I understand there are two hours left for this debate of which 45 minutes is to be given to the Minister to reply; in other words the Minister will get in in an hour and a quarter.
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.)
I do not know anything about that. I shall try to co-operate but I am not a party to any such agreement. If such an agreement were made it was not made officially by the Party of which I am a member. However, I do not want to take any advantage of other speakers.
Before the adjournment of this debate on the last night, I was drawing attention to the problem confronting the Cork County Council in the coming financial year. I pointed out that increased rates are being levied in other respects and that a further imposition on the ratepayers in connection with roads will create a very serious problem. If the Minister is still determined to give his loyal support to C.I.E. in connection with the proposed close down of the railway line in West Cork the people in Cork county will be faced with an extraordinarily heavy burden in the coming year, particularly if the Minister for Local Government will not see his way to be as financially helpful to them as he has been to his own county, County Donegal.
It must be evident to all of us that the Minister's approach is identical with that of the C.I.E. Board, that is, that financial considerations alone and the possibility of profits to the company are of importance. If that is so, it is important to draw a comparison between the views of the Minister and his friends the Board of C.I.E. and the views already expressed by the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and some of the proposals embodied in a report by people at least as experienced in the problems of railway management as those issuing subsequent reports. Speaking in the Dáil on 27th November, 1957 the Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, at column 1050 drew particular attention to the rates and fares of C.I.E. which were then, as he said, at saturation point if not beyond it. Many of us agreed with him on that statement on that occasion. Again to support the views expressed by the present Taoiseach on that day we have the view of those who signed the 1948 Milne Report which drew particular attention to the wisdom. I should even say the necessity, of C.I.E. giving intermediate fares in rural areas at one penny per mile.
We did hear the Minister stating here —or read his contribution in the other Chamber where he also expressed these views — the advantages of the bus. However, he did not tell us the disadvantage of the bus from the financial point of view in regard to overcharging as mentioned by the present Taoiseach and as condemned by the report of 1948 when it was recommended that a penny a mile should be charged in respect of intermediate fares.
There is no doubt that the accounts of C.I.E. as presented here to us are boosted due to over charging by C.I.E. which is being supported by the Minister. Take one area in County Cork. Workers travel daily from Rockingham to Monkstown in order to get to Rushbrooke, a distance of two miles. C.I.E. charged nine pence on the bus for the two miles, that is 4½d. per mile, which is far removed from the recommendation of a 1d. per mile and far removed from what the just charge should be. They have gone a little further. Because of the pressure there, they are now offering a weekly ticket to these men at 6/- a week but again the irony of it is that people who get into that bus at Rochestown and travel to Monkstown, though it is two miles each trip longer, still get it for 6/- weekly. Apparently the Minister is not interested in those charges because he says C.I.E. is flourishing. Why would they not be when they are robbing the people on the bus routes?
Let me give another example of the wonderful services of C.I.E. In a place just beyond the town of Kinsale people were aware of a bus service passing two miles away. They asked C.I.E. would they be prepared once a week to route the bus around their village, an extra distance of two miles. C.I.E. said the road was not suitable. Some of us were foolish enough to approach the Cork County Council, and the county engineer who has been dragged into this and attacked by the Minister——
And the Taoiseach.
——did his part, improved that road and brought it up to the standard required by C.I.E. Now when the people say to C.I.E.: "Please give us a bus once a week," C.I.E. write back and say that it would be inconvenient, that it would upset their timetable to go two miles around this area between the old Head of Kinsale and Cork. It is easy to see that the Minister does not know much about C.I.E. bus stops. These are the wonders of C.I.E. that the Minister talks about. Is he aware that through the negligence of C.I.E. some seven or eight weeks ago part of a road, the property of C.I.E., collapsed in the town of Bandon? C.I.E. had been told of the danger, but of course they were too busy plotting and planning to close all the railway lines in West Cork to bother about the danger of a road collapsing. Thank God, it happened at a time when nobody was using it. That is more of the history of C.I.E.
We are all anxious that C.I.E. should prosper because, as a national undertaking, if it succeeds it will benefit the people as a whole. It was because of our anxiety in that regard that early last Summer I rang the local manager of C.I.E. in Cork informing him of the position on the route between Cork and Crosshaven. I said I knew as did everyone else that C.I.E. were overcharging because they had added mileage to the journey. I told him of an Englishman who had come to Ireland and lived in Crosshaven and who was thinking of putting a minibus on the road. I did not want that and I suspected that the Manager would not want it. I asked him to measure the distance and see where they were overcharging. What happened? I am still waiting for a reply but of course C.I.E. are still charging the same fares. This is the wonderful bus service the Minister talks about that will stop at people's doors to pick them up. They do—at very high prices.
The Minister may still say the weekly tickets have been reduced on the roads —no thanks to C.I.E. When they increased fares some of us drew attention to it at the time. Does the Minister know why they had to reduce the weekly fares, at least in areas around Cork? Deputy MacCarthy will know of it. The Minister may well look behind because Deputy MacCarthy has stood loyal in this matter. The people from Crosshaven and Carrigaline coming in to work in Cork found they were being robbed by these increased fares and they decided it was better for them to travel in a car belonging to a friend.
Include Bandon in that.
The result was that morning and evening between Cork and these places every car on the roads was full. Then the financial wizards of C.I.E. realised their mistake and told us they were making such great profits that they were being extra generous —with the full support of the present Minister, no doubt—and were offering reduced fares. They should have been honest enough to say as the present Taoiseach said in 1957 that they had gone beyond the saturation point and found the demand in regard to bus travel is governed by the price the people can pay.
The present Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, speaking on 27.11.57, at Col. 105, drew particular attention to the fact that the elimination of the services on these branch lines would not make any financial difference to C.I.E. The figures submitted by C.I.E. themselves at the time showed that the cost of the railway service was £8 million, whereas it would be £11 million by road. The Minister may say we are wrong. He had that answer last week. It was a grand one—just like a person sticking a pin in the list of horses for the Lincoln to-day—C.I.E. had a new costing system.
That is the answer.
Of course. And if C.I.E. ever want to make a raid again we shall probably be told that they have another new costing system. The Minister should examine the system carefully and not try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people by saying C.I.E. have a new costing system.
It is true.
On the last occasion, I drew attention to the fact that in the costings of C.I.E.—which, according to the Minister, are not correct—they found that for every £1 of gross receipts they paid 4/- for maintenance by rail. 2/3 by bus and 2/5 by lorry. Naturally, the Minister said: "Why should C.I.E. use the railways if the roads are cheaper. Are they not as much entitled to use the roads as other users?"
That may be so, but it is necessary to compare the mileage of roads here against the mileage in England and Scotland. That was shown in the Milne Report. In this country we have 1,633 road miles per 100,000 of the population. In England they have 360 and in Scotland 520. Closing down these branch lines inevitably means extra transport on the road. May I ask the Minister, who is always interested in the economic side of every discussion, what part of the overall cost is being contributed by the owners of vehicles?
We all know that with the cost of modern maintenance of roads the amount contributed by the owners of vehicles is only part of the overall amount that must be provided. In West Cork, in closing down the railways the Minister said: "Put on the C.I.E. lorries." Is not that in itself encouraging other sections of the community that are able to do so to secure more lorries? We are building up a vicious circle and encouraging those now using road transport in West Cork to go deeper into it, to buy bigger and heavier vehicles. That is happening everywhere. Not many years ago the six- or seven-ton lorry was considered a fairly big vehicle. Now, with trailers it is no trouble to them to carry 20 or 30 tons. Naturally the result is that the roads suffer as compared with the traffic in the past but the Minister is not worrying about the cost of road upkeep in County Cork, no more than are the people on the board of C.I.E.
That is why the Minister glossed over this subject. That is why the Minister came in here and expressed in a most vicious manner criticism of responsible officials in County Cork for presenting an honest figure here for comparison purposes. He went out then in the other House on a line of his own, showing what the cost would be to the people. I do not worry about what the Minister said there, but it is time the Minister understood one thing—that is, that he is helping C.I.E. to make profits for themselves —so-called profits—solely at the expense of the people in County Cork. We object to that.
I do not know just at the moment the total number of C.I.E. lorries, but because so much of this is based on the position of C.I.E. in 1948 I think it is essential to make a comparison between the position then and the improvement afterwards, between 1948 and 1957 and 1958. On the 29th August, 1948, C.I.E. had 573 lorries taxed. In that week, as recorded by C.I.E. themselves, the daily average of lorries idle was 80. Out of 573 taxed lorries, because of break-downs and so forth, there was an average of 80 idle. Add to that 219 untaxed lorries. Now, having a total fleet of 762 lorries, C.I.E. had 219 untaxed or 29 per cent of the fleet in the last week of August 1948. If we add to that the average of 80 idle lorries it shows that there were 38 per cent of the fleet ready to cover fluctuation.
I wonder what the position is now. Is it because C.I.E. find themselves with a few lorries to spare; is it because in a few different parts of the country they think they can rope in enough lorries of the type Deputy Manley mentioned here last week that C.I.E. believe now that by dumping these down in Cork to meet the situation that may arise in West Cork, and other affected areas, that will help them? Of the fleet of 762 lorries at the time mentioned there were 93 over 12 years old; there were 302 up to 12 years old; and 367 up to 4 years old.
The Minister tells us now, of course, that all that must be forgotten, that C.I.E. are now showing a wonderful change in their accounts, but it is only since 1958 that these began to materialize and, in the last year, things were really wonderful, thanks to the Bill introduced apparently by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, and thanks, too, apparently to the ability of the people on the Board. No credit is given for the work done from 1948 when this report was presented to the House, and for the amount of money spent as capital on the improvement of C.I.E. from that up to 1954 when dieselisation was introduced as a further help to C.I.E.
The Minister does not want to mention that. He just wants to speak of the last twelve months. Of course, in 1948 we saw another side of the picture, a side which undoubtedly was not beneficial to C.I.E. in relation to the possibility of making profits. In July of that year, under old agreements, they had to sign for the purchase of 500 monstrously heavy Leyland lorries. It was a good job they did not get them all. I am sure the Minister knows as well as I do that they were the most unsuitable type of lorry that could be put on the road here. The Minister may want to forget the fact that many a merchant in parts of Cork who did not have the opportunity of getting his merchandise by rail, who had to depend on C.I.E. monsters and matadors was paying dearly for it because the costings of C.I.E. then showed that, in order to secure their profits, no matter how small the little parcel may have been or how big the load, they passed the cost and added the profits on to the running cost of lorries which should never have been put on the road here.
In England, of course, they were wise. They had a fleet which was composed of lorries and vans of much lower weight than these monstrous Leylands. They had Austins and Bedfords, and so forth. But the irony of it was that these lorries and vans cost on an average £650 each whereas our agreement with Leylands made us pay £1,600 to £1,700 for each of the monsters of lorries planked on us here because of this agreement with Leylands.
It has nothing to do with the 1959 report.
It has. The present financial position of C.I.E. is to a large extent based on the capital expenditure of the board between 1951 and 1954, and 1954 and 1957 but the Minister will not give credit for that. The Minister may now wish that some of these things should not be said. The Minister was very gullible in this House and even more so in the other House, where perhaps the members are more refined and more respectful than some of us here.
Oh, indeed they are not.
Of course, he came up and told them that the disgraceful people of West Cork made no proposals; he got very few complaints he said; nobody offered any suggestions. The Minister knows that is all wrong. The Minister surely knows of all the important proposals and recommendations submitted to C.I.E. by important organisations in West Cork. No wonder he shakes his head. I suppose the Minister was around Europe looking at transport systems when these recommendations were going in to C.I.E. The answer C.I.E. gave to all the recommendations and proposals was that the manager—the other manager—was looking into them. The Minister knows as well as I do that that manager never bothered his head since.
What strikes me most forcibly is the set-up of the figures submitted by C.I.E. in connection with the accounts that we are now discussing because strangely enough many of these recommendations were submitted in the Milne report of 1948. There were 40 or 50 recommendations altogether. With some of them we might not agree. Some of them were very wise. Apparently the present Board were aware of the usefulness of some of the recommendations. It was recommended in the 1948 Report that there should be a reconstruction of the balance sheet, with effect from January, 1945; that reconstruction would have the effect of turning a debit balance of £811,901 into a credit balance of approximately £75,000. The Minister is aware that the Milne Report was not satisfied with the amount allocated for depreciation.
We do not know what happened in the interim. Things went on more or less in their own careless fashion. Then the Minister's Board got down to work. I am entitled to assume that many of the recommendations in the Milne Report were accepted and helped in no small measure to get C.I.E. out of the red by improving their financial position. The Minister may say that did not happen until last year. We know it did not happen until last year and we will show where the money went between the years 1950-1954 and subsequent years.
The Minister made great play in the other House about the number of people travelling on the West Cork railway. He said it was not fit to be described as a railway. Let me give my own experience. A few years ago I had occasion to use the West Cork railway. The train left at 8.30 a.m. and there was a train out from Cork at six or half past six in the evening. At the same time C.I.E. buses were running in competition with the railway. The buses started from Parnell's Place which is much nearer to the centre of the city. Whose fault was it if the people used the buses instead of the railway? Apparently the Minister has not seen fit to query that. Apparently he is quite satisfied with everything presented to him by the Chairman and the Board of C.I.E. That scandalous duplication of services was operated by C.I.E. with one train back out in the morning and one train back in the evening people had very little choice.
The Minister is acutely anxious that we should be grateful to C.I.E. in regard to the figures presented to us. I admit there is a three per cent. increase in traffic. I admit that any increase is a help. What of all these items which were originally part of the recommendations of the 1948 Report? In my opinion these recommendations were put into operation last year in a very clever manner. The Minister proudly informs us that C.I.E. losses in 1959-60 were £709,000; in the year 1958-59 they were £1.2 millions more; in the year 1957-58 they were £1.6 millions more as compared with last year. Why would they not be? C.I.E. were building up a service which could not be expected to show profits straight away. They were improving—they believed they were—their general condition.
There are some items here which I wish to question. At column 1231 of the Official Report of the Seanad for 15th March, 1961, the Minister enumerates the four questions he posed to the Chairman of C.I.E.: (1) Was the Chairman absolutely satisfied with the depreciation allowed? (2) Was he satisfied that sufficient allowance for maintenance had been made? (3) Had maintenance decreased as a result of the closure of branch lines? (4) Had a large amount of maintenance works been completed? The Minister proudly informed his listeners that he got a positive answer from the Chairman. We will see now what that positive answer means.
Accepting the figure of £709,000 as the final figure, the Minister realises, of course that the questions he propounded to the Chairman of C.I.E. were directed, first of all, towards maintenance and works. In the accounts for last year we find a reduction on maintenance and works of £267,000. In connection with fuel consumption, as a result of dieselisation, there is a reduction of £133,000. Depreciation was referred to in the 1948 Report and the present Board obviously thought they had a way out. They took full cognisance of their rights and slashed depreciation. It came down by £100,000. Incidentally, the life of diesel coaches and engines is based on a 20-year period and they figured out from that that they could afford to do with £100,000 less in the depreciation account.
There is a reduction of £50,000 in the Board's contribution to the workers' superannuation scheme. I wonder what part of that is accounted for by the fact that there are 1,000 fewer people employed on the railways. With a lower wages bill of £500,000, plus all the other items, we get a total of £1,050,000. That was a nice tidy sum for C.I.E. to show, but it was not provided by increased revenue or extra commerce. It was provided by reductions under the various headings I have mentioned. It is grand bookkeeping. Any firm which can reduce under these headings will have no trouble in showing a profit at the end of the year. If C.I.E. keeps on this game for another year or two they will probably be giving some money to the Road Fund to keep the roads going. The Minister must know that that cannot go on all the time.
Why is it that the Minister, the Chairman and members of the Board of C.I.E. were ashamed or afraid to meet the different organisations and the men in public life in South and West Cork and His Lordship, the Bishop of Cork, to show how they arrived at that figure of £56,000 loss on the West Cork line? Are they afraid to come out in the open and show that? They had no trouble in producing figures that suited themselves in their last report but they have no answer to the unfortunate people who asked to meet them.
The Minister said that the people were dictators. I know who the real dictators are in this case. They are the Minister and the Chairman of C.I.E. There is pure undiluted dictatorship for you. They have entirely ignored the reasonable requests of the people whose livelihood is involved. It is late in the day for the Minister to come to this House and say that the 1958 Act went through without any undertaking that C.I.E. would give a fair hearing to local interests.
The Minister refused, and backed C.I.E.'s refusal, to give any information to the people of West Cork about this so-called loss of £56,000. However, speaking in the Seanad on the 15th March, 1961, in column 1228, the Minister is quoted as saying:
It is up to C.I.E. to apportion the overhead costs over the whole system if they so desire.
That is a nice answer to give. That is the answer that would have been given to the people of West Cork if the Minister or the Chairman of C.I.E. had allowed them to go to their offices. Will the Minister say what part of the costs are apportioned to West Cork to show the loss of £56,000? Speaking in the Seanad on the same day the Minister said:
C.I.E. have no special obligation to split up and try to separate the overhead costs in regard to one part as against another.
That is an extraordinary statement for the Minister to make, that there is no obligation upon C.I.E. to try to separate the overhead costs. No wonder we find ourselves in the appalling position that we are in at the present time, trying to make a case for the retention of a line when the economics of that line are not shown to the people. The Minister tells us that it is not our business to know what way the costs are apportioned.
C.I.E. did give the overhead costs.
They gave it in their report in a general way but they were afraid to meet the deputation from West Cork and give it.
They said they told it to the public.
They did not tell the public. They were afraid to meet the people on the deputation and to show them how the loss amounted to £56,000 even with their great new costing system. The Minister, speaking in the Seanad, and referring to the wonderful improvement in C.I.E., spoke of the massive operations involving a great many people. The Minister forgets that 1,200 people are not now in the employment of C.I.E. Some people have been speaking of the pensions of these men. I will give three cases of married men who are now on the redundant list of C.I.E. and in receipt of those pensions.
The first is a married man with a wife and one child whose rent is 23/9d. a week. The next is also a married man with a wife and child whose rent is 17/6d. a week and the third is a married man with a wife and child whose rent is 7/8d. a week. Their pensions vary from 23/6d. to 36/- a week. That is nice when they have the rent paid for their houses and it is not a very great consolation to them to know that the reports of C.I.E. show that they are progressing at a time when these men are only getting from 23/6d. to 36/- a week. Worse than that is the case of the man who is getting 36/- a week. C.I.E. offered to buy a quarter of his pension for a capital sum of £405. That would mean that they recognised that his pension of 36/- would be equal only to about 17 years' outlay. The men who are now redundant and who are getting from 23/- to 36/- a week are now in the happy position of knowing the wonderful improvement being made with the introduction of the costing system of which we hear so much from the Minister and the Chairman. I am sorry if I am keeping other Deputies from speaking, but I shall do my best to help them.
I am glad to hear the Deputy speak but an agreement has been made by the House and I shall start to speak at five minutes to nine.
Whatever agreement was made I know nothing about it. I want to make that quite clear. To go back to the wonderful methods in operation in C.I.E., I suppose the Minister is proud when he sees the big advertisement "Anything, anywhere, any time." I suppose that advertisement has relation to the package deals brought in by C.I.E., the package deals that the people of West Cork were not interested in because C.I.E. did not bother about them.
To draw attention to the wonderful package deals of C.I.E. and the momentous success the Minister speaks about, I have here the latest copy of Nuacht, a little paper from C.I.E., dated March, 17th. There is a paragraph here under the heading “Anything, Anywhere, Anytime.” It states:
Remember that phone number we gave you recently, 71871?
They ask the readers of this paper:
Do you know of any kind of usual or unusual traffic being handled by us in your area that can be translated into news and pictures which the national newspapers would publish as items of interest?
Now they are asking every railwayman in the country to let them know of anything in their area so they can get pictures and articles into the national papers, and the Southern Star, to show the wonderful improvement of C.I.E. Surely the Minister should think twice before lauding the people responsible for that policy, the Board of C.I.E.?
The Deputy is antiquated.
The Minister said that in the past, but this so-called national concern is now going around trying to get some little man in some little place to get a picture into the papers.
I have an item here which I suggest the Minister might pass on to Nuacht. Perhaps it might result in getting a picture on the papers. The Minister should have a look at what is happening outside Cork City in regard to portion of the West Cork railway threatened by this decision of C.I.E. In the Cork Examiner of Wednesday, 22nd February, 1961, there is a short article dealing with Cork Airport and improvement of the road to it. It states:
One phase that is now being undertaken lies in the county and is being carried out by Cork County Council. The other part is within the city boundary and is to be done by the Cork Corporation, who have at least a speculative eye on the permanent way of the threatened West Cork railway. If the Board of C.I.E. cannot be persuaded to change their minds about closing down the West Cork railway line, Cork might have the nucleus of a perfect road from outside the city boundry right into the heart of the city.
I would suggest to the Minister that he might get the members of the Board of C.I.E. and the staff of Nuacht to go down and take a couple of aerial photos of this area just inside the city boundry which apparently, if the West Cork line is to go, is to be handed over for improving the road to the airport. It is poor recompense for the people in West Cork to know that a fine road to the airport is being provided at their expense and the expense of the other people in the county.
If C.I.E. are so anxious for news and pictures, perhaps they would publish this. It is taken from the Milne Report, paragraphs 222 and 223. It says:
Branch lines are part of a national system of highways and should not be closed if their retention is necessary and desirable in the public interest, which can only be determined by holding a public enquiry.
Perhaps the Minister would inform the Board of that and ask Nuacht to publish it for the benefit of all concerned. Then we will know that the words of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1957, the present Taoiseach, and the views expressed by the present Minister, were completely false and at variance with the facts. In 1957, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce said there was no need to have it enshrined in the Bill—of course, two months would be allowed and within that time C.I.E. would meet and discuss with the local people whether or not a branch line would be closed.
The Milne Report was prepared, written and signed by people who had much more knowledge of rural affairs than the people connected with the later Report, about which we heard so much, and much more knowledge than the present Chairman of C.I.E., who admits he knows nothing about transport, and the present Minister, who in spite of his trips around the Continent and of the impression he tries to give that he knows so much about it, apparently knows nothing about this extraordinary economic imposition on the people of West Cork to the detriment of the future industrial development of that area.
Seán Mac Eochagáin
Táimid ag éisteacht le coicís le na Teachtaí ón taobh eile den Teach agus táimid cinnte nach bhfuil siad ag innsint an fhírinne mar gheall ar na boithre iarainn. Ba cheart do na Teachtaí ar mo lámh clé cheist do chur ortha féin: an bhfuil siad dáríre mar gheall ortha? Ceapaimse nach bhfuil siad. Le cúpla seachtain anuas, tá Teachtaí ó Fhine Gael agus ón Dream Oibre ag gearáin faoin mBord agus táim cinnte go mbeidh siad ag caint faoi go dtí go mbeidh an Toghchán Mór thart.
During the past few weeks, we have been listening to the Deputies from Cork attacking the Board of C.I.E. at a time when it is up to everybody to give all the help and encouragement to an undertaking set up by this House. We must be fair to the Board of C.I.E. We have given C.I.E. five years in which to pay its way and we all know that it has been costing the taxpayer of this country a lot of money during the years that have gone by since its establishment. It would appear that the Deputies from Cork did not want anybody to enter the debate but themselves. They wanted it free for Cork and Cork alone.
I do not think they should be particularly proud of the case they presented to this House. The important question before us is whether or not this railway in West Cork has been paying its way during the past few years. The answer is that it has not. From what I can gather there have been practically no travellers on that line over a number of years. Surely if the C.I.E. Board are to make their services pay, they must cut out uneconomic lines such as this one and encourage the lines that are paying their way.
Deputy Desmond spoke of the disadvantage to the railway of having buses running alongside the West Cork line over a number of years. Surely must admit that the greater proportion of passengers who travelled on those buses would not have travelled by train anyhow—that if there were no buses they would prefer to hire a car rather than travel on the train. In my constituency there was a railway line which was closed down in 1935. I lived by the side of that line and I know that it had become a ghost railway in its latter years. I feel sure the Cork line has also become a ghost railway line.
The modern system of transport by bus is much more convenient for people who avail of the public services. They can be set down or picked up at their own doorsteps. All the Cork Deputies spoke about the sums of money they have been told by the County Engineer it would cost to bring the roads into such a condition that they would take the bus traffic. The same thing was said when the line in my constituency closed down in 1935 but I have not seen any great increase in the estimate for road maintenance as a result.
Mind you, all this talk about the disadvantage the farmers would suffer through the closedown of this railway does not seem evident in other parts of the country. In my constituency there is a greater preference for transport by lorry. Produce can be picked up on the roadside near the farmers' homes with the latest methods of loading available. If that traffic had to go by rail the farmers in many cases would have to take their produce anything up to ten miles to a railway station.
I repeat it is unfair to condemn C.I.E., as the Cork Deputies have done, without giving them a fair trial. Instead of condemning C.I.E. we must give them every encouragement, in our own interest, to make their services pay. Deputy Desmond referred to the Leyland Matador trucks used by C.I.E. I think his criticism in that respect was very unfair. In my area C.I.E. have got a number of these trucks. They are on the road to-day in nearly as good a condition as they were when introduced eight or nine years ago. I do not believe that the types of truck suggested by Deputy Desmond would stand up to the same treatment. It is well known that C.I.E. take good care of their trucks. Week by week they are taken in for overhaul so that they will not let people down on the roads. In conclusion I would suggest that we should be more anxious to make the railways pay in the interest of the taxpayers than to criticise C.I.E. in the manner that has been done here.
I am sure the Deputy is fretting about the taxpayer.
Just as much as the Deputy is.
The West Cork issue is one more example of the manner in which C.I.E. are crippling the business of the people in the rural districts. At the moment we have no adequate service for the cattle trade. Heretofore, private lorries in every parish gave an excellent service. There was no difficulty in earlier days in getting private lorries to collect cattle or pigs or sheep along the roadsides and to take them to the various markets and fairs. There is no such service now, thanks to C.I.E. Now farmers are completely out on a limb. Perhaps C.I.E. are trying but they are not able to give the service to the rural districts that the private lorries could give.
Taking Mullingar, one of the biggest cattle and sheep rearing districts in Ireland, as an instance of the inability of C.I.E. to give farmers an adequate service, I should like to tell the House that in that town C.I.E. have only three lorries. Mullingar has a cattle fair and a cattle mart. At the fair, stock must be in at six in the morning and in the mart at ten in the morning. C.I.E. are not able to cater for these regulations. Heretofore, private lorries were able to have the stock in the mart at 9 a.m. and at the fair well before 6 a.m. Two or three years ago we put up a scheme to C.I.E. that they would collect cattle for the Mullingar mart and fairs. The farmers submitted their names to C.I.E. and in the morning C.I.E. sent out a call saying the lorry would call at 6, 7 or 8 a.m. I am not complaining about the charges made.
The charge was reasonable enough, 5/- up to five miles, 6/- up to ten miles and 7/- for 15 miles. When we sent in the list we received a phone call at four in the evening during which it was arranged that three cattle would be taken up here, another three there and so on but we discovered later that they were not brought. The excuse given very often is that it is not economic.
C.I.E. have a monopoly and should give a service to the people. They have only three lorries in Mullingar. To cope with a big market or fair they bring lorries from Kells or Longford or other places. The farmer may get a postcard instructing him to have his cattle ready for collection at five in the morning. He has to get up in the middle of the night. That is victimisation. It is no wonder that people are leaving rural districts.
C.I.E. cater for tourists. Deputies from Cork are shouting about losing railways. Where a railway line is closed down a good service is provided. It is only a short distance from Mullingar to Kells but there is no service. C.I.E. have done more to sever north from south than any organisation. There used to be a line from Mullingar to Cavan. Now one has to go via Dublin. Northern lorries used to come to every fair in the west. C.I.E. ran them out of the country. They should provide a service for the people. If I get an order from Yorkshire for cattle I have to make arrangements with the farmers and then I may find that C.I.E. will not provide a lorry when required. C.I.E. have an advertisement "Any time, anywhere". I would ask them to take it down until such time as they buy sufficient lorries to give the service required. It is a shame and disgrace that they should have a monopoly. It reminds me of Hitlerism. They have taken over the entire transport of the country and are leaving the public without a service.
There was a rush to get lime delivered. Every farmer wanted lime at the same time. I phoned Amiens Street and pointed out that a lorry would be required at Ballinasloe. I was asked did I think that C.I.E. had lorries on the shelf. I replied that they should have lorries on the shelf when all the private lorries had been driven out of the business. It is no wonder that Dr. Lucey and others are talking about the position in rural districts. C.I.E. are responsible for all this.
C.I.E. would not buy a map for the office in Mullingar. They have a big map showing the main roads but no map showing the small roads. A week ago C.I.E. sent a postcard to a farmer instructing him to have his cattle on the road at a certain time. They told a farmer in an adjoining townland to bring his cattle a distance of five miles, although they were passing his gate. If there had been a map of the townland available, which would not cost 5/-, that would not have happened. These are matters which annoy people and people will not put up with them any longer.
I suggest that pens could be made out of the sleepers where cattle could be kept. In that way plans could be made to bring cattle to the fair in Mullingar.
The Chair must now call on the Minister.
There is a big advertisement displayed in Moyvalley which says: "Any time, anywhere." Will C.I.E. please take it down until they provide the service that we require?
Mr. Ryan
Before the Minister gets in, may I point out that this House normally does not rise until 10.30 p.m.? The Government today made a tentative arrangement——
Not tentative, a definite agreement.
Mr. Ryan
The proper time is not being used. While we have listened to the Minister and the Board of C.I.E. for years past, we who speak for the people are being prevented from making our case.
Deputies
Sit down.
Mr. Ryan
If the Government impose the guillotine, I shall walk out of this House as a protest against the Minister who refuses to hear the people and I will come back for the Adjournment.
There was an agreement with the Deputy's Chief Whip.
There are two hours for this debate. It was agreed that the Minister would get the last 45 minutes of that time. Accordingly I am calling on the Minister to conclude.
Mr. Ryan
I am not going to listen.
I understood that there was never any restriction to be made in connection with this motion and that therefore it could continue, if necessary, over until the Dáil would resume after Easter.
The Deputy is entirely wrong. His own Party——
I beg your pardon, I am addressing the Chair, not the Minister.
I have already pointed out to the Deputy that immediately after Question Time to-day the arrangement was arrived at that two hours would be given to the motion and that the last 45 minutes of those two hours would be allocated to the Minister in which to conclude. So far, 12 hours have been given for debate on this subject.
One moment now. I understand, again, that this Dáil need not adjourn until 10.30 p.m. There is nothing else to follow this debate. The Minister who states that he has no function in connection with these matters at all connected with C.I.E. surely will not take 1½ hours to reply.
Under the arrangement the Chair now calls on the Minister.
I suggest that Deputy Palmer should honour the undertaking agreed to by his own Chief Whip.
I take it it was the Chief Whip of the Government made this arrangement.
With the Whips of the other two Parties.
I do not see why the Minister should get an hour-and-a-half.
An Leas-Cheann Chomhairle
He is not getting an hour-and-a-half. The Minister is getting 45 minutes in which to conclude.
How is it that the Minister who states he has no function in the matter of C.I.E. should take 45 minutes to reply.
That is the arrangement. The Minister to conclude.
First of all, I want to refer briefly to what Deputy Fagan said because nobody else in the debate raised the question of the transport of cattle as a matter for serious complaint. I have had no complaints from the Mullingar area. If the Deputy gives me a case which shows that C.I.E. are providing a bad service or an inadequate number of lorries I promise I will have it investigated but I should say in addition to C.I.E. lorries there are a thousand licensed carriers many of whom carry cattle.
I am going to start by answering the detailed statements made by Deputies rather than repeating over again what was said at the initiation of this debate. It seems to me better to deal with particular matters which have been referred to here, namely, the recent closing of two railway lines and the proposed closing of the West Cork railway line. Let me give a few facts about the West Cork railway. In a recent period the average number of passengers carried per train on the West Cork railway was 30. There is a bus service running alongside the line and the bus service was required for people who knew they could get down at numerous stops along the road adjoining the railway line. I am absolutely certain if C.I.E. were to abandon that bus service Deputy Desmond would be quickly on his feet protesting against it because he would have representations made to him by people to whom the bus was preferable to the train.
Secondly, the average West Cork goods train takes only 45 tons of goods. The average goods wagon carries from 10 to 12½ tons and Deputy Wycherley calls that a railway. That is not a railway in the modern sense of the term at all; it is a bus and lorry service compelled to go along rails and stop at frequent stopping places. I do not think anybody could contradict that statement. A train that carries only an average of 30 passengers and which entrains only 56 passengers at Cork station is not a train in the modern sense and cannot be so regarded.
The receipts on the West Cork line at a recent date were £113,000 and the losses were £56,000. No overhead costs relating to the repair of stock or any other overhead costs were included in the loss. The loss was a genuine one. There was no stepping up of the figure for the purpose of seeing that the line was closed. C.I.E. state they can make a saving of £54,000 by closing the railway and providing a substitute service of buses and lorries. If you lose £56,000 on receipts of £113,000, that is not a borderline loss; that is a branch railway line making a very heavy loss which would require many tens of thousands of pounds of additional traffic by way of compensation so that the railway could be profitable.
One Deputy suggested that if C.I.E. added the gross figure of the value of beet that might be taken by the railway to the loss there would then be a profit. The Deputy forgot to point out that the costs of carrying beet would have to be considered and the net profit of carrying any extra beet would not materially affect the loss on the line. As I have already stated, the total loss on the three railways which we have been discussing amount to something like £80,000. To give some other figures to show the character of these lines, the average tonnage per day, exclusive of beet, taken in goods on the West Cork line, is of the order of 170 tons; it was 40 tons on the West Clare line, and it was negligible on the Waterford-Tramore line. The average number of passengers carried on the West Clare line on 53 miles was 353 per day. The average number on the West Cork line on 92 miles was 400 per day. As I have said, neither of these lines is what I call a railway. These are really bus and lorry services forced to travel along rails. I want to make it absolutely clear that there has been no stepping up of the costs on these lines by C.I.E. I had an absolute assurance from the Chairman of C.I.E. that they did not want to close the lines. They would like to keep open the maximum rail lineage in the country but they were compelled to face realities in this regard.
It is very important to state that there are only two dictators in regard to this question of closing railway lines. First of all, the Dáil made a very definite decision that C.I.E. must pay and that it was permitted to close uneconomic lines. Secondly, the people, and the people only, have dictated that these lines should close in those districts, by not making use of them. It is perfectly evident that 90 per cent. of the clamour against C.I.E. is by people who do not use the railways, because if all the people who protested and signed petitions actually used the railway it would be in a better way than it is at the present time.
We are no different in this country from other countries in regard to the clamour that takes place when it is announced that a railway line is going to close. Perhaps it is because of the prestige which formerly applied to the existence of a railway line in a district and this feeling is still retained in the minds of the people. We have had the same experience here as in other countries of a very widespread clamour against the closing of a line. Then the line is closed and the substitute service is provided. Within six months there are no further complaints and I am perfectly certain in the case of these lines that are now closing— and I know indeed from reports that have been made to me—that a great many of the criticisms were by those who do not use the lines. One of the Members of the Oireachtas recently attended a protest meeting in a certain town in West Cork. He asked all the 20 people present whether they used the railway and only one of them could pretend he used the railway line against the closing of which they were protesting.
Suggestions have been made by Deputy Murphy that there was some sabotage action by C.I.E. with regard to the proposed closing of the West Cork line. There was no sabotage of any description. The package deal programme of intensive selling inaugurated by C.I.E. after the 1958 Act applied to the whole country and applied to the areas about which there has been discussion during this debate. The result in the case of West Cork was that after an intensive selling campaign to all the people who might be likely to give traffic to the railway the total value of the package deal was £722 in so far as the West Cork line was concerned and the total value to the service as a whole was some £1,320. When, as a result of a package deal campaign of that kind one can only secure £722 goods traffic and over all the remainder of the country it is possible to secure very substantial traffic, all one can say is that if receipts are £113,000 at present and if the losses are £50,000 the effort to secure new traffic failed because the people did not want to avail themselves of the service offered.
The commercial manager of C.I.E., I am informed, went to a number of areas where these lines were either closing or about to close. He spoke with the business community. He went to Clare in May of 1960 and he said he would be back in September, 1960. He hoped that in the interval they might have some proposals for increased traffic in addition to those that might be secured in the ordinary package deal campaign. When he came back they had nothing to offer, no proposal for increased traffic. Yet, in other places where C.I.E. apparently served a more useful purpose to the community, in other districts throughout the country, there have been very big increases in traffic because in those districts it paid to use C.I.E.
At present there are 13 industrial undertakings in West Cork. An investigation was made by C.I.E. and it was found that out of 41,500 tons of goods moved by these 13 undertakings, only 3,200 tons were taken by C.I.E. All efforts to secure more traffic from these undertakings failed. I should also point out that the Industrial Development Authority was consulted in regard to industries that had been mooted for West Cork and C.I.E. were informed that none would be affected by the closing of the line. Industrialists in these modern days when they examine transport facilities, consider only the cost, efficiency and frequencies of the service, and there is no longer any sentiment for a railway as such. There are thousands of industries all over Europe, and in Great Britain, that have no dependence whatever on railway lines, industries that started in areas where they never considered the available communications because they were determined from the very outset to use road vehicles, either their own or lorries hired for that purpose.
I think it is important to point out that the people as a whole have been satisfied by the substitute services that have been provided in areas where railway lines have already closed. Once the weekly tickets were provided on the bus services, once reasonable fares were arranged for the schoolchildren and students I had virtually no complaints of any note. C.I.E., to date, have shown that their estimates of the additional number of buses and lorries required to replace a railway that was closed down have proved remarkably accurate. It is also interesting to note that in certain cases buses were supplied, the traffic carried by those buses, which were adequate for the purpose, increased to a remarkable degree. I was told that in a recent four-week period on the Cahirciveen-Tralee bus service as compared with a four-week period on the railway before the line closed the number of passengers carried has risen by 62 per cent. Some 1,200 season tickets have been sold on that route. C.I.E. is making a small profit on that bus service which was substituted for a rail service.
I have inquired from leading traders myself when in the Kerry area as to the character of the lorry service substituted for the rail service and I was told it was excellent. I was given a very clear intimation that the individuals running the lorry service were liked and supported by all the people of the neighbourhood and carried out their duties excellently.
These dire predictions are always made that when railways close some town or other will become a ghost town. It is just as well to mention the example of Bundoran which, we were told, would become a ghost town when the railway line from the Six Counties closed. The most terrifying statements were made by everyone in the area that the town was finished. It is very consoling to read an article in the Free Press in April, 1958, in which it was pointed out that the time taken for the visitors to come from Belfast was 80 to 110 minutes less than when the train service operated. There were new bus services operating from mid-Ulster to the advantage of Bundoran. Visitors from Scotland arrived six hours earlier and there were more excursions. In fact it is quite evident that Bundoran is not suffering from the closing of the railway and has enjoyed an excellent season in spite of the weather last year.
I should like to record this in view of the statements that were made at the time of the closing of West Clare Railway. It is an extract from the Clare Champion of 25th February this year. This is a good answer to all those who make such a desperate plea that a railway should not close. The headline is “A Good Job”. It says:
Even though many still mourn the loss of its railway service it is generally appreciated that C.I.E. has done a good job with its freight and passenger replacement services. Indeed, in comparison some of its new services far exceed that of the old. Both Ennistymon and Lahinch are well provided for by a daily freight service and a half dozen or so additional buses. In the long run the initial shock of the change-over seems by far to have been the worst.
Deputy Wycherley suggested that the C.I.E. staff over the remainder of the country should be reduced by 30 per cent. Since his colleagues have been complaining about those who will no longer be employed on the West Cork line I think he might consult them before he puts that forward as a possible suggestion for saving the West Cork railway. Apparently he wants other people to lose their employment in order to save a particular railway. That seems to be a rather selfish suggestion.
Deputy Wycherley also mentioned that on some previous occasion a loss of £100,000 on certain branch lines was mentioned. I should make it clear that there has been a change in the costing system of C.I.E. The observations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1957 in regard to branch lines were as a result of information that was then available to him. There is now a much more elaborate costing system which reveals truly and accurately the value of branch lines and their contribution to main lines and it is on the basis of the new costing system that decisions have been taken by C.I.E. to close the lines which have been the subject of this debate.
Deputy Desmond made a foolish, jeering speech about C.I.E. which I deplore but I know he feels keenly about the loss of the West Cork line. He and Deputy Manley have what I think is a feeling of out-dated sentiment about the value of a railway. They are entitled to hold their opinions but there is no use in going back to the report of the Milne Committee because the fact remains, whether or not the terms of that report were adopted, that C.I.E. has lost, in all, some £24 million since that report was published. Moreover there was not the searching inquiry into the railway system that was carried out by what is known as the Beddy Committee and that report, so far as I know, has never been seriously criticised by anybody in this House. Nobody has suggested that that report was not an excellent document containing valuable information and with an authentic tone. There was no criticism of the Beddy report to speak of at the time of the discussion on the 1958 Bill.
Deputy Desmond referred to the rates of compensation. I should say that they were worked out in accordance with the agreement with the trade unions and I have had very few complaints in regard to them. There does not seem to be any great reluctance on the part of certain classes of C.I.E. workers to apply for redundancy. In the case of the three railways that have been closed or are about to be closed, there were 279 workers in all, of whom 140 are to be retained; 122 workers received compensation which would total £127,800 a year. Of course, that sum will diminish as the years go by because some of the workers are of an advanced age and that will be a gradually disappearing liability on the public purse.
Deputy Desmond criticised the services of C.I.E. Of course they are not perfect. The fundamental organisation commenced only after the 1948 Act came into operation. The appointment of area managers is of very recent date. The whole of the work-study operation which is of an immensely complex character is not even completed; many of the recommendations by the experts remain to be implemented. Many will have to be considered before they can be put into operation.
Deputy Desmond mentioned the Kanturk line and asked why that was still open for certain classes of traffic. The answer is that C.I.E. made a calculation and found that to substitute the present limited occasional Kanturk service for goods would be more costly than to leave the line in operation.
Hear, hear, but they tried to close it. That was not the case made at the inquiry in Kanturk by C.I.E.
Deputy Desmond also referred to the fares charged on the bus services. Fifteen million passengers travel on the buses and I am quite sure, if C.I.E. think it would be advantageous to reduce fares in certain cases they would do so, but they have to pay the cost of materials, wages and the operation of the buses themselves. They have to allow for depreciation and I should make it clear that the road passenger working does not show an excessive profit when all those factors are taken into consideration.
Deputy Desmond also cast a reflection on C.I.E. by making an analysis of the accounts in which he referred to the fact that railway receipts had increased only by 3 per cent. He made other references to decreases that have taken place in depreciation and maintenance. As I have already said in the Seanad, I am satisfied and have trust in the Chairman in regard to the realistic character of all charges upon the accounts of C.I.E. I am satisfied that the charges have been honestly presented and have not been written down for the purpose of trying to reduce the loss on the undertaking. But I should give the real answer to many of the sneering comments made by Deputy Desmond who, I think, perhaps was overcome to some degree by his feeling of sadness at the proposed closing of the West Cork line. The best answer is that the total revenue of C.I.E. in the current year has gone up by some £963,000 up to March 8th. That indicates there is a real growing vitality within the concern.
A good argument for giving the line a chance.
One of the principal objects of the work study programme has been to try to secure better utilisation all round of lorries, wagons and coaches, because the utilisation was found by the Beddy committee to be the lowest in Europe. The labour cost per ton mile was three times the average in Europe. That was one of the major jobs that had to be tackled by the work study experts who came in. One Deputy tried to make a comparison between the loss on these C.I.E. lines and the expenditure on roads. Well, when one considers the fact that C.I.E. lost about £24 million in 10 years and that if the whole of the railway were closed down we are told by the Department of Local Government it would draw only three per cent. more traffic on to the roads, it can easily be seen that the losses of the concern bear no relation to the fact that there will have to be some moderate expenditure in certain places on certain roads as a result of railway lines closing down.
I next want to deal with the observations made in regard to roads. I state again definitely and without any reluctance that for the three lines that have been the subject of discussion there will be required ten buses and seventeen lorries together with some trailers, together with some extra buses in the case of the Waterford-Tramore line during the summer period, together with some 40 lorries to be used during the beet season in West Cork. I again state without fear of contradiction that the extra traffic on the roads concerned, as the percentage of the total traffic is negligible and that is why the railways are being closed down—because the extra traffic is negligible. If the roads were going to be broken up by the vast number of lorries and buses, the railway, under the new management, would be making a profit and it is because the traffic which will be put on to the roads is negligible that the railways are being closed down. The expenditure mentioned by County Council engineers, so far as I can find out from making inquiries, beyond all doubt included backlog expenditure on the roads in question and in no way related entirely to expenditure incurred through the extra number of buses and lorries that would travel on the roads as a result of the closing of the railways.
I am very glad to say that, when I examined the report of the Clare County Engineer more carefully and read the Clare Champion in detail, I found evidence that he had included backlog expenditure on several roads and that the total sum proposed of £600,000 required allegedly as a result of nine extra vehicles travelling on the roads had therefore no relation to the closing of the West Clare line. It was a case of the last straw breaking the camel's back; it was a case of the county engineer saying to himself, with the help of some county councillors, that now was the time to get ahead with as much of the backlog work on these roads as possible; the argument is this: there will be a few more vehicles and everyone will highlight the importance of the roads as a result of the railway closing down; let us try to get £600,000 spent with as big a grant from the Government as possible.
Would the Minister agree that the single straw in Donegal cost £375,000?
The Deputy has already spoken about that. That was based, first of all, on the closing down of the Great Northern Railway and on the closing down of all the Donegal railways. Now, in the case of County Cork the figure worked out at £920,000 for 90 miles because of an additional 14 vehicles and trailers and an additional 40 vehicles during the beet season. I am quite convinced those amounts include backlog work. In the case of the Waterford-Tramore line the Minister for Local Government has clarified the position. He has stated quite clearly that the technical information available to him shows there will be no appreciable damage by the passage of additional buses. He also made it clear that the relief of flooding is a matter which has been long considered by the Waterford County Council and has no relation whatever to the closing of the railway. In actual fact a huge number of vehicles already travel on the Waterford-Tramore road, as everybody knows.
In order that nobody will have any illusions in regard to this matter, I made a little calculation of my own. I calculated that if you have an additional 24,300 vehicles travelling on the roads in the whole of the country in 1960 as compared with the previous year and you have an additional £200,000 available from the Road Fund—and the roads do not appear to be in any immediate danger of collapse—and you apply the amount required on the basis that some 27 vehicles would require the total sum suggested by the county engineers, then the amount required in 1960 to put the roads of the whole country into a state of additional order would be £4,500,000,000.
That is assuming wages and prices would be at a standstill.
It has nothing to do with wages and prices. If the Clare County Engineer really wanted £600,000 for his mileage of roads in order to provide for a few extra vehicles, and that includes no backlog, to do the same work over the entire country to cater for the 24,300 vehicles in 1960 would cost a huge sum.
You could prove an elephant has three legs if you had enough statistics.
It is not necessary to reply to Deputy Dillon's comment. It is quite evident that the Clare County Engineer included in his calculations a tremendous amount of backlog work.
The Cork County Engineer estimated £200,000 for bridges and level crossings alone.
Now the Minister for Local Government has made grants to other counties besides Donegal. He has made a grant of £50,000 to Kerry over a four-year period. He has made grants to County Longford and to Leitrim and Sligo. I understand he intends to consider applications for what might be described as once-for-all additional grants to cover some expenses involved in the closing down of the railways and he will base his decision on the authorities' capacity to pay and on the kind of work proposed. At this moment he is examining the position and I have no doubt he will make a reasonable decision.
I should like particularly to comment on the Cork City Engineer's statement relevant to the effect of the closing of the West Cork railways on the Western Road. He was quite realistic. He made it clear that when he said a sum of £25,000 would be required for five years in order to put the road into proper repair he was referring to blacklog work and he simply decided that, as there would be some 65 trucks during the beet season passing through Cork at a given rate per day, they might as well begin on the Western Road. He pointed out that during the beet season—not during the normal season, mark you—there would be eight vehicles per hour. This would add 1.5 per cent. to the existing peak load of traffic. That was a carefully worked out estimate. It indicates the measure of the problem in so far as county councils are concerned. He implies that, as they have to spend some £25,000 to improve the roads in Cork city because of the increase in traffic—I presume Cork has its share of the 24,300 extra vehicles launched on the roads last year—they might as well begin on the Western Road since it will be taking, among other things, some additional beet traffic. That was an intelligent, reasoned statement. I commend him because he made it clear from the beginning exactly what the position would be. It is also true that he had available to him a method of taking a road census. That would be difficult and expensive for other county engineers and I should not make a comparison which is not, perhaps, quite valid. It would be very difficult to take a census of vehicles over all the roads over which more buses and lorries will pass with the closing of the railways.
(Interruptions.)
Order. The Minister is in possession.
Lastly, I want to refer to beet traffic.
What about the amendment?
I believe many of the statements made are without foundation. There has been over a long period a gradual transfer from rail to road. In 1954, 10 per cent. of the beet traffic was carried by road. In 1959/60 it had increased to 50 per cent. I should make it clear, too, that a great many farmers do not appreciate the ramp system for loading and unloading. The fact that ramps have not been provided everywhere is not evidence that, if they were provided, there would be any great improvement in rail carriage of beet. One of the best proofs of that is the fact that there have been ramps at Bandon for some time which would enable three or four lorries to load or unload simultaneously. In 1954/55 the number of tons of beet taken at Bandon station was 6,950 and in 1950/ 60 it was 3,217. The existence of ramps did not apparently have very much effect on the beet traffic in that area.
The fact remains that farmers are more and more inclined to avail of a single handling of their beet. It is untrue to say that C.I.E. have deliberately tried to sabotage the beet traffic in Cork or anywhere else. In some areas C.I.E. succeeded in making package deals but in West Cork apparently the cost of drawing beet is about 12½ per cent. less owing to the very large numbers of hauliers in West Cork and the fact that it is undertaken by the beet growers' association itself. In that particular area in West Cork there are 130 lorries and of these 55 are engaged in the beet traffic. It is obvious that C.I.E. in West Cork have met very heavy competition from a particularly successful group of hauliers. That, with the growing number of farmers who prefer a single handling of their produce, has resulted in a decline in rail beet traffic. Everybody in Cork knows that.
I find it difficult to face criticism by certain people who spoke about beet traffic and who, all their lives, never made any use of the railway line. These people who are now criticising me did not themselves avail of the facilities offered by C.I.E. I have nearly reached the end of this matter now and there is no need for me to go back on all that was said at the commencement of the debate. It would take me a long time to deal with the individual points raised. I have notes of them, but under the agreement made I would not have time to deal with them.
Will the Minister deal with the amendment?
I have been dealing with the amendment.
The Minister has not. The amendment deals with the straight question that the Taoiseach of to-day, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, had assured the House and gave, in very express terms, an undertaking that C.I.E. would consult local interests before closing railways and that has not been done.
The Taoiseach has already dealt with that matter.
Not on this amendment. I do not think he mentioned that matter at all.
If the House would give me a few minutes longer, I shall deal with it.
Certainly.
The Minister has not said a word about the refusal of C.I.E. to receive deputations.
When the Taoiseach spoke of receiving deputations he referred to decisions taken by C.I.E. under the 1958 Act and he said that, if C.I.E. made a decision to close the railway line, two months notice was given during which time it would consult with local interests in relation to the closing of the line and in relation to substitute services.
He never said that.
That is my interpretation of it.
Read it over again.
It has been read so often.
It can be read again.
The Taoiseach said in Column 598, Vol. 186, No. 4:
"It is certainly contemplated that C.I.E. will in the future eliminate from the rail service any branch or stations which are uneconomic and where there is no prospect that they will become economic. When they have decided to close a branch line or station, the question of alternative transport facilities in that area arises."
That makes the matter perfectly clear.
That is not the passage.
Read Column 1681.
This is the statement that has been so frequently quoted. In the debate of the 8th May, 1958, the Taoiseach said:
"In cases of decision to close down a branch railway line, the Bill says two months' notice must be given."
Read on.
It is perfectly clear from that that the Minister meant that C.I.E. would meet local interests to discuss the matter of substitute service.
Read on. Why does the Minister not read what was said?
I will not read on. That is my interpretation of what was said.
I will read on. This is what he said:
"I do not think we need to write in there that during these two months the Board will have to hear the deputation from the local council of the town losing the railway service."
That refers to decisions taken by C.I.E.
"Of course they will do it", said the Taoiseach.
"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".
That is what the Taoiseach said. That is the part we want the Minister to read.
The whole of the debate has been based upon the idea that there is something wrong about substituting a bus service for a railway service. The Beddy Committee made it abundantly clear that there should be no favouritism for rail as against road. The whole sense of the 1958 Act could only be interpreted as that there was to be drastic action taken by C.I.E. to reduce their losses. I do not believe that there is any sanctity for the existence of a railway line. If the majority of the people in any area find it more convenient to use the bus, if they find it gives them a more adequate service through stopping at various places at which they want to stop, if they prefer single handling of the goods in the vast majority of instances, I see no sentimental reason for preserving the railway in that district. I am perfectly satisfied that future conditions in West Clare. West Cork and in the Waterford-Tramore area will prove that to be true.
Will motion No. 24 standing in the name of Deputy Lynch and myself be taken jointly with the present vote?
There is nothing before the House except the motion by the Minister.
May I make a submission which is designed to save time in the House in future? There are three motions on the Order Paper which condemn the closing of the railway lines in Clare, West Cork and the closing of the Waterford-Tramore line. The gist of the discussion from this side has been that these lines should not be closed down without prior consultation with the Chairman and Board of C.I.E. Surely this would be an appropriate time to take a decision on these motions in view of the fact that the Government have put this motion on the Order Paper in order to allow a discussion on the closing of these three lines?
The House was informed at Question Time today that there would be no Private Members' motions.
Surely, if the Minister has made such a good case, according to his supporters, for the closing of these three lines, they should be prepared to have the courage to vote with the Minister on it? I assume the motions are not being taken?
No. The motions cannot be taken out of their place.
They will remain on the Order Paper?
Can we take it the rails will be left down until the motions will be discussed?
Will the Deputy please allow the Chair to put the question?
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 54.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Lo ughman.
Níl
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Seán.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Donegan, Batt.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Healy, Augustine A.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Johnston, Henry M.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Loughman, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Moloney, Daniel J.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Ó Ceallaigh, Seán.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Toole, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A. W.
- Teehan, Patrick.
Amendment declared lost.
|
Barrett, Stephen D.Barry, Richard.Burke, James.Byrne, Patrick.Byrne, Tom.Casey, Seán.Coburn, George.Corish, Brendan.Costello, Declan D.Crotty, Patrick J.Desmond, Daniel.Dillon, James M.Fagan, Charles.Flanagan, Oliver J.Giles, Patrick.Hogan, Bridget.Jones, Denis F.Kenny, Henry.Kyne, Thomas A.Lindsay, Patrick. |
Lynch, Thaddeus.MacEoin, Seán.McLoughlin, Joseph.McMenamin, Daniel.Manley, Timothy.Murphy, Michael P.Murphy, William.O'Donnell, Patrick.O'Higgins, Michael J.O'Higgins, Thomas F.O'Reilly, Patrick.O'Sullivan, Denis J.Palmer, Patrick W.Reynolds, Mary.Rooney, Eamonn.Russell, George E.Ryan, Richie.Sweetman, Gerard.Tierney, Patrick.Wycherley, Florence. |
Motion put and agreed to.