Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 16 Mar 1961

Vol. 187 No. 6

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

The following motion was moved on 16th February, 1961, by the Minister for Transport and Power:
That the Dáil takes note of the Report and Accounts of Córas Iompair Éireann for the year 1959-60.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
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."
—(Deputy McGilligan.)

To my mind, Deputy Lynch represents a generation that is passing, a generation that was railway-minded. At the time railways developed there was no other means of long distance travel. They evolved in a period when the horse and the ass and cart were the main means of travelling. I can understand people like Deputy Lynch regretting the passing of the railways, and particularly the branch lines. I myself have very pleasant memories of train journeys in the old days, but those memories do not blind me to the fact that we cannot now go back to the ass or to the rails. We must always keep in mind the fact that railways must pay if they are to survive. No case was made by either Deputy Lynch or Deputy Wycherley that the railways can pay. I have another complaint against Deputy Lynch. He travels to town in his motor car. I do not blame him. I think he is perfectly entitled to do that. In his championship of the Waterford-Tramore railway he suggested that this was in the main a passenger service. He is, of course, right in that. I remember listening to Deputy Lynch making a speech in Tramore last summer on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill. If my memory serves me correctly, he arrived at his venue in a motor car. He did not use the line about which he is now so perturbed because of its being closed down. As I said last night, the bulk of the people who used the Waterford-Tramore line were people coming in from Tipperary, Kilkenny and Waterford, people who up to the present had to trek two miles across the city in order to get to the railway station for Tramore. I have no doubt these people will welcome the fact that they can now step from the railway station in Waterford and get into a bus which will take them to Tramore without having to walk across the city. I do not see why the railway line from Waterford to Tramore should be continued if it cannot be made pay.

Deputy Wycherley did not make much of a case. He was mainly complaining about Dr. Andrews and the Board of C.I.E. He almost suggested to us that he himself could settle all the problems of the Cork-Bantry line if he had the opportunity. He could tell us where they were all wrong. He could abolish half the stations on the line. He could do all kinds of queer things. He pointed out to us, however, that he approached some board or other in west Cork which used a lot of road transport and asked them to transfer their goods to the railways. But the person in charge of that institution pointed out that if they were to use the railways, they would have to pay an extra 10/- per ton. The railways do not pay at present; but if they had to cut their prices by a further 10/- per ton, the deficit would be very much heavier.

Everybody knows that the mobile lorry cannot be beaten. I do not think any business man would use the railways if lorries were available. Deputy Wycherley was worried about the number of people employed on the railways. I would think there are at least as many employed on road transport services as on the railways. He suggested that half the stations on the line in which he is interested could be abolished, but he went on further to suggest that the line could be extended to Glengarriff. In these days, at any rate, I think that is a fantastic suggestion. In 1959, the railways cost us over £1,000,000. Undoubtedly, last year, because of savings made by closing lines, the cost by way of State subsidy was only £500,000. But in the circumstances of these days it would seem strange that any sensible group of people would extend that railway as far as Glengarriff for the sake of whatever passengers might use it during the three or four months of the summer.

The Deputy told us a fantastic story about the wife of the President of the United States. We are happy to know she came from that part of the world. The Deputy said she would arrive in Cork and would be happy to get into a comfortable train hauled by a diesel engine.

How long has Bouvier been a West Cork name?

I am dealing with what Deputy Wycherley said. He told us we should remember what happened during the emergency and what would have happened if we did not have the railways. If he had diesel engines in his mind, we would be in the same position we were in during the last emergency. I remember having to spend six hours in a train to get from Dublin to Clonmel. These trains were mostly without heating and were not to be recommended. These suggestions are being made, apparently, so that we may have some means of transport during the emergency, but where is the use in compelling the taxpayer to meet the expenses of these services?

One thing struck me very forcibly in this matter of rail transport. Some years ago, I called on the higher officials at Kingsbridge with a group in connection with the closing down of a railway in my own county. I refer to the Cashel-Gooldscross line. After arguing with the officials for some time, one of the officials asked the members of the deputation if petrol were available would they discard their vans and use this railway line. Would they give up their motor cars and use it for passenger service? The members of the deputation were honest enough to admit they would not do any such thing. I heard, and I am perfectly certain it is true, that many of the people who attended these gatherings to protest against the closing of railway lines, drove to these meetings in their motor cars. Further, several of the people attending at least one of these conferences were the owners of motor transport lorries. I was told that if four or five of the people attending these protest meetings gave up the use of their own lorries and used the railway instead, the railway in question would not have to be closed because there would be sufficient traffic to keep it going. Only foolish people would imagine that business men will use the railways if motor and lorry transport is available.

The railway journey from Waterford to Tramore is non-stop. Anybody in between stations would have to use some other form of transport. If Deputy Wycherley's suggestion that we close down half the stations on the Cork-Bandon line were adopted, the people there would be in the same predicament. Since we cannot go back to the horse and the ass of the old days, they would have to try to find a bus or some other transport. In my own part of the country, on the journey from Clonmel to Cahir, a distance of 10 miles, there is no railway station. There is, however, a very good bus service. People living three or four miles outside the town would take a very poor view if the bus service were taken off and they were brought back to the situation existing ten or twelve years ago when no buses were available.

No matter how much we regret the passing of the railways, we must take into consideration that if they do not pay, and particularly if they do not give the service, they must go. The important thing the State will have to keep in mind is the convenience of the general public and the solvency of the railways. These are the two items which should influence them.

I very much regret the necessity for condemning these lines, but I do not see any alternative. I did mention here on another occasion the first railway line that I remember being abolished. It was the line from Clifden to Galway. I remember the terrific protests that were made at that time about the closing of that line. The fact that it would take £800,000 to make the line safe for people to travel on it did not influence the people who were protesting. I am now informed that if it were suggested to the people living in the districts that were served by that railway that rail transport should be brought back and the mobile bus services and road transport services taken off, the protests would be very much more vehement and, in my opinion, very much more to the point.

I remember the time when we had the tram system in this city. If anyone were to suggest now that the trams should be brought back and that we should get rid of the buses or if anyone were to suggest that the buses are not giving a service equivalent to or better than the service given by the trams, nobody would take him seriously.

I am compelled to feel that all the protests that we have listened to in connection with the closing down of these lines are purely artificial. I, personally, do not believe that the people making these protests really have the interests of the people at heart. The people must be provided with the service that they want, with the service which is most convenient for them and, of course, the State must keep in mind that the railways must pay their way.

Dr. Andrews was condemned in this House by Deputy Wycherley and Deputy T. Lynch last night. Dr. Andrews was set the task of making rail transport pay within a certain number of years. It was a very difficult task and he had to do many things which he would not wish to do, I am sure, if it were possible to avoid doing them. He had to make the transport system pay. When I hear people like Deputy Wycherley telling us that he could make the railways pay and knew how the railways in West Cork could be made to pay, and all that kind of stuff, it sounds rather odd, to say the least of it.

Dr. Andrews has no particular reason to abolish any railway line. His purpose would be to keep railway lines going if it were possible that these lines could pay and could give the service that the people want. I am perfectly certain that he could not do either of these things and consequently he was faced with the necessity of abolishing the railway lines.

There was one point of Deputy Wycherley's speech to which I take exception. A man making a case for the railways should not almost suggest that other branch lines should be condemned and abolished. Deputy Wycherley last night gave a list of five railway lines and his suggestion was that they were less entitled to be kept running than the West Cork railway line. The natural reaction to that suggestion on the part of people like Dr. Andrews would be, perhaps, to have the question examined and, if the suggestions of Deputy Wycherley were found to have any truth in them, to have the lines that he mentioned abolished. When a man is making a case he should have sufficient grounds to make the case without condemning lines serving other places.

I do not see any useful purpose that this discussion can serve except to give a certain number of Deputies opportunities to make the shocking speeches that we listened to last night. We had a speech lasting three-quarters of an hour from Deputy T. Lynch. I venture to say there was not a solid argument made in that three-quarters of an hour. We had a speech lasting one hour and ten minutes from Deputy Wycherley. Yet, Deputy T. Lynch complained that there was a suggestion made by the Taoiseach that all that these deputations, speeches and agitations could do was to give certain people an opportunity to make big speeches. I certainly think the supporters of the motion should reconsider their attitude.

I want to consider this matter from a slightly different angle. I accept the view that the House cannot reasonably expect to run C.I.E. or any other State undertaking. Having said that, I believe that in this matter there is an obligation on C.I.E. where decisions are about to be taken which affect the services in a particular area to consult the interested parties before reaching a decision.

When the Transport Act, 1958, was going through this House the impression was undoubtedly created from the remarks of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that before C.I.E. would reach a decision on any matter such as the proposed closing of a railway line or a change of services in a locality, interested parties would be consulted. Without attempting to read anything further into this statement than was contained in it, the implication was quite clear.

Some few months ago C.I.E. decided to close certain stations on the Dublin-Dún Laoire-Greystones line and when that decision was announced various groups of people came together and convened a meeting for the purpose of making representations to the company on the matter. I should say at the outset that the meeting was entirely non-political in character and all Deputies representing the constituencies served by the railway were invited to it.

When the group appointed by the meeting sought a discussion with the directors of C.I.E. or the authorised representatives of the company they were informed that the company would be prepared to discuss arrangements for alternative services but not to discuss the proposed closing of particular stations. Quite naturally, the people concerned felt aggrieved at that decision. They felt there was an autocratic tendency manifested in a communication which said that the company were prepared to meet a deputation, not to discuss the proposed closing but only the question of alternative services.

As I said initially, I believe the ultimate responsibility for decisions of this nature must rest with the company but that does not give the company or its representatives the right to make such a reply to a deputation who seek an interview, persons who are interested and who in this particular case have no political interest whatever. There were supporters of different political Parties in the group and the elected representatives of all political Parties were invited to the meetings.

It is natural that people should feel aggrieved and should feel that where the company lay down predetermined conditions for an interview there was not much point in it. There is no obligation whatever on the company to accept the views expressed by a deputation but the public and groups of this sort feel that at least they are entitled to make their case to the company and that having made their case, then the company or the officials concerned could take their own decision. Where a group are told before entering into discussion that the company are prepared to discuss a matter on the basis of terms laid down by the company people feel that there is running through that decision not merely a suggestion of autocratic tendency but an unwillingness to hear the people concerned because before the meeting is held the predetermined lines have been announced by the company.

One of the disabilities under which statutory companies suffer is that on many occasions decisions are not properly understood. The public relations system at a certain stage breaks down and if the full facts were known and understood people would have at least an appreciation of the other point of view. Therefore, it is important for C.I.E. as well as other statutory bodies to ensure that as far as possible they would have public confidence. In order to secure public confidence it is a good thing to take the views of groups into consideration and to consult with them where such consultation is requested.

In the case with which I am familiar, the Dublin-Dún Laoghaire-Greystones line, the railway services were not being discontinued. Certain stations were being closed and certain services terminated, particular trains at particular hours. The people naturally feel that if they have a view on a matter of this sort they are entitled to have it considered and that even if the company reach a decision ultimately to close a station or discontinue a service, at least they have had their viewpoint considered and that all aspects of the matter have been taken into consideration.

Statutory companies of this sort are there through express legislation passed by the House and are there in the case of this company to some extent, indeed to a considerable extent, through payment of subsidy which is subscribed by the taxpayers. While nobody expects or could reasonably expect that this House or any group should attempt to run a statutory undertaking of this sort, nevertheless, the public have a two-fold interest; first, they are entitled, within reason, to what they consider are adequate and suitable services; and, secondly, as taxpayers they are entitled to have their position safeguarded to the full.

It is, therefore, out of line with modern consideration of these matters, where consultation and public confidence is concerned, that a statutory body should appear to act in an autocratic fashion. If in this matter the company had interviewed the deputation and had then come to a decision, people would have felt that, at any rate, their views had received due consideration. When ultimately a deputation was received it was received quite courteously and the company officials listened carefully to the matters put before them. However, even on that occasion, during the course of the meeting it became obvious that a statement had been prepared in advance of the meeting for issue. There again the members of the deputation felt the question was predetermined.

It is the right and responsibility of the company, under statute, to take decisions, but equally the public and interested parties are entitled to have their views considered. Having heard those views the company is still free to take whatever decisions it believes to be in the best interests of the company and the service. From a communication which says the company is prepared only to discuss alternative services or from a statement which is prepared for issue before the meeting takes place, the only conclusion to be drawn is that the company was not really interested in getting the people's views but because of whatever undertaking was given to the House it was obliged to go through the forms.

Nowadays people do not like the suggestion of an autocratic attitude, more especially when not merely are the taxpayers vitally concerned, but also the public interest insofar as the service provided is also affected. I would be glad if the views expressed by interested parties received proper and due consideration in matters of this sort. It is one aspect of the matter which if properly attended to would eliminate a good deal of unnecessary conflict and the suggestions that the company is not attentive to the interests of particular areas or to matters which affect or even appear to affect a certain group or section of the community.

There are other questions, such as the manner in which the finances of a particular line are determined, how the costs are arrived at, how charges are assigned to certain lines or services, on all of which different groups may have different views and on all of which C.I.E. may have particular views. These matters could and should be appropriate for discussion where a certain service is concerned. One of the matters with which the group I mentioned, in connection with suburban railways, was concerned was that some of the items which had been charged to their line were not appropriate. In some cases these are technical questions and in other cases they are financial questions which should be quite appropriate for discussion at an interview such as local groups seek to have with the company.

In all of these cases, a lot of the criticism expressed would be avoided if the company had received a deputation, without any agenda except in so far as the particular interest is concerned, without pre-determining the lines of the discussion while having the ultimate right to take the decision that was thought correct. If that were done, much of the criticism would have been avoided and a great deal of the public confidence in the operations of the company would have been maintained as well as a proper understanding of the various interests concerned.

Every member of the House and the public outside, I feel sure, are interested in preserving our railway system as a vital artery of our national transport. With that in view, I was among the first to urge the people of West Cork to marshal their resources to save their railway when it was threatened with extinction. I am particularly interested in that railway because I lived beside it since my youth and half of its length of 60 miles passes through my constituency.

Before that vital step was taken I was anxious, as indeed was everybody in that area, to examine every aspect of the matter and try to develop an attitude of mind which would bring to that railway further traffic and a better service. There was a Committee of Inquiry which recommended that the experience of a number of years under new conditions would show the value of the service. This railway, to my mind, did not get the opportunity of having its merits examined under new conditions. The only thing new that happened was that a few diesel engines replaced the steam engines that had been there.

For many years in debates in this House I have pointed out that train service and parallel bus services at the same hours were running through West Cork and that there should be a re-organisation of the services on more economic lines. Very little notice was taken of that but if we turn to the other side of the river, to the line to Cobh, no buses were permitted to run parallel to that system beyond Cobh Junction. That railway is flourishing. I do not suggest that all the buses through West Cork should be cut off or limited but that they should be run at different hours, starting from Cork, from those which operated in the case of the trains.

There was no opportunity for the people of West Cork to avail of their week-end services in any reasonable way. I know one or two people who worked in the new German factory in Bantry, others who worked in banks and two or three teachers, all of whom were anxious to come home to Cork to spend their week-ends with their relatives and friends. But, in order to do that, they had to leave Bantry by rail, arriving at Cork at five o'clock on Saturday evening, and in order to get back to their work they had to leave by bus at 9 or ten o'clock the following morning. There was not a service whatsoever to the important towns in the distant parts of West Cork during Sunday unless there was a match or something in the city when a special train might be available.

I repeat that the railways got no chance as far as passenger traffic was concerned. As far as goods were concerned, it is perfectly true that in many cases the number of wagons required were not available and that the people who intended to send beet and other commodities had to make some other provision and to take some alternative means of transport. Loading banks could have been provided and if the wagons were available the beet could have been loaded off the banks, but no steps whatever were taken to provide such banks.

Banks were provided, but they were not used to any great extent.

They were provided in other places, but they were not available in the main beet district in West Cork. I know this area and I am well aware that at times, when 15 lorries were required only nine or ten were provided.

There were no complaints in regard to that at all, to my knowledge.

I live among the people and I know well how the circumstances worked out. I know the railway had the cartage of the great bulk of the beet in the early stages and that ultimately they lost—41,000 tons travelling by road and 43,000 tons by railway. The railway lost 50 per cent. of the traffic.

Because the farmers preferred——

If the Minister would cease interrupting me I would appreciate it. It was because the lorries sent out a loader and a helper to the farmers, and the railway did not provide the same service. Furthermore, when the people around my area required a C.I.E. lorry that lorry had to travel from Cork empty, whereas if they had local lorries those lorries could take the farmers' produce to Cork or wherever the destination was and come back with a load. That is the kind of position that existed there. We saw yesterday morning a magnificent film on the bogs of Ireland and the production there and of the railways that were provided through those bogs. Many of the railways in West Cork run through boggy land and it was a great service indeed to the people who had to provide money for the upkeep of roads that some of the traffic was off those roads and on the railway. What was envisaged in West Cork was that every effort would be made to send traffic to the railway rather than have it closed down. While that effort was not made in West Cork, we were told that they canvassed their customers but what was wanted was to canvass people who were not customers, but who were potential customers of the railway and to receive a deputation in open forum to discuss all these matters and to hear the railway side of the story. To my mind that would have been a better approach but the whole matter was very badly bungled.

On the 27th November, 1957, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, dealing with the internal transport position, said:

There is another aspect of the 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 tell 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 over-all loss of £2,000,000 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.

Would the Deputy give the reference?

The Minister for Industry and Commerce made that statement on the 27th November, 1957 dealing with the internal transport position.

The new Board got a new costing system and discovered they were wrong. That is the answer to that.

The Minister made that statement which is on record and when the new Board were appointed it was easy for them, rather than try to reorganise the system, to close it down. Then there would be no loss in that particular branch. As a matter of fact there might be a temporary gain on the sale of railway lines and equipment. We find in countries abroad that railways are being developed in development areas and here we are closing them in an area which we hope is now entering a more progressive stage and where railways are established and where we should be trying to improve the services.

The whole point is that if the Board had a strong case they could have met the people from the area. The West Cork Development Association which has been trying for a number of years, and with some success, to establish industries in the area were anxious to discuss the matter with the Board. I have the greatest personal admiration for the chairman of the Board. I do not wish to—and I think nobody in justice could—criticise him, because his record of achievement on the turf bogs is outstanding, but I would say the Board failed in not making a proper approach to the matter, in not receiving a deputation to discuss all aspects of the situation.

The Board has been criticised for painting its system. That is not a just criticism because they would surely want to preserve their property. We know that the station at Kenmare has been sold to a firm who are establishing an industry. Whether the railway closed or continued that was a necessary maintenance cost. I do not criticise that at all but I say that the cost that will now come on the roads will be very heavy indeed as it has been in other places. The engineers were criticised for their report. I know the engineers in this case and the report was examined very closely. If I recall rightly it was on my motion that the report was presented. Straightening out these roads to remove dangerous bends and bridges and that sort of work would be very costly and apart from that, the upkeep of the roads through bog land will put a heavy impost on the local councils, an impost that could be avoided by maintaining the railway and giving it at least the chance which was envisaged and getting some experience of its working under the new conditions. The Board did not give it that chance. They had five years to do it and after one-and-a-half or two years they decided to close the railway rather than do anything to gain traffic for it to convenience the people and preserve the line which was a main line over the past 100 years—the Cork, Bandon and South Coast Railway. If not a main line, it was at least a secondary line, and the only contact with the main system was by a link system across the city with no regular services.

It has been mentioned that more industries have come to West Cork since that announcement was made than heretofore. It is well known that the West Cork Development Association, for the past three or four years, have been active, visiting the Continent and trying to get people interested in that part of the country. They have had some success. If industries are coming at this particular time the question of the railway is not affecting the matter because they would come at any rate.

One very big industry for Skibbereen was interested in a railway siding; another Canadian proposal for Bandon cropped up and I went out there myself with the promoter who seemed very pleased that a railway was so near at hand. However, as the Minister said, alternatives may be provided but if the railways were allowed to remain, at least some of the traffic would definitely have come to them, particularly from the Skibbereen industry— the other has not gone ahead so far.

Some 120,000 tons of traffic in goods and produce passing along the railway would be fed into the main system. Now the possibility is that that 120,000 tons will go elsewhere and that the railways will lose that traffic. It was pointed out very definitely by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the quotation I mentioned that it was the feeding of the main line by the branch lines that helped in some measure to provide the business which gave the system a chance of paying.

In regard to the 200 people or so working on the various parts of that system, some will be pensioned off, some transferred elsewhere, and it will require a major industry in West Cork to provide the employment that is being lost. That is obvious to anybody and in accordance with the progressive policy of the Government that particular industry would have to be subsidised to be established.

The Minister has stated that there have been no complaints after the closing down of lines in other places. That is a bit unrealistic; the railway has been closed down and complaints are late. What we tried to do was to establish beforehand that this railway would be a workable proposition. It is complained that people use motor cars and lorries. During the long railway strike eight or ten years ago, which I made an effort to settle in my capacity at the time and which lasted a number of weeks, several firms in order to get their business done had to purchase lorries and establish private systems of transport which they are now slow to get rid of. It would take some years, as mentioned by the committee of inquiry, under those conditions to bring about the necessary change. All these things could have been considered if we had had a different approach to the matter.

Other branch lines "got the axe" also but I have spoken about the one I know best. I think it is a retrograde step that towns like Bandon, Courtmacsherry, Timoleague, Clonakilty and Skibbereen and such places should be left without a rail service. Surely the main line passing through half the width of Ireland should not have been dealt with in this way without the people concerned in the area having been heard by the Board. If the Board had an unanswerable case there was no reason why they should not have met these people and discussed the matter with them.

First of all I should like to congratulate my colleague Deputy MacCarthy. I agree with every word he said. He has spoken quite factually and honestly and I admire his forthright approach to this matter. It should refute the contention that there was anything political in the agitation about the West Cork railway. I think it is preposterous to think there was. No political Party spoke to me about it. I got the correspondence Deputy MacCarthy got and which I presume my other colleagues from the constituency also got and I was asked to intervene on behalf of West Cork. I am doing that not because I was asked but out of sheer conviction. I am a railway fan and I always use the railways and I have tried to give a good example in that regard.

This motion and the amendment accompanying it should focus attention for all time on the inadvisability and the danger of establishing boards and giving them power independent of this Parliament. If we want to maintain a flexible, democratic pattern in our Parliamentary system we should ensure that public boards of this kind should have their major decisions subject to the sanction of the Minister. There is no doubt about the fact that this C.I.E. Board was set up under the Transport Act, 1958. We all admit that and that very wide powers were given to the Board under the Act, but it was clearly, convincingly and conclusively demonstrated by Deputy McGilligan that it was implicit in the Bill then before the House that in any major decision two months' notice would be given. That two months' notice would provide the opportunity for trade unions, employers, or parties having a grievance to put their point of view.

Why was that opportunity denied in this instance? What was C.I.E. afraid of? What was the Minister afraid of? Even if that Board had these complete powers is it contended that the Minister had no influence at all with the Board of C.I.E.? Is it not obvious that if the Minister gave a direction to the Board now, or at any time during the past two months, that they should receive that deputation, that the Board was wrong in its decision and that it would be better if a reprieve were given to the West Cork railway for two years, it would have been better in the long run? If the Minister had given that direction is there anybody who can contend that C.I.E. would refuse it? After all, the Board was set up by the former Minister for Industry and Commerce and as he said himself he was getting the best brains in the country from the point of view of experience and qualifications to run that Board and having set up that Board the members must have felt privileged and proud to be called on to undertake such responsibility.

There is no doubt that they have done some magnificent work but they cannot be allowed to continue in such a ruthless fashion in order to approach their objective. That is what is happening in this case. If the Minister had the right to appoint the personnel has he not the right to detain or dismiss them? Is it not in accordance with human nature that any board appointed will always realise that no matter what powers they have he is the authority who gave them their powers and they should always be actuated with the desire to co-operate with the Minister concerned?

Does the Minister endorse the action of C.I.E. or has he indicated to C.I.E. that he is prepared to accept their decision? Has the Taoiseach endorsed the action of C.I.E. in closing the West Cork line or would he not at this late day make a request to C.I.E. that in the national interest and in the interest of West Cork their decision should be deferred for two years to give the people of West Cork the opportunity to return traffic to the railway? I see the Minister shaking his head, indicating "no". He has already indicated in the course of the debate on the 16th February that he did not look upon the railway as being sacrosanct and the Taoiseach himself said that in a progressive modern State we cannot maintain systems that are out of date.

Why did C.I.E. supply the West Cork Railway line with diesel engines? Why paint all the stations during the past 12 months? Why spend public moneys, the taxpayers' money, on renovations of that kind and then come along after that and scrap the West Cork railway system? I could characterise it in no other way than as national vandalism of the worst type. Surely the Minister can assume power enough at this moment to check that abuse. The whole approach was entirely unsympathetic and entirely undemocratic. We pay lip service to the principle of democracy in our country. We say the people are the masters. Where are the people now? Where is the mastery in the case of the people of West Cork?

They did not use the railway. They were the dictators.

Certainly they used it. There is no dictatorship about this unless the Minister is going to start it. I never interrupt and I resent being interrupted by the Minister.

The Deputy is putting questions to me.

I did not. I asked the questions through the Chair, I hope.

The two most important activities in the Minister's Department are transport and power. If there are two boards in charge of these two activities, and if they have complete powers then why maintain a Ministry such as the Department of Transport and Power? Why not scrap that Ministry and the Department concerned, and let the officials go back to other Departments and save the taxpayers' money to the tune of many thousands of pounds?

None of us will criticise the personnel of the Board. I take it that the Taoiseach is quite right when he says that he has got the best in the country to take this responsibility. We have however the right to criticise their policy. The Board got the function that they were to try to make C.I.E. meet its obligations by the revenue they would get on the services. Having failed to do that they picked out railways that have not paid. It is most unfair to take out the loss on the railway service to West Cork and not give us the figure for the road transport service. It is unrealistic to segregate these two figures. They should have given us the net gain and the net loss and let us realise the actual position.

Loading facilities were not provided for beet on the West Cork line. Over and over again I heard farmers complain of that very thing. The Minister may again shake his head. Deputy MacCarthy was born in the area and knows that what I say is true. I represent part of the area and I know it well and I should be in a position to voice the complaints I heard over and over again. Not only is it true of West Cork but of many areas, as I shall try to point out later.

We are not criticising in the least the personnel of the Board. It is quite obvious that the Board faced with the position as it is, by 1964 must have got C.I.E. to show a balanced account. Here there is a ready opportunity of making approximately £500,000 on the sale of the rails that will be taken up on the West Cork line. Is the Board attracted by that possibility so that they will have a nice nestegg there to safeguard against losses in the next three years, until they will be left to stand on their own feet? It is only natural that they will try to build up a reserve fund. That is all right from the business point of view but it is all wrong from the point of view of the people who had that service over the years.

The Minister characterises the reasons as being sentimental. I agree there are sentimental reasons. Sentimental reasons are quite valid reasons in many respects. If we had more sentiment for the things of value to us, we would be less likely to rush into changes and fall victims to the modern agitation for changes that grips our people. This railway served the people over the years. If they had become complacent about using the railway system it was because in the railway strike some years ago private transport was built up and there was no return then from the railways once that had been established as a local service.

We are told there is a loss of £56,000 on the running of the West Cork railway line. If the railway closed down in the morning there will still be a loss on the maintenance of the West Cork line irrespective of what will be made on the rails sold. The stations will have to be maintained. The bridges will have to be maintained. All the time, there will be a recurring deadweight loss for C.I.E. The railway stations will not be much use unless they are sold. It will take years before the property is ceded to the original owners because it will be almost impossible to trace the owners after the lapse of 100 years.

The loss of £56,000 will have to be borne by somebody. It is now being thrown off on the local authority. The county engineer, whose efficiency is proverbial throughout Munster, has given an estimate for £75,000 for I think the next ten years. A fortnight ago I heard the same gentleman say casually that if he went back to make the assessment now, in the light of other knowledge that has eventuated. he would double the sum of £75,000. Therefore, this is a diversion of responsibility on to the shoulders of the ratepayers of County Cork. It represents a burden which they will resent deeply.

It would be better if the State undertook liability rather than impose it on a section of the people who will now be saddled with this burden. Expenses were incurred in modernising the system and in dieselising it. All that is money thrown down the drain if the railway is to go. That modernisation takes place largely at the expense of the taxpayer.

Deputy MacCarthy, Deputy Desmond, and Deputy Wycherley know the road from Cork to Bantry. It has many dangerous corners. Being on the County Council in Cork, they realise how costly it is to remove these corners and widen the road over a period of years. They are well aware that on a certain stretch of the road leading towards Midleton work has been proceeding for the past five years and they are well aware of its cost. It is only a matter of a few miles. It is about 60 miles to Skibbereen and Courtmacsherry and the roads in other areas will be affected by the closing of the West Cork line if it is closed. If the line is taken away, the whole area south of the Lee in County Cork, from the end of the Bere peninsula to the mouth of the River Lee at Cobh will be without a railway.

Deputy MacCarthy mentioned the towns which supported the railways over the years. All that stretch of country is larger than County Louth, County Carlow, County Dublin, County Leitrim and County Sligo and perhaps larger than some of the other medium-sized counties in the State. All that area now will be left without a railway. Have we no regard at all for the people of West Cork and their rights? Did they not maintain that railway over the years? Have they not paid for the services they got and paid for the railway over the years? Have they not then a squatter's right to that railway? Are they not justified in their agitation to try to hold the railway because of the money put into it? Why should any authority set up by this House come along and deny them the railway which served them in the past?

In days gone by the people put up the railway and the people of West Cork co-operated with them in those days. It is a tribute to them. Why should we in this fortieth year of our freedom with one stroke of the pen deny them the privilege they got? I think that is a retrograde step as Deputy MacCarthy said. It is a most retrograde step.

I want to point out that Clonakilty, Skibbereen, Baltimore, Courtmacsherry and Timoleague will be affected as well as the intermediate small villages. A generation ago in Cork the one seaside resort for the people of Cork City was Courtmacsherry. I have been told by people associated with railways in those days that every Sunday in the summer season excursion trains were run to Courtmacsherry. Are we going to take away that possibility again? Of late years, through lack of enterprise by C.I.E., no excursions have gone to these traditional venues for the citizens of Cork and the other towns throughout Munster as Deputy MacCarthy, Deputy Desmond and the other Deputies from West Cork know quite well.

And what of the people of West Cork? You have there some of the best people in the country. They are a progressive, thrifty and hard-working people who have contributed very much to this country over the years, particularly to the system of Government that we have today. Is it not from West Cork that the man who presides over the deliberations of the United Nations came? Is it not from West Cork that the first commander-in-chief of our National Army came?

And O'Donovan Rossa.

Yes, from West Cork came that iron-willed man. From West Cork also came the secretary of the first Cabinet set up here. From West Cork also came the brothers Hales, Tom Barry, Charlie Hurley, Diarmuid Hurley and hundreds of others—men who were divided through the lamentable civil war. In every country in the world emigrants from West Cork have shown their worth apart from the contribution they made to the building up of this State. If I were a Deputy from West Cork and this railway was closed in spite of my efforts as a simple Deputy, I would no longer enter this House. I will not be any longer in it in any case. I would say to the Minister with all the earnestness that I can command that he is taking a wrong step. No matter what C.I.E. does the Minister and eventually the Government will have to take the responsibility and the blame.

I want to be constructive. I want to suggest certain economies that can be made and made tomorrow morning if there is a will to make them. There is no use at all maintaining the stations adjacent to Cork City itself on the West Cork railway line. I mention particularly Crossbarry, Upton and Waterfall. These could very well go. It is true that last year a good deal of money was spent upon the renovation of the station in Cork. My information is that the most luxurious furniture was put into the offices in this station. At least one chair cost over £50. It does not speak so well for a company which loses £56,000 on the West Cork railway that they can spend money in that way.

I travel up by train every week. We have superintendents or hostesses in the trains. I cannot see, nor ninety-nine per cent, of the travelling public cannot see, any need whatever for the maintenance of these hostesses. I make no reflection upon the hostesses themselves but on the policy of C.I.E. They could make economies in various ways which would equate the loss they now say is due to the maintenance of the West Cork railway.

A while ago the Minister got quite indignant when Deputy MacCarthy pointed out to him that there were no loading facilities for beet. Deputy Fagan of Westmeath, who is unavoidably absent today, asked me last night to mention the problem they have in Westmeath. There is a market in Mullingar today. C.I.E. lorries will not take three or four cattle. They want a full load. There are no facilities for collecting these loads in the approach to the particular places where the markets are held. Deputy Fagan suggests—and I am conveying his suggestion to the House—that if C.I.E. gave the sleepers, the farmers themselves would come along and at vantage points put up these pens for the cattle where they could be loaded. If C.I.E. are progressive and enterprising enough they will do that.

Again, I want to say that I got a letter on the 14th March before I left for the 9 o'clock train on Tuesday morning from a proprietary lime kiln owner in County Cork. In fairness, I want to say that the matter has been rectified since this letter was received. I will show the letter to the Minister afterwards. I have no permission to mention names and, without permission, I will not mention the names. Here is an extract from the letter:

We were continually on the phone to C.I.E., and we could only get a few 8 ton trucks, crocks really, which were of no use to us, as we could not rely on them, they were breaking down so often. This is really an appalling situation to be deprived of transport at our harvest time. C.I.E. could at least let us have temporary plates for our own trucks, until such time as they can meet the needs of all.

In spite of the insistent demands last week, only yesterday or the day before was permission sent out to this firm for two further temporary plates for their trucks in order to tide them over this peak period for the distribution of lime. For the past four months the Minister should realise that tractors and lorries of all kinds for agricultural work were in houses and in garages in various places throughout the country. There was no hope of taking a tractor into a field and putting lime on the fields and there was much less hope of spreading it or putting out any fertiliser distributor. It was only last week that the first relief came when the land was really fit. It was hardly fit before last week. They were deprived of the opportunity of working to full capacity last week because of the slowness, the incapacity or the inertia of C.I.E., I do not know which. Here is the statement in this letter which I will show to the Minister in case he doubts what I say.

I am not going to make a long dreary speech. I am very emotional about this matter. I love West Cork because of sentiment. I love West Cork because of its history. Whatever progress West Cork has had over the century has been associated with the railway line. It served them in their hour of need. For economic reasons I love West Cork. For economic reasons they should not be deprived of that service which they have enjoyed for 100 years. It is most unfair. I would appeal to the Minister finally, and these are my last words, to give a reprieve in the case of the West Cork railway. We are not motivated here by anything other than a desire to serve the people. We are at one in this—Independent, Labour, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. All the Deputies representing West Cork support a reprieve for this railway, if not for two years, at least for one year and, during that period, let the people take up the challenge and show that they are earnestly prepared to utilise the railways once again.

Nuair a chailltear duine go hobann tré thionóisc, dhúnmharú nó féin mharú is gnáthach go mbíonn coiste cróinéara agus corpscrúdú. Nílmse chun bheith im bhall de choiste cróinéara ar bith ar bhóthar iarainn iar-Cláir anso inniu, óir tuigtear dom nach bás obann a fuair an bóthar iarainn seo againne. Caithfidh mé a admháil gur sinne, muintir an Chláir, ba thrúig bháis dó. Cailleadh é amhail mar a cailltear duine le gorta. Ní ceal bidh atá i dtreis agam ach ceal earraí. Do bhí go leor leor earraí ag na feirmeoirí agus ag lucht tionscail an Chláir chun an bóthair iarainn do bheathú ach níor cuireadh an biadh ar an mbóthar iarainn agus más daoine ionraic macánta sinn, beidh orainn admháil gur sinne féin a mharbh é.

Ní rún liomsa tagairt dá laghad a dhéanamh do bhóthar iarainn iar-Chorcaí nó Phortláirge cé go ndearna an Teachta Ó Loingsigh agus an Teachta Wycherley a lán cainte i dtaobh bóthair iarainn iar-Chláir. Déanfad aithris ar an dTeachta Ó Máinlí nár luaigh bóthar iarainn ar bith ach an ceann ina Dháil-Cheantar féin.

Ní mó is rún liom milleán a chur ar an Aire, ar an Dochtúir Mac Aindriú nó ar an mBord Stiúrtha. Tá bóthar iarainn iar-Chláir imithe. Is truagh liom é ach ní haon tairbhe dom leithéid bheith ag déanamh bhróin nuair a bhíonn an brón déanta.

Níl ann anois ach scéal an Áirseara agus na muice tráth theastaigh ábhar culaith éadaigh uaidh. Nuair do rug sé ar an muic thosnaigh an mhuc ag screadaíl agus d'éis feidhm a bhaint as an dias d'fhéach sé ar an dtalamh agus nuair do chonnaic sé gur beag toradh a bhí ar a shaothar labhair sé mar leanas: "Níl ann ach glór mhór ar bheagán olna."

Do bhi glór mhor ar bheagán olna sa Teach so aréir ach ní airím glór mhor dá leithéid ó aicme ar bith de threabhca Chláir. Dá bhrí sin ní cail domsa am na Dála do dhíomailt a thuilleadh.

Already four Deputies from West and South Cork have contributed to this debate. It would be well that the Minister should realise that those four Deputies represent all shades of political opinion in South and West Cork. We had a speaker from Fianna Fáil, one from Fine Gael, a Farmer, and Labour. Has the Minister and, apparently, the Taoiseach, too, the audacity now to persist in their claim that the approach to this matter is a political one? All shades of political opinion have expressed themselves as being against the closing down of this railway. Surely, even at this late hour, the Minister and the Head of his Government could make some effort to mend their hand. Surely they ought to realise now that this opposition to the closing of this railway in West Cork is not motivated by politics. This closing of railways is a matter of vital importance not only to the people of West Cork but to the people everywhere.

It is our duty as public representatives to safeguard the interests of those whom we represent. Many speakers in the course of this debate have referred to the Beddy Report. Many speakers have praised it. The Minister went out of his way to recommend it. Subsequently he told us about the wonderful people on the Board of C.I.E. who are putting into operation now so many of the recommendations contained in the Beddy Report. Strange to say, nobody has so far referred to another report, a report presented to the Government by people who had at least as good a knowledge of the problems of rail and road transport as those who drew up the Beddy Report. Is it because it suits the Minister that he ignores the Milne Report? What was wrong with that report that he should so conveniently forget that such a report was ever made to the Government and presented to this House? Perhaps the Minister will explain his attitude towards this report when he comes to conclude.

At page 43 of the Milne Report it is stated:

In the circumstances it is considered that any proposal to close branch lines solely on the grounds that they are at present unprofitable should be rejected.

On the same page, the following appears:

The growing considerations should be whether the retention of the branch as part of the country's highway system is necessary or desirable in the public interest.

A comparison between that statement and the suggestions contained in the Beddy Report might be worthy of the Minister's consideration. Why such a difference in such a short period of time?

We know from experience that the Minister seems to delight in pontificating on the necessity for economies. We know his approach to subsidies. We realise his background and we know that he has no sympathy for the problems of the people of West Cork, Clare and Waterford. We challenge him to produce the figures upon which C.I.E. claim that it is not possible to make the railway pay in West Cork. The Minister believes in economy. Is it a coincidence that C.I.E. are passing on—this is a very important matter—the cost of maintenance to the roads by closing down the railways and saving the cost of maintenance on them so that, in time, their contribution towards maintenance will be reduced?

According to the 1948 Report the maintenance cost per £1 of gross receipts on the railways was 4/-; on the buses, 2/3d.; and on lorries, 2/5d. Is the Minister endeavouring to make more money for C.I.E. at the expense of the people of County Cork as a whole, not alone West Cork? In view of the cost per £1 of gross receipts, is it believed that by using the roads entirely at the expense of the railways, maintenance costs will be reduced to such an extent that at the end of five years not alone will C.I.E. be clear of debts but it will be making a profit?

I should like to know why the Minister found it suitable to reprimand officials of Cork County Council because they presented non-political reports which were accepted by all 46 members of the council. I noticed when Deputy Manley was presenting an honest case a while ago, the Minister found it suitable to interrupt him, to shake his head and make it clear to everybody he was in total disagreement with the Deputy's statement. Deputy Manley said that not alone were the figures given by the county engineer conservative but, had he been in a position to prepare a more up-to-date report, the situation would be worse still. I know that is true, and so does Deputy MacCarthy. The report presented by the county engineer did not take into account the cost of conversion of 98 bridges and level crossings. I suppose even the Minister would admit that that would cost money.

The Minister glibly told us that, even if C.I.E. continued using these railway lines, the roads would still cost us all this money. Over the past 14 or 15 years Cork County Council, along with county councils all over the country, have carried out many improvements to our highways and brought them up to a good standard. But that took a considerable number of years. Irrespective of who is in the Department of Local Government, no county council could expect to get more than its fair share for road improvements each year from the Road Fund. Many of these county councils could have done much more work and employed more men on road improvement if the finance had been available. But they took the realistic view that the Road Fund advances were given out in accordance with the proportion of work to be done in each county, the volume of traffic, and, particularly, the amount of money available in the Fund itself.

The Minister should realise that the work envisaged in the county engineer's report would not in normal circumstances be completed for a number of years. The ratepayers could not be expected to provide all that money in one or two years. When the railways were closed in Donegal the Minister realised that the people of that county could not shoulder the financial burden imposed on them for improving the roads. Naturally, an extra grant was made available to them. But, strange to relate, the same procedure was not adopted in West Cork. Let me say at this stage that this is not a case of our asking for increased grants to meet the cost. What we are asking is that the Minister should realise that those in public life in West Cork look with abhorrence on the likelihood of the ratepayers being asked to provide in the future so much extra money each year in order to make C.I.E. a paying proposition.

I should like to refer again to the Milne Report and make a comparison between what is stated in it and the powers of the present C.I.E. Board. One item stands out very clearly on page 25 of the 1948 Report. That is where it is stated that unlimited power was in the hands of the chairman. The chairman of the old Board was himself opposed to this unlimited power because it placed him in a most difficult position. Those connected with the Milne Report believed that such power was bad for the individual, unfair to him and certainly unfair to the people depending on the decisions of such a person. We know the present Minister is one who apparently likes unlimited power. From the period prior to 1948 up to 1958 we have seen growing up a system which has given unlimited power to a Board comprised of a few persons and presided over by one person.

If it were bad in 1958 that such unlimited power should be given, it is far worse now because those concerned are making use of their unlimited powers to deny public representatives and the representatives of various non-political organisations in County Cork, religious and otherwise, the right to discuss either with the Minister or C.I.E. whether or not the railways should continue. We all know the curt replies sent to Cork County Council by C.I.E., a mere acknowledgment stating that they had received the county council's communication. It was nice of them, I suppose, to answer us at all. Apparently, the Minister agrees with that attitude.

I am sorry that we must go back to 1958 even if it appears to be repetition. I shall not quote Dáil Debates. The Minister may try but he cannot in all sincerity contradict the statement made by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Taoiseach. Many of us at the time were anxious in regard to areas which are now affected, such as Courtmacsherry and other places. The then Minister for Industry and Commerce made it abundantly clear to us all that the period of two months allowed for discussion would provide a period wherein C.I.E. would not only be expected to meet but would meet local representatives, whether they were men in public life or others, to discuss the problem of how the situation might be improved rather than eliminate a branch line. There was no question at that time of its being discussion in regard to alternative services. It is true to say that nobody at that time thought that C.I.E.'s alternative would be three additional buses and 11 additional lorries in West Cork. It takes some neck for anyone now, as the Minister has done, to suggest that under normal circumstances for long periods of the year three extra buses and 11 extra lorries would meet the requirements of West Cork.

When praising the present Board of C.I.E. the Minister has drawn attention to the outstanding achievements particularly on the financial side. Let it be understood that it was not since the present Board was set up that C.I.E. were endeavouring to mend their hand. In 1954 dieselisation was introduced. I suppose in public life people get used to praising themselves for whatever good is done irrespective of who may have done it. I noticed that the Minister did not mention the improvements carried out between 1954 and the introduction of his new system and new Board in 1958. What was the problem in regard to C.I.E. up to 1948 and thereafter? Is it not quite obvious that much of the loss that was being incurred by C.I.E. and passed over to the taxpayer was due to a large degree to obsolete equipment both on rail and road? The 1948 Report clearly showed the appalling condition of many lorries owned by C.I.E. While there may have been a fair break in returns on bus services, even at that time a large number of buses belonging to C.I.E. were old and becoming obsolete.

Considering that that Report mentioned a period prior to 1948, the Minister must realise that there was large capital investment in C.I.E. between that time and 1958, the years of which the Minister is now apparently taking advantage in trying to make a case that terrible losses were incurred by C.I.E. The capital investment by C.I.E. in the early 1950's and after 1954 and the dieselisation programme were bound to create prosperity after a few years. The Minister may not agree but we all know that if a private operator in transport buys six lorries today he cannot expect to meet the cost and depreciation and show a profit in the first, second or even third year on the operation of his lorries. The same applies to C.I.E. After the investment of capital during those years it took some time to show a clear profit on the vehicles but certainly it was coming to the stage in 1958 when it was bound to show the returns that are now being shown by the Minister.

It is correct to say, of course, that C.I.E. were not without blame, but C.I.E. are still in the same position. On about the 10th January, I travelled by C.I.E. to Dublin. There were a number of young people on the train returning to England. The train was not overcrowded. I went to the dining car where I found a large number of people waiting to get a cup of tea. The dining car has accommodation for 38 people. The company that the Minister tells us is doing so wonderfully now under his new management made only 19 seats available in that dining car. The other half was kept empty because it was near the bar and, apparently, C.I.E. believed they could make more profit out of selling drink in the bar and left hundreds of people standing on the journey between Cork and Dublin, hoping to get a cup of tea. Many of the passengers left the train at Kingsbridge without having got a cup of tea. It may be more profitable to C.I.E. to sell drink on the trains than to provide meals or tea for travellers.

There was no question, nor do I suggest, that the staff on the train were in any way responsible for the fact that the passengers could not get tea. There was one unfortunate man on that journey, a waiter, in that half of the dining car, killing himself trying to cater for people and trying to help where people were trying to break the queue and rushing in for a cup of tea. Of course, we hear nothing at all from the Minister about the possibility of improvement in this respect. It is not a matter that will affect his view as to the economy of the railway system.

When Deputy Wycherley was speaking here last night a certain member of this House found it suitable to interrupt. When Deputy Wycherley made comparisons between the line in West Cork and lines in other counties this other Deputy found it suitable to try to detract from the position, to try not to have a comparison made, falsely assuming that Deputy Wycherley wanted branch lines in other places closed.

I would ask the Minister, is it correct to say that a small branch line between Muinebeag in Carlow and Palace East in County Wexford is being reopened? Is it right to say that this line was closed to passenger traffic in 1931? Is it correct to say that in all the years back this line had been used roughly two months in the year for beet traffic? We would wish to see it in operation as we would wish to see other branch lines in operation but we are entitled to question the Minister on some of these items. It was reported in the Press a couple of weeks ago that this branch line is coming into full operation again, that 2,000 sleepers have been bought for this line. Would the Minister tell us why C.I.E., as mentioned in the newspaper, found special business coming the way? Would he tell us why it was that C.I.E. found it so suitable to reopen this line, after all these years, on a bigger scale? It is well to see it done if possible. The Minister may be wrong. We are entitled to express our opinions at any rate and it is important to say what we believe. I believe the Minister has a colleague in the Government who found it suitable to see that this branch line would be put in operation. Of course, the Minister has no colleague strong enough from the South to insist that fair play be given to the West Cork line although it has been given in other parts of the country.

In the County of Cork we are faced with the problem of increased rates. We have to deal with part of the local rate demand in respect of health services and other items. We are at present discussing the problem of roads.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share