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.