In the year 1959/60, only half of the West Cork crop was carried by rail to Mallow. C.I.E. will carry beet by road on the same terms as it was formerly carried by rail. Those who previously engaged C.I.E. road services to deliver beet to railhead will even secure a small saving of 9d. per ton. Those who formerly delivered their own beet to railhead will have to pay an extra charge in respect of the distance from roadside pick-up to former railhead, but they will, of course, be saved the cost of supplying their own transport.

It was claimed, particularly in relation to the West Cork area, that the closing of the railway will prevent the establishment of new industries which were hoped for. Before the decision was taken to close the West Cork line, C.I.E. were fully informed of the possibilities of industrial development in the area and they assured themselves that any new industry in the area could be just as well served by road as by rail. The position was subsequently examined by the Industrial Development Authority and the Department of Industry and Commerce and it is a fact confirmed with the promoters that the closing of this railway service will not affect in the slightest degree the prospects for industrial development in West Cork.

Grossly exaggerated claims have been made about the heavy expenditure on the roads which would be necessary to cater for substitute road services. Examination of the facts in each case has shown that there is little to fear. The increase in traffic on the existing roads which will be brought about by the substitute road services will be only marginal. C.I.E. have indicated that the following numbers of vehicles will cater for the additional traffic to be carried by the Board's substitute road services following the closing of these branch lines:—

Buses Lorries
Waterford/Tramore	3	1	Plus appropriate trailers, containers
West Clare	4	5	and special bodies required for various
West Cork	3	11	Kinds of traffic.

Some additional vehicles will, of course, be required for peak traffic. For example, two additional buses will be required for the Waterford-Tramore service during the holiday season.

In the case of West Cork, 40 additional lorries and some trailers will be used for the transport of beet to Mallow during the beet season. C.I.E. intend to meet this requirement by better utilisation of the existing road transport fleet and no new vehicles will be acquired for the purpose. Of a total of 83,000 tons of beet carried from West Cork to Mallow in the 1959/60 season, 41,000 tons, or almost 50 per cent., was carried by road by C.I.E. and the licensed hauliers.

The estimates of additional vehicles required to replace regular passenger and freight traffic made by C.I.E. in the case of previous closings have been fully borne out. The significance of the numbers of additional vehicles required for the substitute services can be appreciated by reference to the total numbers of vehicles registered in Counties Waterford, Clare and Cork. Those figures are:

NUMBER OF VEHICLES REGISTERED IN AUGUST 1960.

	Commercial vehicles	Other vehicles	Total
Waterford (including County Borough)	1,274	6,998	8,272
Clare	1,167	4,507	5,674
Cork (including County Borough)	7,146	32,330	39,476
TOTALS	9,587	43,835	53,422

In the light of these figures it is clear that the volume of additional traffic on the roads in these counties arising from the additional numbers of vehicles due to closure of lines will be marginal. Recent reports of the county engineers suggest that certain portions of roads on which the substitute services will operate may be already substandard, even for existing traffic. While there may be a need for improving these roads, the necessity for such improvement in relation to the substitute road services can only be very slight.

All the roads concerned are already used by buses, having been licensed for that purpose by the Minister for Local Government and there is no limitation on their use by privately owned lorries, which are much more numerous than those of C.I.E. C.I.E. are as much entitled as any private firm or individual to the use of the roads, for which they pay heavy taxation on their vehicles.

The argument is that the increased C.I.E. road services, relatively small though they may be, will, so to speak, provide the last straw to break the camel's back. This may be a good argument for undertaking any improvements and repairs to the roads which may be necessary; it does not support the contention that C.I.E. should continue to run grossly uneconomic railway services in order to postpone any necessary expenditure on the roads.

The appropriate course for the local authorities and other interested parties to take is to pursue with the Minister for Local Government as a separate matter the question of whatever improvements are required in these roads. The Minister for Local Government has already indicated in the Dáil in relation to the Waterford/ Tramore road that he would be prepared to consider carefully any submissions made to his Department as to the condition of the road.

A striking fact in the history of rail closings has been the contrast between the public outcry before the closing of a line and the almost complete absence of complaints about the substitute services thereafter. A remarkable example is that of Bundoran, which had feared complete extinction as a holiday resort with the closing of the railway service in 1957 but had a better tourist season than ever in the following year.

It is, I fear, the case that much of the public agitation is carried on by people who do not themselves use the particular rail services or who will not be affected adversely by the closing, but who are motivated by misguided sentimentality or, in some cases, perhaps, by political considerations.

The only genuine interest a farmer, merchant or anyone else can have in the public transport services is that they should be speedy, safe, economic and convenient. Where substitute road transport services compare favourably in these respects with the rail services they displace there can be no reasonable grounds for grievance. It can hardly be expected that C.I.E. should continue to subsidise the operation of these services merely to gratify the sentimentality of railway lovers.

In the particular cases of the Waterford-Tramore, West Clare and West Cork branch lines, receipts failed to cover the direct expenses of the lines by £82,000 per annum, without taking into account the cost of providing for workshop administration and other overheads. C.I.E. are satisfied that efficient transport services can be provided by road in these areas at a saving of £79,000 per annum, compared with by railway.

The branch lines are being closed for one fundamental reason and one only; they have not received the measure of local support necessary for reasonably economic operation. Nor is there any prospect that they would receive such support in the future. Of all the letters of protest and appeal received by C.I.E. and by myself and other Ministers not a single one contained any specific offer of new business for the lines.

I hope I have said sufficient to put the whole question of the closure of a limited number of hopelessly uneconomic branch lines into proper perspective against the background of general transport policy. It is true, but yet difficult to realise, that we have now before us, for the first time, I think, since the State was founded, a real and imminent prospect of having an efficient and economical public transport system which will give good service without subsidy from the Exchequer. The pruning of the most inefficient and uneconomic parts of the railway system and the substitution therefor of efficient road transport is an essential prerequisite to the realisation of this prospect.

The really important issues in the field of public transport now are to consolidate the financial stability of C.I.E. and on this solid foundation to build up a highly efficient transport system which will give a first-class service to the community comparable with that of any public transport system in Europe. The Oireachtas has willed these ends and has also, thereto, willed the means, which include the termination of hopelessly uneconomic rail services.

Public agitation about the relatively moderate reduction in the railway system can only distract the attention of all concerned from the really important tasks before them. Sentimentality and misguided optimism about the railways have been a millstone about the neck of public transport for far too long. In future we must concern ourselves with securing an efficient public transport service and any such service will inevitably include, on its own merits, a substantial railway system which, when fully rehabilitated, will play an invaluable part in catering for the types of passenger and goods traffic for which railways are specially suited and inherently superior to other means of transport. The experience of the past two years and the rapid improvement in the finances and efficiency of the C.I.E. undertaking give us a reasonable assurance that public transport is now on the right lines. The soundness of the main conclusions of the Beddy Committee have been vindicated and the wisdom of the Government and the Oireachtas in implementing them, with appropriate modifications, fully justified.

One last word. The terms of the 1958 Act made it clear to every Deputy that C.I.E. would drastically alter the character of services. In giving C.I.E. executive power to close uneconomic lines every Deputy knew that this could only be done in the public interest by rejecting the shortlived universal protests prevalent here and elsewhere against railway closings at the time that such intentions are made public. They are responsible and they alone for making this decision; they ordained and wrote the new policy into the Statute Book.

Finally, may I point out once again that the 1958 Transport Act is based on the general principle that there is no special merit in a rail service as such and that the objective is to establish the most efficient widely used type of public transport in each area.

The Act eliminated completely the attributes of special privilege and importance to any particular type of transport. The Act was based on the fundamental assumption of the Beddy Committee that the investment in private transport in this country is of record dimensions in relation to national income. Any public transport service would have to compete with this huge volume of private transport and there was no justification for any element of subsidy when capital was required for other projects for which private capital was inadequate.

Mr. McGilligan

I move the amendment standing in my name:

After "1959-60" to add the following:

"and deplores the closing of branch lines without adequate prior consultation with local interests contrary to the undertaking to Dáil Éireann given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce during the debate on the Transport Bill, 1958."

That amendment has been tabled for quite a while. Those who prepared the Minister's 18-page brief, and the Minister reading it, did not make one reference to whether there was an undertaking given in May, 1958, with regard to the closing of branch lines or not. He has made two inferences which, I would submit, are a further misrepresentation of the situation in which the 1958 Act came to be passed.

My amendment had been tabled, as I say, drawing attention to what was said by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, in May, 1958 One gloss has been put upon that in answer to Questions put down by Deputy Wycherley in December last. I would assume it is accepted in this House that when an undertaking such as C.I.E. is set up and when powers are given to it based upon undertakings given to the parliamentarians when the legislation comes before them for their approval, the Board of that undertaking would feel itself in honour bound to accept any undertaking and to operate their system in the light of the circumstances that were detailed to the Parliament when the legislation was put before it.

I want to get this back into the framework of May, 1958. On December 14th, 1960, Deputy Wycherley put down a Question relating to the resentment of the people of West Cork because of the refusal of the Chairman and Board of Coras Iompair Eireann to meet a deputation to discuss the question of rail services and asked: "What steps he will take to have Coras Iompair Eireann honour the promise given in the Dáil with regard to deputations."

The answer given by the Minister was:

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.

That, of course, was an evasion which was immediately noted by several members of the House. Deputy Dillon ejaculated "Oh!" Deputy Wycherley asked a supplementary question:

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?

The Minister replied:

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.

Deputy O'Sullivan broke in with a number of further supplementary questions:

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 adamantaly refused to discuss 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?

Deputy Ó Briain broke in with the interjection:

Why do not the people of West Cork use the line?

Deputy Dillon continued again:

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 a railway line. He is on the official record as saying that he does not think it is necessary because he has provided a fortnight——

—which should be two months——

——during which it would be ridiculous to imagine that Coras 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. Coras Iompair Éireann now——

Then the Minister for Health broke in with an irrelevant statement. Deputy Dillon continued:

Does the Minister for Transport and Power consider it a fulfilment of that undertaking, given by the present Taoiseach, for Coras 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?

The Minister attempted a further evasion:

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.

Deputy Dillon intervened again:

Wait a moment. What did the Taoiseach mean us to understand? I understood him to mean that he was giving his personal word that he would not put in the section because he was satisfied that the Board of Coras Iompair Éireann would use the fortnight——

There were interruptions of "Two months," and Deputy Dillon continued:

—two months; I knew it was either two weeks or two months—to discuss with local authorities the question of closing the line.

The Taoiseach said:

Read what I said again.

I propose to accept that invitation almost immediately. Deputy Dillon continued:

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 is a fulfilment.

Deputy Wycherley said he would quote the Taoiseach from the Official Report and the Chair ruled it could not be quoted on that occasion. That was a gloss put on the promise, on the undertaking, on the statement made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to the future activities and conduct of C.I.E. in connection with the closing of lines.

On the first page of his brief today, the Minister for Transport and Power said:

On page 5 again, he said:

These powers were, nevertheless, voted unanimously. The only point of difference arose on whether C.I.E. should have an absolute obligation to provide a substitute road service.

That is deceit of the worst kind. If that deception is deliberate, it is a most dishonest performance. It is dishonest on the part of the Board of C.I.E., and it is very dishonest on the part of the Minister to try to get away from what was promised in this House.

What was promised in this House? On the debate on Second Reading on 8th May, 1958, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce was recorded as speaking at column 1680 and in one paragraph at column 1682, we come to the heart of this matter. The Taoiseach said:

There is not much point in giving the board liberty of action with one hand and trying to get it back with the other. Deputy Cosgrave talked about the desirability of having a tribunal to which a trader could appeal if he alleged he was being unfairly discriminated against by C.I.E. in regard to charges. Other Deputies talked about maintaining a right of appeal against a decision of the C.I.E. Board to close down branch lines.

There are the two points picked out by the Minister as the subject matter of the debate. The point was put to him that a tribunal should be set up to which traders could resort if they felt they were unfairly treated. C.I.E. had power always to give one rate to one trader and another rate to another. That was the point that was noticed and anxiety was expressed that there might be discrimination as between one trader and another. Deputy Cosgrave raised that point.

The other point raised, as the Minister said himself, by other Deputies, was the point about maintaining a right of appeal against a decision of C.I.E. to close down branch lines. That is the net point. I shall come to what the Taoiseach said in answer to that in a moment, but in between in half a column there is not a reference to substitute services by road—not a comment. The Taoiseach said that we were now about to have a nationally-owned board, "not concerned with making profits, under a statutory obligation to provide reasonable transport services for our people, controlled by the best people we can pick for that job."

He continued at column 1682:

I do not see any problems in that regard ...

——that is, giving people the right to appeal against a C.I.E. Board decision——

He continued:

We know the Board has got to keep the confidence and goodwill of the public. We know that no matter what may appear in the statute, any misconduct on the part of the board, any unfair utilisation of the powers given to it, will be ventilated here in the Dáil, in public bodies and by organisations of traders throughout the country. The Board will be conscious of that, too. It is superfluous to set up statutory channels by which these protests can be ventilated. They will be ventilated anyway.

That is an important paragraph which is to be found at column 1683.

In cases of decisions to close down a branch railway line——

—that is the point of the paragraph; it is to close down a railway line——

——the Bill says two months' notice must be given. I do not think we need to write in there that during these two months the Board will have the power to hear the deputation from the local council of the town using the railway service or meet the representatives of the trade unions who may have a point of view. Of course they will do it. Indeed, the whole purpose of the requirement to give two months' notice was to provide a statutory period during which these inevitable representations could be entertained. It is far better to let our knowledge of what will happen guide our judgment in this matter than to be seeking to write into the Bill a rigid statutory safeguard.

It was on that statement that the Board of C.I.E. got the powers given to them in the Act. That statement was made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that of course there would be representations and of course the Board would hear them. The representations were with regard to the closing of a branch railway line. I invite any member of this House to consider the Second Reading debate which took place on 8th May, 1958, and to say if it is a fair comment that the only point of difference that arose in regard to the 1958 measure was whether there should be an absolute obligation to provide a substitute road service.

The point in this plain statement by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce is that C.I.E. agree to hear the deputation from the local council of the town losing the railway service or meet the representatives of the trade unions who may have a point of view —not to receiving deputations confined to the discussion of substitute road services. The Minister for Transport and Power comes here today with his prepared brief to evade the issue— certainly to evade the issue raised by the amendment to this motion and to tell us twice that "the only point of confusion is whether there should be an absolute obligation to provide a substitute road service."

The Minister's statement in answer to Deputy Wycherley was that there is nothing in the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce made in May, 1958, which would oblige C.I.E. to discuss the question whether or not to close a line. I wonder does the Minister think that was a fair statement to make, having now heard what the then Minister for Industry and Commerce said? "There is nothing in the statement by 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.""Oblige"—no, there is nothing in it.

Was the representation not that there was no necessity to put in a statutory requirement that they should do so because they would be open to public criticism? They would have to meet these deputations anyway—and the deputations contemplated by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce were about the closing of a branch railway line.

The other statement is "that the Board's attitude in this respect is in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Transport Act, 1958..." That is so. On 14th December, 1960, the Minister for Transport and Power said the Board's attitude is in no way inconsistent with the statement made in Dáil Eireann by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce on 8th May, 1958. Is it now put solidly before this House that what C.I.E. are doing is not inconsistent with the statement made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce?

This is all a matter of hindsight now. If it were intended to limit the discussions between traders and local representatives and the Board of C.I.E. to substitute services, could that not have been stated simply? Could the point not have been made that branch lines will be closed down? The only point at issue is what sub stitute road service will be given. A deputation will be received on that matter but on nothing else.

I suggest again that if it were intended to limit this to the discussion of substitute road services, surely another formula could have been found for telling the Dáil what was intended? This is a wholly incomprehensible formula to use with regard to these powers if the intention was to keep any discussion with the Board of C.I.E. down to substitute services. Many forms of words could be got to put that simply but that was not in the mind of those who spoke on this matter from the Government side of the House. They were agreeable then to the thought of local people being received to urge further consideration —and representation was given to the House that they would be received.

Is there any harm in suggesting that before a decision should finally be taken to close a line, the local Deputies, traders and representatives should be received? Certainly nothing of the arrogance that breezed through this speech by the Minister today is to be found in the debate of May, 1958. There was no question then of the Board being the only people who would have all the requisite information and necessary figures in order to come to decisions. Everybody knows they will have to meet deputations. It would be completely illusory to make a promise that deputations shall be received, if the deputation were merely to hear of decisions.

The only point in having a Board receive a deputation would be so that interested people might add their local information and make whatever protest they think fit. If their representations were not based on good local information, they could easily be refuted. If whatever representations they were making were based on wrong or insubstantial information, would that not be the best way the Board could achieve what the then Minister for Industry and Commerce referred to? He said that any misconduct on the part of the Board, any unfair utilisation of the powers given to them will be ventilated here in the Dáil, in public bodies, and by organisations of traders throughout the country. Was that ventilation of local views not regarded as a good thing? It would enable the Board to get rid of any suggestion that they were misconducting themselves by abuse of their powers or if it were suggested they were unfairly utilising their powers.

Instead, we have the statement by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce in May, 1958. The Government are now pretending that the only thing that can be taken out of that phrase is that when deputations would be received, they would be received; they would merely accept a decision to close a line and merely discuss what special road services would be provided. In his speech today, the Minister speaks of whether there should be an absolute obligation on them to provide a substitute road service.

The other matter that arises is with regard to the general standard of C.I.E. As the Taoiseach said today, we can discuss it on a later occasion when the Estimate comes up and when the Minister stands for all the debtor agents he has under his control at the moment. I wait again to refer to the scheme of public transport put before the Dáil by the present Taoiseach in 1956. That was the occasion on which a piece of legislation was introduced consisting of about three sections in order to build up again a fabric to mend a gap torn by a court decision with regard to a private trader.

The then Deputy Lemass took the opportunity to give his view of what public transport should be in this country. He spoke on 22nd February, 1956. I quote from Column 666 of the debate on that occasion:

There are some observations I should like to make in that regard. The Merchant Lorry Owners' Association have in their minds the idea, which is, I think, shared by many of the public, that the aim of the Road Transport Act of 1933 and the purpose of the restrictions imposed by that Act upon the carriage of goods for reward on the road by motor vehicles was solely to preserve the railways. Now, that was not the aim of that legislation, and I can speak with some authority in the matter because I was responsible for framing it and for bringing it to the House; if any Deputy is interested enough to look up the matter, he will find that in the speech in which I submitted the Road Transport Act, 1933, to the House, I made it quite clear that that was not its purpose and that the aim was to provide this country with a nationwide transport service operating by rail or by road, as the public required, a service that would be obliged by law to carry, without discrimination as between persons, or trades, or towns, or ports all goods that were offered for transportation at known terms and at uniform fixed rates.

At Column 667, concluding in that vein, he said:

I agree that the public will not be willing to maintain the present restrictions on the operation of private lorries on the roads, if the public transport services continue to need substantial subsidies from the taxpayers, or if they prove to be too costly in their operation, or incapable of giving efficient service to the public.

We have gone a long way from that. It is no longer a question of carrying all goods offered for transportation at known terms and at uniform fixed rates. The Board of C.I.E. got complete freedom in that matter. They can bargain as between traders. They can give preferences as they like. They can tout for business by offering better services as between one group and another and, when any question is raised about unfair discrimination, the Minister takes refuge in the expression that this is a matter of day-to-day administration and that he has no power to interfere.

The Minister in recent years made several visits to different countries. In nearly every case, his object in going abroad was to study railway or transport administration. What he has got to do with public administration or transport administration may be of great concern to himself, but, when he is asked a question about public transportation in this House, he hides behind the fact that either one or other board has been giving that particular service and he is not entitled to interfere. Would the Minister argue for any group which had a right to decide that transport services in this country are better now than they were two or three years ago? The public would have a different answer from the one he would give.

The question I asked the other day was quite clear. The number of motor vehicles on the roads is growing. More people are being driven over to private transport than ever. It is not the best testimonial to the public transport service. In addition to that, the Minister said in some speech the other day that the provision of magnificent roads is going relentlessly on. Certainly, the rates are going relentlessly up, particularly that part which is applied to expenditure on the roads.

I do not know what the meaning of the word "relentlessly" is when used by the Minister as a phrase in his speech the other day. Certainly, there is no yielding to the ratepayer. There is no compassion for the ratepayer. The new public transport board is giving, in my view, less efficient service. It has been cutting out certain branch line services and, in the view of the people in the area, not giving a good substitute service. The number of operatives is down by 1,200 this year and C.I.E. have the advantage of passing over more and more of their costs to the ratepayers for the make-up of the roads. These are matters I can discuss on the Estimates for the various services of which the Minister has control.

There is one thing I cannot understand with regard to transport in this country and with regard to the moving of human beings by different machinery. I asked a question before Christmas to find out for whom, so to speak, did C.I.E. cater. Taking as a standard the number of passengers, I wanted to contrast that with the number of people catered for by Aer Lingus and Aer Linte. The figures are striking. The number of passengers catered for by C.I.E. in the years 1958, 1959 and 1960 was between 306 million and 312 million people. The highest number ever carried by Aer Lingus was 572,000 —a very small fraction of the number carried by C.I.E. The number of passengers carried by Aer Linte—the transatlantic lines—was 23,000, the highest figure they touched in the half year ending September, 1960.

That does not seem to indicate any big increase, having regard to the fact that the company catering for 312 million passengers in this country is tied in this way. It has been asked to make the services pay, even if that means the ruthless cutting down of branch lines and the provision of an inadequate substitute transport. Aer Lingus, I think, have never yet paid the bills they would have to pay if they were a privately operated transport company. In recent years, they made their operations a financial success but their accounts do not take into consideration the various matters provided by the taxpayers, the two airports and the meteorological aviation services. Aer Linte, as far as I can understand the recent statements of the general manager of Aer Lingus, are to have their fleet provided by the taxpayer and it is hoped that one of these days they may make their operations a financial success.

It seems strange that the company that really caters for the natives of the country, although it has certainly a great advantage over a privately-owned and operated concern, has been rather hampered by certain restrictions. There will be no subventions, the Minister says, after another couple of years, even though they have a number of debts forgiven, capital written down or written off and a lot of other advantages given them. More particularly, they can charge whatever they like, whereas charges operated by other concerns are under the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Aer Linte are apparently to be allowed to run into debt, even after having their aircraft provided for. Aer Lingus, providing for half a million passengers, are not expected to make the sort of success of the concern that a privately-owned concern would have to do. C.I.E., catering for 312 million passengers in the last year for which I have the figures, have certain restrictions and are put on a certain financial basis on which none of these other companies is.

These are matters I propose to leave over for debate on the Minister's Estimates, when I can get a full view of the organisations over which he presides. In the meantime, I ask the Dáil to agree that the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce on 8th May was not the type of statement that it has been explained it was in recent months. Certainly, it was not a fair representation of the discussion which took place and that the only bone of contention was whether there was to be an absolute obligation to provide substitute services. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, then in charge of the measure, took as the two main points of the discussion whether there should be the right of appeal by traders if prejudiced by unequal charges and whether there should be representations on the closing of branch lines.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This discussion today arise directly from an announcement made in September last year that three additional rail systems would be closed in the not too distant future. Subsequent to the publication of this announcement, in the months of October, November and December, Deputies representing the people of these areas again and again endeavoured to get some information from the responsible Minister, the Minister for Transport and Power, in this House on the proposed closure of these railways. They were extremely anxious to put certain viewpoints before the Minister, or before the Board of C.I.E., but to no avail. Now we have this discussion taking place more than four months afterwards, when already two of these lines have been closed down. One cannot understand the mentality of the Government and of the Minister in approaching a discussion on these matters. They have held out wantonly for over five months during which two lines have been closed down and now it is proposed to close the other within the next five or six weeks. It is quite evident from the Minister's statement that he endorses the action of the Board of C.I.E. He has given it unqualified support and has gone to great extremes in expressing admiration for the businesslike attitude and approach of that Board in dealing with transport matters since it took over a few years ago.

There is no constituency in the country more adversely affected by this decision of C.I.E. in September last than the constituency of Cork West which I represent. The whole rail system in that constituency has been completely wiped out by the sudden blow struck three or four months ago. Since the announcement made in September that this line would be closed, members of the Dáil from West Cork have been endeavouring to bring it before the House. All local authorities in that country have endeavoured, in every way possible, to get an interview with the Taoiseach, or with the Minister for Transport and Power, or the Board of C.I.E. in accordance with the assurances set out in the Transport Act quoted at length by Deputy McGilligan.

A few days subsequent to the announcement we had a resolution from the Western Committee of the Country Council, consisting of 12 elected councillors from that area. That was subsequently supported by the Cork County Council, the major local authority in this country, the Cork Corporation, the Committee of Agriculture and other district councils, development associations and private bodies. Their demands were quite simple: that they be given an opportunity to place certain views which they held regarding the proposed closure of the railway before the Board of C.I.E. and, if the Board of C.I.E. would not receive them, before the Head of the State, the Taoiseach, who was responsible for the Transport Act of 1958, and the Minister himself, Deputy Childers.

All these efforts failed. The replies of the Chairman of the Board were of the most curt nature possible. In fact, that gentleman sent a reply consisting of only one line to the Cork County Council, a body which represents such a wide volume of public opinion. The reply merely stated that he did not propose to receive a deputation. How did this gentleman come to get the office that he holds? We are told by the Minister in the——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We cannot have a discussion on the officials of C.I.E.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

We can have a discussion on the Board of C.I.E., because the Minister has endorsed the decision of the Board. He claims it to be an infallible decision.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is about to discuss the appointment of the official in question. That does not arise.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I am not proposing to discuss that; I am proposing to discuss how the present Board came to be set up as a result of the Transport Act of 1958. First of all, we were told by the Minister that we had an enquiry into the transport requirements of this country in 1956, known as the Beddy Commission. As a result of the report submitted by the Commission it was decided to promote legislation and in consequence we had the Transport Act, 1958.

The Board of C.I.E. was set up as a result of that Act. It was set up for the purpose of making C.I.E. economically sound and to wipe out the losses they had incurred for a number of years. It was not implied at that time, or at any subsequent time, that these losses were to be neutralised mainly by cutting away a large mileage of branch lines, such as has happened since the Board came into being. That was not the implication. On the other hand, the Minister, the Taoiseach now, in the course of his Dáil statements, implied they were going to set up a Board of men who were capable of making the system pay without any drastic reductions in the services, with particular reference to the railway services provided. He suggested that the Board proposed to be set up would be second to none. He made that quite clear in the course of the debate and said that the Board would find ways and means of bringing additional revenue and additional traffic to C.I.E. which would make it sound economically. It was never implied at the time that that would be brought about by cutting away some 420 miles of railway within two or three years.

Mr. Childers

It certainly was.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In the Minister's statement the figure 420 is mentioned. Deputy McGilligan has reminded the Taoiseach, who was present, of the assurances he gave in this House during the various Stages of the Transport Act. It is regrettable to have to state, but one is forced to do so having regard to the circumstances, that it is now quite evident that these statements were deceitful, that they were made with a view to getting Dáil Éireann to agree to the passage of the measure without division. It is quite evident also that the support for the measure was secured by false pretences. In any case we on this side of the House, being a minority, could not successfully oppose the Government's implementation of the Transport Act but we endeavoured to get certain assurances which were freely given and which we thought were quite fair and quite just. Unfortunately, these assurances are not being honoured. It is scandalous that the man who is now leader of this country, the Taoiseach, should so dishonour the assurances he gave to the elected representatives of the people in this Parliament within the past few years.

Like Deputy McGilligan, I could quote several statements indicating his outlook on rail services made by the Taoiseach during the debate on the Transport Bill. On 8th May, the day on which he made the famous announcement about the reception of deputations, he had something else to say:

However, I do not believe that railways are obsolete. I want to state a personal conviction in this matter. I believe that, as a technical device for the transportation of traffic, the railways are superior to road transport for most classes of traffic and certainly when the problems of peak requirements are taken into account. I expressed the doubt here in November whether it would be physically possible to handle our grain harvest, our sugar beet harvest, the pilgrimage traffic that develops during the year and the other special traffics in respect of goods or passengers that arise from time to time, without railways.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference, please?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Column 1681, Volume 167 of the Official Report of the 8th May, 1958. The Taoiseach added:

It would be most detrimental to the development of our tourist trade if it became known abroad that no railway services were available in Ireland.

There is one passage from the Taoiseach which made it quite clear to the members of this House where the Taoiseach stood, so far as railways are concerned. He clearly indicated that he was quite satisfied that railways were essential. That was one of the reasons he got such co-operation in the passage of the Transport Act, 1958.

I am sure that in the course of his intervention in this debate the Taoiseach will explain the meaning of the passage at Column 1683, Volume 167, quoted by Deputy McGilligan, regarding the reception of deputations where he said, "Of course they will do it". Will the Taoiseach tell us now how that assurance has been honoured, how the many representations of every kind that have been made by such bodies as the county council and the others that I have mentioned have been ignored and completely refused?

There were other statements made regarding what the present Taoiseach thought about the closing of branch lines at the time which equally assured us in the year 1958 and which are now being dishonoured. As a result of these statements he put our minds at ease as to his outlook on the closing of branch lines.

On 27th November, 1957, reported at Column 1050, Volume 164 of the Official Report, the present Taoiseach said:

There is another aspect of this financial problem that I should, perhaps, deal with now. There is, I know, a popular belief that the financial difficulties of C.I.E. are due mainly or entirely to the continued operation of branch lines. All the information available to me would make it quite clear that the elimination of branch line operations would not make any appreciable difference to C.I.E.'s financial problem. The C.I.E. Board tells me that there are 22 branch, link and secondary lines and that all these branch, link and secondary lines between them lose £100,000 per year. That loss on these lines has to be related to the overall loss of £2 million on the operation of the whole system. Against that loss of £100,000 per year on branch line operation, the Board claim that these branch lines contribute traffic to the system worth over £800,000 per year.

That was another clear indication of the Taoiseach's faith in retaining rail services. In any case, the measure was approved and subsequently put into operation and a Board of seven members was appointed and we had a statement from the chairman of the Board, a man who we all believed, with the help and co-operation of his colleagues on the Board, would give us a first-class transport service without taking from us a large mileage of railway in various parts of the country.

The Minister has expressed his belief in the Board's infallibility but the Board itself, through their chairman, do not process to be infallible. The chairman has quite clearly stated that he is not infallible in transport problems or, at least, was not 12 months ago. On Monday, 22nd February, 1960, at Jury's Hotel, Dublin, the chairman prefaced his remarks by stating—this was six or seven months prior to the announcement about the closing of the Cork railway and the Clare and Waterford sections—

It is now more that a year since I became Chairman of C.I.E. and there is still about six weeks to go before the end of the first financial year of the new C.I.E. When I became chairman of C.I.E. I think I said my mind was completely open and uninformed on the subject of transport.

So that, 12 months prior to the month of February, 1960 the Chairman of C.I.E. himself admitted that he was uninformed on the subject of transport. We all know what a complex subject that is.

The Chairman continued:

I had no fixed ideas and indeed, after nearly a year and a half of very close association with the problem, while my mind is very much less of a blank it is still in a state of flux—

In February, 1960 the Chairman's mind was in a state of flux, according to himself, and I am sure the Minister appreciates what it is when a man's mind is in a state of flux. The Chairman continued:

and I could not predict at this stage what the ultimate pattern of public transport in Ireland might be over the next five years.

That is a very interesting chapter coming from a man who was deemed by the Government to be infallible and who was Chairman and Managing Director of public transport.

He prefaced the statement he made on public transport, in February, 1960, by saying that up to twelve months ago he was uninformed on the question of transport, that then, after twelve months, his mind was still in a state of flux and that he could not predict what would happen in the future. Is it not rather peculiar that a man who was uninformed so far as transport was concerned in 1958 or 1959 and whose mind was in a state of flux in 1960 should, within six or seven months, close down a railway in Cork to a total of 92 miles, serving some 100,000 of the population of that big, widespread area, giving employment to 210 men and a wage income of £93,000?

The Minister endorses that policy, the striking attitude of a man who so far as transport problems are concerned was, to put it mildly, somewhat mentally incapacitated. He did not understand those problems, but he made these sweeping decisions within six or seven months with the full approval, as has now been indicated, of the responsible Minister for Transport and Power.

Naturally Deputies such as Deputy Wycherley and I and the representatives from the Cork South constituency were anxious to ascertain whether or not the Minister stood over the action of this Board—which action, incidentally, was taken on a majority decision —under the chairmanship of an uninformed man as far as transport is concerned. We got little or no satisfaction from the statement which the Minister made in Cork some short time afterwards. I need not mention the repeated representations to which that gave rise, to meet this chairman and Board. The chairman was in a state of flux on the 22nd February last, but here is another statement from him on that date:

Nor do I consider it reasonable that when decisions to close lines are actually taken and published that we should be asked to receive deputations whose object is to get us to reverse our decisions.

Then he says further down:

... the most exhaustive investigation of the past results and future prospects, that somebody outside the organisation will have an inspired solution to the problem which has baffled not merely us, but transport experts all over the world. If anyone has any suggestions, even now, we would be most anxious to have them and to examine them sympathetically.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy give the reference?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

A statement by the Chairman of C.I.E. on Monday, 22nd February, 1960, at Jury's Hotel, Dublin. That was a rather peculiar statement in the light of the Chairman's opening statement. Even though the man was in a state of flux about transport he would not avail of the advice and suggestions of any local interest whatsoever. It is completely contradictory because he clearly indicates in the latter part of the statement which I have read that he firmly believes there is no one outside the Board of C.I.E. who is capable of advising the Board on any problems whatever. By making that statement he proclaims his infallibility which he took great pains to deny in his opening statement.

He makes another statement which is also peculiar in the light of the action he has since taken. He states:

I can well conceive, however, of the Government paying C.I.E. money to render a public service which must, in the nature of things, be uneconomic but which public policy requires should be given. But as I have already said, I think these public services should be isolated in the accounts of C.I.E. and that the taxpayers should know exactly for what they are paying. I repeat that in the course of time—we will not be able to do it this year— we hope so to isolate these services in our accounts.

I consider that a fair statement. In other words, he felt that where branch lines were losing money and where it was in the national interest that they should be maintained, they should be shown as separate items and isolated from the general body of the accounts. The Taoiseach and the Government used to express the view that even though a particular service may not be an economic one it might be essential to the national good that it should be retained. If that is the Taoiseach's belief, it is not for a Board such as C.I.E., who represent no one, who have never had the confidence of any sections of the community other than the confidence of the Government in doing a particular job, to make such decisions. In my opinion their job does not extend to doing something that may affect the national interest because any decision in the national interest, such as retaining an uneconomic service or a service which may be slightly uneconomic, should be a decision for the Government.

There is no doubt that the Board of C.I.E. have been over-blamed in respect of their actions in the closing of these railway lines. There is no doubt that before such drastic measures were taken by the Board the Chairman had prior consultations with the Taoiseach or with the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers. I am satisfied, having regard to the statement we have heard here today and to the manner in which the Minister has glossed over the many considerations, which should have been taken into account in his statement, that there was connivance between the Board and the Minister for Transport and Power before these measures were announced.

It is our bounden duty as representatives from a constituency so harshly and unfairly treated and, in fact, so scandalously treated by a responsible Board with the approval of the Minister, to protest as vigorously as we can. In doing so we are expressing the general viewpoint of the people of West Cork, which they have clearly set out by way of protest petitions which the vast majority of the population signed in the past nine or ten days, in a last effort to get the Government to intervene with the Board of C.I.E. and get them to retract their decision or at least to defer it for some time.

The Minister was asked by Deputy Wycherley and me on a number of occasions to intervene and we were told he could not intervene in regard to the day-to-day affairs of the C.I.E. Board, that he had no function in that matter and that it would be exceeding his duty if he were to agree to our suggestion. I endeavoured by way of Question to get some information as to the functions vested in the Minister for Transport and Power because according to his own expressed statement he has no functions whatever in these matters.

It is, therefore, peculiar to read in the papers in the past day or two that another Minister who, I am sure, has no functions so far as C.I.E. is concerned, is intervening in a matter directly relevant to the affairs of C.I.E. We read that Deputy Lynch, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is to use his good offices with the Board of C.I.E. to effect a reconciliation in a dispute that has arisen between the Board and some of its employees. Would it not be just as reasonable for Deputy Childers, as Minister for Transport and Power, to accede to the demand of the Deputies from South and West Cork, to accede to the demand of the members of Cork County Council, the Cork Committee of Agriculture and other subsidiary bodies, that he should intervene with C.I.E. regarding their decision to close the railway lines?

Mr. O'Malley

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is not using his good offices with C.I.E.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

He is intervening in a dispute which has arisen.

Mr. O'Malley

That is a very different thing.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

It is the same thing. This dispute arises between C.I.E. and a section of its employees while, on the other hand, a dispute arose between the C.I.E. Board—we shall use the term dispute—and a big section of the people regarding the decision of C.I.E. to withdraw certain services. I think it would be quite in keeping with the Minister's office, in charge of Transport and Power, to intervene in such a matter.

The natural case to make—and it has been made—is, of course, that the C.I.E. Board got certain directions and were given certain duties under the Transport Act of 1958. One of the chief directions was that subsequent to 1964 no further subventions would be paid from national funds and that C.I.E. should turn their undertaking into an economic proposition from that date and that they should take whatever steps they deemed fair and reasonable to achieve that position. That is the situation from the Minister's point of view. How have C.I.E. addressed themselves to the matter? In expressing my view on the closing of the West Cork railway line, I am deliberately leaving out Waterford and Clare railway lines because I have no doubt that Deputies from these areas will be much more conversant with the position there and will be able to address themselves to the question much more capably than I could hope to.

On the motion before us concerning C.I.E.'s financial position we are told that the loss on the railways section was reduced to £558,614 for the last financial year. We were told some time ago that the loss on the Cork portion of the system was £56,000, or some ten per cent. of the total amount. The then Minister got a further brainwave subsequently and added an additional £22,000 to that figure bringing it to £78,000. That is the highest sum he could possibly put before us as the actual loss. He gave no details as to how that figure was compiled. We endeavoured to get some information as to how the losses were incurred but we failed to do so. The Waterford line was said to have a loss of less than £3,000; the Clare line, I understand, was losing in the region of £20,000 or a little more. It can be seen that the total loss—on C.I.E. figures which they were not prepared to substantiate and I have no doubt they gave the highest possible figures —would not mean much more than £100,000 or less than 20 per cent. of the total loss for the last financial year.

If on those figures, it was right and just to close a line of 92 miles in Cork serving such a big part of the country, surely it must be equally right and just to close a number of other branch lines because it is quite obvious there are several other branch lines responsible for the further loss of £450,000 in the C.I.E. rail system for the past year? It is evident beyond any doubt that there are a number of other lines far less important than the West Cork Line—which could not properly be described as a branch line at all—losing a good deal of money but C.I.E. has made it clear that before the operative date for economic working of the railways it does not propose to close any more lines.

To my mind that clearly indicates that we have been victimised and discriminated against in West Cork. That is the only possible interpretation of C.I.E.'s actions. If they came along and said: "We must close all these uneconomic lines; we cannot afford to continue asking the taxpayers or our other profitable services to subsidise these uneconomic lines. We must close them all by 1964", then there might be some justification, but to come along and close a line 92 miles long serving a section of the country that is second to none so far as tourism is concerned, is outrageous. That is the mildest language I can use to describe it.

Another feature of this report which is the subject of the Minister's motion, is that for the year ended 31st March there were improvements, and vast improvements, in the finances of C.I.E. and that, on account of the fact that losses were curtailed by some 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. it is presumed here that when the West Cork line, which is losing £56,000 plus the additional figure subsequently mentioned of £22,000 is closed and when the Clare and Waterford lines, losing between them £25,000, are also closed, C.I.E. will be on firm ground financially. That is the implication: "We do not want to close any other lines when we have the Cork, Waterford and Clare lines closed. We can then plod along nicely and face 1964 with confidence because we shall be able to say to the Government that we have fulfilled our objectives and that we require no further subventions. The closing of these lines will balance C.I.E.'s accounts." Surely that paragraph needs some explanation from the Minister as to how its promises can be achieved, as to how the Company can discriminate against particular lines which he says are closed because they were uneconomic while leaving other lines which I have been informed are used only to a very small extent and must obviously be uneconomic.

When speaking in support of the retention of the West Cork line, it is not my policy to mention other lines which undoubtedly are uneconomic especially in cases where there is only one train in each direction daily. Yet, there is no question of closing these lines. It is not my intention to focus attention on that matter but someone was kind enough to provide me with a list of what were deemed to be uneconomic lines. There is no mention of closing them down, of course. There is one line of 70 miles which carries one passenger each way daily. That is hardly economic. There is another stretch of 50 miles carrying the same traffic. There is another stretch of 18 miles with one train daily. There is another stretch of seven miles with one beet train from December to January; it is closed for the remainder of the year. There is another line of 40 miles with one freight train daily —no passenger service. I wonder did Dr. Andrews forget that these lines were in existence? How is it that we in Cork have had so much attention brought to bear on us in comparison with these?

Mr. Galvin

Because the Deputy was not using them.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I should love to see Deputy Galvin stand up here and make his own contribution to this motion. Indeed, it would be no harm for him to make a start.

With regard to the argument that these lines were not being used, I am sure the Minister has in his possession all the information as to what use was made of the lines in West Cork. He knows very well the intake in goods and passengers on the line from Albert Quay to West Cork. It has been put to him very clearly that numbers of people are involved. When I speak here I speak as a public representative; I give a representative viewpoint. I do not speak because I, or my colleague, Deputy Galvin, may not use the railway line. It does not happen to suit us in our particular business. We have to stop in towns and villages in order to interview constituents, and so on. That is not the case with other people who are anxious to use the line and it is on behalf of these people I am making the case here. Their anxiety is quite evident if one is to judge by the size of the petition which will be submitted, I understand, to the Taoiseach in the near future.

There is another side of the picture. The Government, and particularly the Taoiseach have made many appeals exhorting us to keep as many people as possible at home on the land and put an end to emigration by trying to provide employment for them. The Government are prepared to subsidise industry irrespective of whether that industry is run by Irishmen or foreigners. A list of attractions has been advertised in an effort to get people to come here and establish industries, industries which will provide employment, increase the national income and keep more of our people at home. Did the Minister ever mention that aspect of our policy to the Board of C.I.E.? Even accepting the Minister's figure of £78,000, there are at the present time 210 families provided with a reasonably good income as a result of their work on the Cork railway line. If we could get an industry in West Cork which would give the same level of income to 210 families we would be very glad to have it.

With the development of the area industrially plus tourist development it is absolutely essential that we should retain the railway services. One can today take a £6 rambling ticket issued by C.I.E. which entitles the holder to visit any part of the rail system over a period of 15 days. If this railway line is closed down Baltimore, Courtmacsherry and Bantry will be put outside the ambit of such rambling tickets. The tourist will not be able to visit these areas unless he decides to avail of bus transport. It is reasonable to assume that many tourists will not put themselves to the inconvenience of switching from one mode of transport to another. From that view alone the closing of this railway will be a big disadvantage. We have several scenic attractions at Baltimore, Courtmacsherry, Bantry, Glengariff, Schull and other districts. Tourists who visit these areas spend money. Obviously it is the intention now to cut off this source of income from the people.

From the point of view of industrial development, it is not possible to forecast the result but there can be no question that such closing will have unfavourable effects. The Cork County Council addressed themselves at recent meetings to the question of the economics of the matter. They wanted to find out from the county manager and their chief technical advisers what the impact would be on local revenue if the proposal to close down the railways were to mature. These experts reported as to what would be involved and it was decided at a recent council meeting to send a copy of that report to the Taoiseach, to the Minister and to the Board of C.I.E.

Deputy McGilligan referred to the upward trend in local taxation, and he said that people were most desirous and anxious that local taxation should be kept at the lowest possible level. Naturally, that is the aim of every public representative, always remembering that essential services must be provided for at all times. The document to which I refer is a joint effort and, at the conclusion of the meeting which discussed the report, members of the council of all shades of political thought paid tribute to those responsible for the preparation of the document, for the way in which it was produced, for the factual data collated and for the fairness and impartiality of the conclusions reached as to the position likely to result were this proposal permitted to mature. I can inform the Minister that the Fianna Fáil members commented just as favourably on it as any member of the Opposition. They were able to prove by experience what the growth in local revenue would be. Earlier in the report, it is stated that 24½ miles of railway were closed about three years ago, the Cork to Macroom line. The report adds that the impact of the closing of that line is being felt, as the southern road to Macroom is already showing signs of failure on its south side.

Further on, the report states:

If these lines are closed, it is anticipated that the total volume of extra traffic thrown on to these roads would be approximately 120,000 tons. Approximately one-third of this traffic is beet, which will be transported in a 12-week period when roads are most susceptible to damage. I have gone into details before arriving at the above figures. The points inquired into were as follows:

(a)Goods to and from West Cork.

(b)Coal and other items carried.

(c)Livestock to and from West Cork, which is an appreciable figure, and

(d)The haulage of beet.

I shall send Deputy Galvin a copy of this report for his information. It clearly answers some of the questions he addressed to me earlier on. If he reads this, he will find out what the West Cork railway line is carrying in goods traffic, and I am sure the Minister will have no hesitation in supplying him with percentage traffic figures as well. The report goes on:

Assuming an even distribution over the year (300 days), which would be most conservative, as beet lorries operate for only three months in Winter when damage to road surfaces would be greatest and livestock transport would cause a greater concentration of traffic on a lesser number of days, the number of extra lorries or large vans would be greatly increased.

The report continues to state the nature of the increase, and the final summary states, in respect of the 113 miles of roads directly affected, that it would take at least £10,000 to £15,000 per mile to bring them up to the reasonable standard required to cope with the additional bus and lorry traffic placed on them. That figure represents a cost of from £1,130,000 to £1,695,000.

Mr. Childers

And the Deputy believes it?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have no doubt that I believe it and every member of the council approved of this factual statement.

Mr. O'Malley

Are the roads not substandard anyway?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I have not completed my statement about the cost of improving the roads. In addition, there are 48 miles of roads in the area contiguous to this line which must also be brought up to standard and that would require a further £480,000. Therefore, the cost of meeting the engineer's estimate would be in the neighbourhood of £2,200,000, and the Minister can judge for himself how insignificant £56,000 would be in comparison with that formidable figure.

Mr. Childers

It is just laughable.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

As the Minister appears to be rather doubtful, I shall give him the exact quotation: "...an estimate of the total cost would not serve any useful purpose, as it would run into a prohibitive figure." That is what we were told—that it would be futile for these people to waste time in giving us an exact estimate of the money involved.

I shall not go into the subsequent portion of the report which deals with the question of grants, but I must stress forcibly the concluding paragraph, which states:

In conclusion, another important aspect of the increased traffic is its passage through Dunmanway, Clonakilty and Bandon, especially at the peak point in the beet season, as one-side parking in the last two towns may not meet the problem, and the question of by-passes may have to be considered.

This report visualises the possibility of by-passing three towns in West Cork and everybody knows what this would mean for the towns concerned.

The Minister has been legitimately elected by a majority of the members of this House. He is now running into his last year of office and the time is coming when the people will have an opportunity of again assessing the merits and qualifications of their Ministers and other representatives here. To-day the Minister has endorsed in no uncertain manner the decision of C.I.E. suddenly to wipe out a railway line, 92 miles in extent, which has been operating in County Cork for more than 90 years. Its advantages to the county and the people it has served over that period must indeed be clear by now. Yet one is amazed to think that, by an abrupt decision of a State-sponsored body, this railway line is to be wiped out and, if we are to judge by what took place in other areas, the lines are to be pulled up immediately without the local people having an opportunity of discussing the position with the Board.

That is all the more regrettable when we take into account the frame of mind of the man deemed to be chiefly responsible, Dr. Andrews. About five or six months before this decision was taken, Dr. Andrews' mind, to use his own words, was "in a state of flux about transport." I believe I am within my rights in criticising the dictatorial attitude of the Board. What right have C.I.E. to say to the representatives of 100,000 people in West Cork: "We will not waste time with you"? Who do they think they are? Where do they come from? Where do they get their infallibility? Any Minister or any Government who would stand over that attitude on the part of a board such as the Board of C.I.E. is not fit to be a Minister or a Government, and I have no doubt that the people will give their answer on this matter when they get an opportunity.

However, our obligations and duties as Deputies are to make representations. I want to make representations to the Minister, and I am sure my colleagues will follow me, to reconsider this decision, even at this late stage, and to ask the responsible body concerned to receive a representative deputation and discuss this matter with them. I have no doubt that if I, in my capacity as a Deputy, were to phone the Minister's office this afternoon— or next week because, perhaps, he might not be in such a good mood this afternoon—and said I wanted to see him about a particular matter, he would accede to my request, and I am pretty sure the Taoiseach would do likewise.

When a major matter arises such as the wiping out suddenly of a railway which has been serving people for more than 90 years—providing a decent living for 210 families as well as serving people with passenger traffic and goods traffic — we cannot possibly be helped and a deputation will not be received. The General Manager of C.I.E., Mr. Lemass, said it would be a waste of time to discuss the matter.

Another unfortunate aspect of this question is that it has been alleged, and I believe rightly so, that C.I.E. deliberately sabotaged these lines by driving traffic and custom away from them, particularly in the matter of the haulage of beet. They were so abrupt in their communications with farmers and others that those people had no alternative but to use the road services. It is equally true that instead of doing what Dr. Andrews said they would do in his address in Jury's Hotel to secure additional traffic for C.I.E., they made opposite efforts in West Cork. Possibly having in mind the closing of the West Cork railway, they endeavoured to reduce the income to the lowest possible figure in order that they would have as good a case as could be made for the closing of that line.

As time is limited, I do not think it would be right for me to delay the House much longer. Other Deputies will require an opportunity of speaking on this matter. To sum up, the case to be made is, first of all, that the loss on the C.I.E. railway services in Cork proposed to be closed down is a very small percentage of their total losses on rail services; secondly, the persistent refusal of the Board of C.I.E. to meet any deputation is a clear implication that they have not a good case to make for the closure. Surely if the Board or the Minister had a good case, there would be no hesitation in receiving any deputation, and they would be only too willing and anxious to have a deputation before them to tell them plainly and bluntly why they were closing the railway and why it was the only possible way out. It is quite evident that the dictatorial attitude of the Board must be influenced to a large extent by the absence of good grounds for the proposal to close the railway lines.

Does the Minister agree that the assurances given by the Taoiseach in the course of the debate on the Transport Act have been carried out, or does he agree that they have been flagrantly flouted in the most outrageous manner possible? Does he agree that C.I.E. acted in conformity with the terms of that measure in endeavouring to ascertain the future potentialities of the lines proposed to be closed down? Whom did C.I.E. contact in West Cork for information with regard to increased custom? I know of no one, no public person, no private businessman or no group of people such as development associations or local councils. Was any such body contacted by C.I.E. with regard to the future potentialities of the railway lines?

One would imagine, since these lines have been in existence for so many years, if C.I.E. thought they had a good case they would receive these deputations and at least give a respite to the railways of, say, two, three or four years, with a view to seeing what would happen in the meantime. C.I.E. do not propose to act in any but the mose dictatorial way possible. They will not grant any respite and are prepared only to give these railways a sudden death without giving a hearing to any of the local interests concerned. That is not the spirit of the Transport Act. That is not the spirit of the Act which was passed in this House in 1958. The assurances given have not been honoured as it was clearly and definitely implied they would be honoured when the Act was being passed through the House. The Act was flouted also in another way. Even before the expiry of the two months' statutory notice, C.I.E. were busily engaged dismantling portions of the railway system. That was completely in conflict with the terms of the Transport Act.

It is incumbent on and imperative for me, in accordance with the viewpoints of the people I represent and in accordance with the expressed views of every public body in Cork, including the premier local authority, Cork County Council, to ask the Minister again to reconsider this decision which I believe was taken jointly by the Minister and C.I.E. That was more or less implied. I am asking him to use his good offices with C.I.E. in a similar manner to that in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is using his good offices on another problem of some concern.

I ask the Board of C.I.E. to grant a respite to these railways in West Cork. If they are not satisfied to retract their decision entirely, would they at least agree to allow the railways to continue in operation for, say, three years, until 1964? When 1964 comes along, the situation so far as the economics of the railway system are concerned could be reviewed, and we will be in a better position to arrive at a fair and just decision than we are at the present time when we are arriving at a hasty and undue decision without taking any account of the viewpoints of the local people involved.

I am delaying the House for a few further minutes to repeat that request to the Minister. If nothing else can be done, will he at least accede to a request for a respite for, say, two years? If he and the Board decide to agree, they could make a statement, saying: "We are now agreeing to the many representations that have been made to continue in existence this railway that you have had for almost 100 years, for at least another two or three years on a trial period, and could review the position then. If it is not used in that period to the extent we think it should, we shall have to implement our decision of some months ago." I believe the Minister is obliged to do that. If he does not, he is flouting democracy and is not fit to hold his job.

Mr. O'Malley

There have been few occasions in this House on which such a blatant example of political insincerity has taken place. The amendment was moved, on behalf of the chief Opposition Party, by Deputy McGilligan. It is a new departure for Deputy McGilligan to criticise a Fianna Fáil Minister for Transport and Power for doing something which he, Deputy McGilligan, considered would cause a loss of unemployment and hardship in certain areas.

Deputy McGilligan should cast his mind back to the early days of 1948— still on transport, still on employment —when he closed our transatlantic air services and when the Lockheed maintenance factory in Shannon Airport, which was to give employment to 600 families, was closed not by the State body, Aer Rianta or Aer Lingus, but by the first Coalition Government of which Deputy McGilligan was one of the leading lights. He comes along to-day and launches a vicious and insincere attack on the Minister for Transport and Power and, through him, on the Government and the Taoiseach. Deputy McGilligan, described by Deputy Norton on a memorable occasion as a bulldozer traversing Ireland and levelling our industries, has the audacity to put down an amendment here to-day.

Deputy M.P. Murphy was, if anything, consistent in his inconsistencies. He sought a stay of execution on the one hand and on the other hand queried why the management of C.I.E. were not closing more branch lines. He cannot have the stay of execution—or does he want, to quote a memorable extract in relation to a very tragic occasion by a famous newspaper in this country: "a few more executions and the Government will stay its hand"? Evidently that is what Deputy M.P. Murphy considers C.I.E. have in mind when they announce that these closings will be the last until 1964.

The misrepresentation, particularly by Deputy McGilligan, here to-day should not go unanswered. Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, gave power to the Board of C.I.E. to close a branch line under two conditions. They had to be satisfied the service was uneconomic. That was not sufficient. They had also to satisfy themselves, and were under statutory obligation by virtue of Section 19 of the 1958 Act to prove and satisfy themselves, that there was no prospect of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period.

As we know, the overlying principle was to eliminate losses by 31st March, 1964. Deputy McGilligan bemoans the high level of local and central taxation and yet wants a State body to continue to run branch railways which they have satisfied themselves are uneconomic and show no prospect of their continued operation being economic. It is the old Fine Gael mentality of trying to have it both ways. In the Press, and on Radio Éireann to-night, the public should be made fully aware of the purpose of this debate. Deputy McGilligan's amendment is purely political. A general election is in the air. So long as Deputy O'Sullivan admits that that is the purpose——

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 16 Feb 1961

C.I.E. Report and Accounts, 1959-60: Motion.

A Deputy

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Feb 1961