Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Transport and Power.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £2,643,010 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Transport and Power, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of a Grant-in-Aid.

The Estimate of £3,964,510 for 1961-62 shows a net increase of £317,840 compared with £3,646,670 granted in 1960-61.

The principal increases in 1961-62 are in the provisions for Salaries, £28,000 (Subhead A); C.I.E.—Redundancy Compensation £116,000 (Subhead D.2); Harbours £119,000 (Subhead E); Construction, Dublin Airport £20,000 (Subhead F.3); Shannon Free Airport Development Co. £80,000 (Subhead G.4); International Organisations £21,000 (Subhead J) and Rural Electrification £71,000 (Subhead L). Increases on other subheads amount to £40,000, bringing the total of increases to £496,000.

The principal decreases in 1961-62 are in the provisions for Acquisition of Land £22,000 (Subhead F.1); Construction—Shannon Airport £52,000 (Subhead F.2) and Technical Assistance £10,000 (Subhead K). Decreases on other subheads amount to £2,700. To these must be added an increase of £92,000 in the Appropriations-in-Aid subhead which is equivalent to a decrease in the net grant. This brings the total of decreases to £178,000.

The net increase in the Estimate for 1961-62 compared with 1960-61 is therefore £317,840 as I have already stated. The increase in the salary provision is mainly due to increases in the number of technical officers employed in air traffic control and on radio work, and to provision for the staff of Cork Airport. The increase in C.I.E. redundancy compensation is caused by a greater degree of reorganisation within C.I.E. than was envisaged originally. The increase in harbour grants is due to the fact that the bulk of the grants payable on the construction of two new tenders for Cobh will fall due in the current year and also to provision for a major improvement scheme for Galway harbour.

The increase for construction at Dublin airport arises from the need for additional passenger handling facilities consequent on the phenomenal growth of traffic at that airport. The increase in the grant-in-aid to Shannon Free Airport Development Company arises from an increase expected in the amount of grants which will be paid to industrialists establishing new factories at Shannon airport. The increase in the amount for International Organisations is mainly due to increased contributions for weather ships and air navigation aids operated on an international basis. The contributions are proportionate to our share of transatlantic air traffic and the inauguration of an Irish transatlantic service has increased our proportion of the cost.

The decreases in the provisions for Acquisition of Land and Construction at Shannon Airport are due to the completion of the acquisition of land required for airport construction and improvement and to the virtual completion of the new runway and terminal buildings at Shannon airport. The reduction in the provision for technical assistance arises from a reduction in the amount for a major project which it is expected will be completed this year. This project is financed from the American Counterpart Fund and a corresponding reduction is shown in the Appropriations-in-Aid.

A substantial increase is provided for in the Appropriations-in-Aid from landing fees at Shannon airport, due to an expected increase in the number of landings. The balance of the increase is due to an increase in the cash surplus on the operation of Dublin airport.

Before reviewing operations during the past year and dealing with plans for the future I wish to draw the attention of Deputies to the notes on the functions and activities of my Department circulated in advance of this debate. Many duties are performed, which are non-controversial and consequently are seldom the subject of public discussion. Nevertheless, these functions are valuable to the community and although not generally known represent a very considerable proportion of the work performed by the Department.

The House had only very recently an extended debate on the report and accounts of C.I.E. for the year ended 31/3/60. In the particular circumstances it was perhaps unavoidable that a disproportionately large part of the debate was devoted to the question of the closing of branch lines but I did review for the Dáil the substantial progress made by C.I.E. towards the target of self-sufficiency by 31/3/64 set before the Board by the Transport Act, 1958.

Preliminary figures for the year, which are subject to further check and audit, indicate that the loss of £709,000 in 1959/60 has been reduced to £250,000 in 1960/61. In 1957/58 the losses were £2.3 million. This reduction is due mainly to further substantial increases in business during the year, total receipts having been increased by £1 m. approximately and railway receipts alone by £500,000. There is now some reasonable prospect that the Board will have reached solvency before 31/3/64.

The rapid progress of the Board towards solvency will release part of the present annual fixed grant from the wasteful and unremunerative function of meeting revenue losses and thus enable the Board to devote more funds to the positive goals of improving services and efficiency so as to develop the long term earning capacity of the undertaking.

Making use of its freedom of commercial action, new business is steadily and continuously being secured and this is the most effective test of the standard of service offered by the Board. A heartening feature of the Board's financial recovery is the fact that the railway carried more tonnage during the year ended 31st March, 1961, than ever in the Board's history, highlighting the Board's determination to make the railways pay.

Revenue from package deals and special deals for carriage of livestock continues to increase, and the Board's targets were more than achieved. Up to February, 1961 package deals concluded by the Board brought in some £600,000 of new business. One of the more gratifying aspects of the package deal drive is the fact that C.I.E. are succeeding in convincing transport users that it is in their interests to employ professional transport hauliers rather than to purchase vehicles for their own use.

Much of the increased business is due to the Board's flexible and imaginative approach to the task of selling transport. I have mentioned the obvious example of the package deal but there were innovations on the passenger side also. About 92,000 passengers were carried on educational tours during the 1960 season, compared with 21,000 in the previous year. Another innovation, the rail rambler ticket, introduced in 1960, earned £8,600.

Mystery trains, successfully revived in 1959, carried 25,000 passengers in the 1960 season; traffic on day tours by coach and bus increased by 17,000 or 11 per cent. Bookings on the Board's extended coach tours increased from 7,800 in 1959 to 9,100 in 1960. Bookings for the current year so far are appreciably better than last year. A particularly satisfactory feature of the extended coach tours was the increase of 100 per cent in bookings for the month of October, 1960. The fact that the weather during the 1960 summer was by no means dry indicates that even better results would have been achieved if fine weather had prevailed.

Season ticket users of C.I.E. provincial bus services are now paying less for their weekly tickets as a result of the new system of charging which came into effect in December, 1960. The Board then decided to bring bus charges more closely in line with corresponding rail fares. Juveniles' and school children's tickets are now almost 50 per cent. cheaper than heretofore. The age limit for school children has been raised from 15 to 16 years and rates have been reduced to as low as one-third the adult rate. A new age category has also been introduced for students and apprentices. From 16 to 18 years old the rates have been cut from three-quarters to half adult fare, and from the 19 to 21 age group the cost is now two-thirds instead of three-quarters the adult charge.

Enough has already been said about the closure of uneconomic branch lines. I will confine myself to repeating that the Board do not plan to close any further branch lines during the statutory reorganisation period. In the Board's experience the substitute road services are giving satisfaction to its customers. Complaints have been few and the Board have taken steps to ensure as far as it can in each case that the cause for complaint will not recur.

The Board have set ambitious but practicable targets for the improvement of services. Long term plans include a major review of rolling stock, plant, equipment and buildings over the entire system; plans are being prepared to bring these up to the highest international standards. In the case of rail services, all main line trains will be brought up to the standard of named trains; carriages will be modernised and new, up-to-date carriages will be introduced; station facilities will also be improved. The Board's target on the locomotion side is full dieselisation as early as possible. As far as rail freight is concerned there is a continuous drive to improve handling facilities and new, up-to-date equipment is being provided.

The Board's road services also are to be improved. Better standards of heating and comfort are being provided for bus passengers. The question of additional bus shelters is being examined. Twenty-five per cent. of the single deck fleet will be renewed over the next two years. Old and obsolete vehicles in the road freight fleet are being replaced.

C.I.E. have undertaken a major review and reorganisation of the management structure at all levels and have set an example to industrialists by the internal use of work study in all its forms and cover a great area of administration and operation. Area and district managers have been appointed with delegated authority to act with speed and flexibility in selling and rendering service to the public, and also in dealing with any complaints about local services. The Board confidently expect that the new organisation will add further vigour to the drive for better services to the customer and more business for the Board.

A sum of £35,000 has been allocated from the U.S. grant Counterpart Reserve Fund towards the cost of the establishment by C.I.E. of a development and research unit in connection with special technical freight transport problems including the use of containers, flats and pallets to form the basis of better road/rail co-ordination.

A sum of £9,800 has already been paid to C.I.E. for the purchase of elevators, portable conveyors and pallet trucks in pursuance of this research and development and it is expected that the balance of the grant will be required over the coming year.

As far as the Board's employees are concerned, intensive training schemes to improve techniques at all levels have been launched and the scheme of joint consultation has facilitated full co-operation between employees and management.

One last word of warning about C.I.E. No Minister for Finance faced with tremendous demands for seven figure increases in educational and social services will want to subsidise C.I.E. It will take the same kind of continuous dedicated effort by management and staff working closely and enthusiastically together to maintain C.I.E. as solvent a company as can for instance be found in a modern highly developed export industry facing cut throat competition. Let everyone dispel the idea that there will ever be an easy period for C.I.E. when either to management or staff the prospects appear easy and cash returns are rolling in without tremendous effort.

The number of coach tours operated by foreign operators continues to increase. The number of passengers carried on such tours in 1960 was about 13,600 compared with 7,500 in 1959. These tours are now admitted freely; the only conditions which are applied are (1) that they must be confined to persons normally resident outside the State who have made advance reservations and (2) that the duration of each tour within the State must be not less than 4 days. It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the substantial numbers of passengers carried on such tours the numbers carried by C.I.E. on its own coach tours have also increased substantially.

I am happy to be able to report some significant improvements in the cross-Channel passenger services. I must take this opportunity to acknowledge the quick response made by Sir Reginald Wilson, the new Midland Chairman, to the representations made to him.

An additional platform is at present being constructed at Holyhead. This will greatly facilitate passenger movements by the more expeditious handling of extra and relief trains, many of which, up to the present, have had to remain outside the station pending the clearance of other trains and this will also speed up clearance of ships. The customs examination centre at Holyhead has been extended to permit of a faster flow of passengers through customs.

British Railways have reduced the maximum number of passengers to be carried on the larger mail boats. Accommodation is usually fully booked at peak periods only but as additional sailings are being provided for these periods there will be no overall loss in carrying capacity. Additional sailings will as usual be provided during the summer season but as compared with 1960 there will be ten extra sailings, viz. seven inwards and three outwards. These include certain completely new sailings with special train connections.

Heretofore on sailings inwards for which sailing tickets were required control was exercised at Holyhead and passengers without sailing tickets were held up there. British Railways now propose to exercise this control when passengers are joining the connecting train for Holyhead and persons without sailing tickets will not be allowed to join the train. This will prevent outshipments at Holyhead. The foregoing improvements should go a long way towards eliminating complaints about uncomfortable travelling arrangements. Having acknowledged the improvements already effected and promised this summer, I should say that we await further improvement. Better refreshment service, more personal care for passengers, greater punctuality of trains, alterations to ships sailing and the replacement of the Princess Maud are some of the matters still for consideration.

At Dún Laoghaire, the route which after Dover-Calais is the busiest sea route from Britain, improvement works were carried out by the Board of Works at a cost of some £140,000. The boat pier has now been provided with a modern double-deck structure with improved facilities for passengers, more customs examination space, a track for passengers' cars and arrangements for crane installations so that the carriage of increased numbers of vehicles could be effected speedily.

British Railways are providing for the summer season on the Dún Laoghaire-Holyhead service additional capacity for 428 cars inwards and 464 cars outwards and on the Rosslare-Fishguard services additional capacity for 1,000 cars each way. This additional capacity, together with that to be provided for 2,000 cars each way by the British and Irish Steampacket Co., will mean an increase in capacity by 50 per cent. over the summer period this year as compared with last year. I hope that the response to this increase in capacity will go far towards establishing the need for and the profitability of placing a proper car ferry on a cross-Channel route. I do not need to stress the importance of this kind of tourism—it has been estimated that each tourist's car entering this country represents, on average, £60 tourist expenditure.

The Tribunal of Inquiry into cross-channel freight rates, which reported in May, 1959, suggested that a committee representative of shippers as a whole should be formed under official auspices to consider problems of cross-channel transport, particularly in connection with freight rates to co-ordinate information on these problems and to discuss them with the Irish and British Traffic Conference or with individual undertakings. In pursuance of this suggestion I had pleasure in launching the National Shippers Committee in May, 1960, with a widely representative membership. The Secretariat is provided for this Committee by the Federation of Irish Industries.

The Committee have been active in pursuing their objects since its inception. They had the unhappy experience of being presented in their first year of operation with an increase in cross-channel freight rates, which came into force in November, 1960. It was particularly disappointing to find that the method of introducing this increase differed nothing from that used prior to the formation of the National Shippers Committee. The Conference announced the increase less than one month from the date on which it was due to come into operation and no effort was made to discuss the proposal with the National Shippers Committee before the public announcement.

There is no statutory authority vested in me or in the Government to control international freight rates nor in the nature of the trade could such unilateral control be effectively exercised. Moreover, without access to the books and accounts of the companies on both sides of the Irish sea it would not be possible to determine whether any particular increase was justified or necessary. It does seem, however, in view of the importance of the trade to the country's economy and indeed if only as a matter of sensible public relations on the part of the companies, that they should discuss their proposals frankly with the National Shippers Committee, which represents the users, in order to explain the necessity for any increases and perhaps to modify or alter them in the light of the representations made by the Committee.

Apart from the activities on a broad front of the National Shippers Committee, Córas Tráchtála offer a very useful advisory service on shipping practice which is becoming more and more widely used by shippers and I'm told that in many cases their advice has meant savings in shipping freights and faster delivery. Many firms tend to let this important subject be handled as routine at lower levels and thus best and cheapest services may not be secured.

Under the aegis of Córas Tráchtála a number of importing and exporting services have established Shipping Services Ltd., as a co-operative organisation to handle customs clearance, forwarding and transhipment for Irish imports and exports through Liverpool. The participating firms have secured substantial decreases in the cost of these services and far greater efficiency in the handling and despatch of their business. I would strongly advise firms to whom these services are relevant and who may not yet have considered them to explore the possibilities.

A solution to the ban on container and ferry services to the port of Dublin has not yet been found. Negotiations between the parties concerned are being conducted under the aegis of the Labour Court and I can only hope that a satisfactory settlement may be reached. In the meantime Deputies will be glad to know that the ferry service between Greenore and Preston, which is operated privately and for which containers and road transport are provided at this side by C.I.E., is doing a substantial business. The possibility of ferry services at some other east cost ports has also been mooted.

There were no spectacular developments in the world shipping situation during the past year. The general slump in freight rates, which set-in in 1957 following the end of the Suez crisis, continued but some hopeful signs of better times ahead were noticeable. According to the tramp freight index of the British Chamber of Shipping the average monthly index rate of 74.2 points for 1960 showed a slight gain over that for 1959, compared with the lowest point of 62.7 points in April 1958; the market remained remarkably steady throughout the year and there was no tendency for freights to fall back. (These index figures relate to a base of 100 at 1952).

There is a good chance that there will be a slow intermittent recovery in freight rates at the end of a cyclical depression, the pattern of which has been repetitive in the industry. A significant factor is that the laid-up tonnage figure for the world which reached a peak of 9 million gross tons in 1959 had fallen to about 3 million gross tons by June, 1961, reflecting the fact that more ships are securing employment, combined with a continuing flow of old ships to the scrap yards. After noting the less favourable position in regard to tanker operation it is probable that the dry cargo market will reach a state of equilibrium before the tanker market, but the existence of laid-up tanker tonnage, some of which can be used for grain or other bulk cargo, tends to hold down dry cargo also.

It is gratifying to record, against this background, that Irish Shipping Ltd. kept all their vessels employed throughout the year and that in all the circumstances their trading results are likely to be satisfactory. Last year the company showed an operating surplus of £152,000 and a commercial loss of £543,000 after allowing for repairs costing £57,000 and full depreciation amounting to £695,000. For the year ending 30th April, 1961, Irish Shipping Ltd. expect an operating surplus, after allowing for the cost of repairs, but before charging depreciation, of about £238,000.

The company's fleet consists at present of fifteen dry cargo ships, of which ten are deep-sea, and three tankers, of which two are deep-sea. The aggregate dead-weight tonnage of this fleet is 148,000, of which 108,000 tons represent dry cargo tonnage. To replace three uneconomic vessels of a total dead-weight tonnage of approximately 26,400 tons, which were due for replacement and were sold during 1959-60, the company ordered two conventional deep-sea dry cargo vessels of 14,700 tons dead-weight each. One of these vessels was delivered in May, 1961, and the second vessel, which is being built in the Verolme Cork Dockyard, is due for delivery early in 1962.

The company have recently placed an order for a 15,000 ton bulk carrier with the Verolme United Shipyards, Rotterdam, as it is becoming clear that an efficient shipping company must be able to cater for the growing development of specialised bulk carriage for certain traffics, such as ore and even grain. These three vessels are of the most modern design and are expected to make a net profit plus depreciation even with present depressed freight rates.

I should perhaps define current shipbuilding policy as at present determined and agreed by the Board. The ideal time to build new ships is when new building and laid-up shipping are declining, when scrapping is necessary and when there is evidence that freight rates are on the upgrade. Even under the present conditions a number of vessels are earning profits and the company is not overburdened with out of date ships whose costs are out of line with present competitive conditions.

It is the practice of Irish Shipping Ltd., when ordering a new vessel, to seek competitive tenders from leading shipyards and the company have invariably invited tenders from any Irish yard which might be interested, including the Belfast yard of Harland and Wolff Ltd. It is expected that the Verolme Cork Dockyard will, with its modern layout and prefabrication techniques, be in a position to compete with the best foreign yards and that the vessel at present being built there for Irish Shipping Ltd. will herald a new era for Irish shipbuilding.

In their relatively short life so far of twenty years the company have succeeded in establishing a substantial fleet of modern ships, which, when the two ships on order are delivered, will amount to 138,000 tons dead-weight of dry cargo tonnage and nearly 40,000 tons of tanker tonnage. The present fleet represents a capital investment of the order of £13.7 millions, to which the State has contributed about £8.4 millions. That this investment has been a fruitful one is clear when we consider that (1) we have now a first-class fleet capable of diversified operation with vessels varying from the largest deep-sea freighters to small coasters—this fleet is one of the largest purely cargo fleets in these islands and we are now well on the way towards the target of 200,000 tons of dry-cargo tonnage which, it is estimated, would be sufficient to meet our essential needs in a future national emergency; (2) over the years Irish Shipping Ltd. have, by their earnings abroad, contributed substantially to our balance of payments; in 1960 the company's net contribution, on current account, amounted to £1,685,000; (3) the company have paid a total of about £2,750,000 income tax; (4) direct employment is given by the Company to about 800 men ashore and afloat; and (5) the repair, overhaul, bunkering and provisioning of the company's vessels are carried out in the State to the greatest extent practicable and the building of large vessels for the company at home has now commenced also. May I again comment on the fine reputation carried by the company throughout the world.

The provision of £240,000 for grants for harbour improvement works covers works in progress, or expected to commence shortly. The principal current improvement schemes are those for Drogheda and Galway, for which grants totalling £175,000 and £340,000, respectively, have been authorised and which it is expected will get under way during the year. This head also covers provision for the construction of two new passenger liner tenders, by Liffey Dockyard Ltd. to the order of the Cork Harbour Commissioners, of which the State is meeting half the cost.

The provision in 1959/60 was for a total expenditure on harbours of £120,648, but expenditure in the period reached only £105,000, because certain works, contrary to expectations, did not commence within the year. In addition to the grants for harbour improvement works from the Vote for Transport and Power, there is also provision in the Estimates for non-voted capital services, comprising a total of £83,000 for works at Dublin, Cork and Limerick, for which grants from the National Development Fund were approved. By now all of our commercial harbours have since 1945 either received a generous measure of State assistance towards essential improvement works or have applications under consideration.

I should make it quite clear that the grant of State assistance for a harbour is an exceptional measure. If proposed improvement works are of a productive nature, which they certainly should be, it is for the harbour authority in the first place to raise the necessary funds by borrowing, with the assistance of the local authorities or other local interests who stand to benefit from the improvements. State assistance must be reserved for essential and productive schemes, the full cost of which cannot be met locally.

Generation of electricity in the year ended 31st March, 1960 at 2,094 million units was 10.4 per cent. greater than in the previous year. In the year just ended the rate of increase in demand was about the same. Industrial consumption was 566 million units in the year ended 31st March, 1960, or an increase of 19 per cent. while domestic consumption was 703 million units or an increase of 5 per cent. The rate of expansion for industrial consumption at 19 per cent. in the year ended 31st March, 1960, was inflated somewhat by the incidence of one large new consumer (the oil refinery) but provisional information for the year ended 31st March, 1961, shows that industrial demand continued to be buoyant showing an increase of approximately 11.9 per cent. which is higher than the rate of increase in domestic demand at some 8.3 per cent.

I understand that the provisional results for the year ended 31st March, 1961, show a reasonable surplus and this is welcome news after deficiencies in the three preceding years. The improvement is due almost entirely to saving on fuel costs made possible by the phenomenal increase in output from hydroelectric stations in what was an abnormally wet year; the recent increases in rates did not significantly affect receipts in the year 1960/61.

An important consideration for the E.S.B. is that their operating results may fluctuate up and down by as much as £500,000 in any one year according to weather and the Board must therefore keep reserves to meet losses in bad years and to defer as long as possible unavoidable increases in rates. It may be expected therefore that the Board will use this surplus to help make good the inroads made on their reserves by the losses of the past three years.

When I spoke on this occasion last year, I mentioned that the new generation programme which had been approved was based on an estimated annual rate of increase in demand of 7 per cent. The annual rate of increase has now been running at about 10 per cent. for the past two years and it has, therefore, become necessary to accelerate the commissioning of new generating plant.

As Deputies are aware, the Board's charges, for both rural and urban supply had to be increased last year to correct a mounting deficit on the Board's overall revenue account. As the Board's accounts show, the loss on rural areas was reaching very substantial proportions. The Board is bound by statute to adjust its charges so that its revenue will be sufficient to meet expenditure and it was, therefore, imperative to increase charges. The increases were very moderate and were the minimum necessary to enable the Board to comply with their statutory obligation to keep the undertaking solvent.

Electricity here is a relatively very cheap commodity. Wages, salaries, construction costs, the cost of other fuels and the cost of food and agricultural produce have all increased far more than the cost of electricity which has increased by only 36 per cent. since before the war.

As far as rural areas are concerned the effect of the recent increase in charges is to add between 3d. and 4d. a week to the total bill for the typical farm consumer.

There is, however, an offset to this increase by the reduction from 80 to 60 in the number of units charged at the higher price. Any rural consumer using between 80 and 360 units per two months is, therefore, saving 1s. 2d. per period on the unit charges previously applicable. The charge has been made that rural consumers, when canvassed for supply, were assured that the fixed charge component of the Board's tariff would never be increased. No responsible official of the E.S.B. was ever authorised to give such an assurance and though I have gone exhaustively into the matter I have found no evidence that any such official ever did. In any case every contract for supply of current signed by every applicant makes it clear that the level of the whole may be raised at the Board's discretion.

The rural electrification scheme as originally planned will be completed in 1962 at a cost of between £31 and £32 million. At that stage, some 280,000 rural premises or 75 per cent. of the premises in the areas developed under the programme will have been connected. The remaining 25 per cent. remain unconnected mainly because they are so situated that the charge for making supply available to them after taking account of subsidy would be higher than the occupiers are prepared to pay. In addition, there are a number of isolated areas the connection of which would be so uneconomic as to be completely impossible under the present programme. The E.S.B., of course, go back over areas which have already been developed and people who refused to take supply initially have another opportunity of being connected at comparatively moderate rates of charge, though somewhat higher than if they had taken the supply when the areas were being developed initially. The whole position regarding the development of rural electrification on the completion of the present programme is one which is at present under examination.

Last year was not a very favourable one for Bord na Móna. Owing to the bad weather during the harvesting season, output of sod and milled peat at about 1½ million tons, was more than 25 per cent. below target and the Board expect therefore to show a loss for the year, after paying interest and depreciation, of the order of £100,000 approximately as compared with a profit of £35,000 in 1959/60. In order to avoid the adverse effects of a wet year in the future, arrangements have now been made to maintain a stock-pile of milled peat which will be fed in years of good production.

The new briquette factory at Derrin-lough was in operation for most of the year and brought the Board's total briquette output to about 120,000 tons. A second new briquette factory at Croghan with an output of 100,000 tons commenced testing just before Easter. This should meet the growing demand for this very new and attractive fuel, but the possibilities of further expansion must await the result of marketing experience. Exports of peat moss litter, and peat for ad-mixture with coal for coke production, as well as peat for mixing with foundry sand have been maintained. Deputies will have an early opportunity of considering the affairs of Bord na Móna in more detail as it will be necessary in the near future to introduce a Bill to authorise increased capital expenditure on turf development.

Coal imports were approximately the same in 1960 as in 1959 being 1,660,000 as against 1,600,000 tons. Great Britain, imports from which were almost 1,200,000 tons, recovered her position in the Irish market to the extent of about 300,000 tons, mainly at the expense of the United States, whose exports to this country fell from 462,000 tons to 184,000 tons. Imports from Germany—126,000 tons and Poland—134,000 tons were about the same as last year.

Home production of semi-bituminous coal in the Arigna Area has been running at about the same rate as last year when it was between 65,000 and 70,000 tons. Efforts to achieve greater utilisation of Arigna coal are proceeding and, under a technical assistance scheme, expert consultants have been appointed to carry out investigations directed to the possibilities of increased use of this coal for generation of electricity. Their report is expected in the current year. In this matter my Department is operating in conjunction with the Department of Industry and Commerce.

Anthracite production has shown a rise in 1960. At approximately 185,000 tons, it was 30,000 tons higher than the average for some years previous. About 10,000 tons were exported during the year. This compares with exports of approximately 1,000 tons in 1959. Certain grades of anthracite must be imported, of course, but imports in 1960 were about 55,000 tons or about 5,000 tons below the figure for the previous year.

The mines generally were able to dispose of their output although stocks at the end of 1960 were over 8,000 tons higher than at the end of 1959. Some dissatisfaction has been expressed with the sizing of certain grades of Irish anthracite and the mines and the merchants, under the stimulus of my Department, are co-operating in an endeavour to eliminate any cause for complaint.

I would like to refer to the scheme for promoting fuel efficiency in industry which is operated by my Department. Under the scheme grants are made available towards the cost of efficiency surveys of heating and power plant installations carried out by expert consultants. The maximum amount of this grant in any case is one third the cost of the survey.

Quite striking savings have been achieved by a number of firms who acted on the recommendations of consultants employed under the scheme. The response to the scheme has however been somewhat disappointing. I have recently arranged to have the scheme republished and I hope to see a greater response in the future.

I should also like to mention the very commendable efforts being made by commercial interests to popularise native fuels for domestic heating using high efficiency installations. It is gratifying to see such an enlightened awareness of the importance of fuel efficiency and it is greatly to be hoped that this attitude will become widespread.

At Shannon airport the new main runway which was brought into operation during 1960 is 10,000 feet in length and has ensured the use of the airport by fully loaded jet aircraft on flights to and from North America. Major extensions to the terminal building have been completed. These extensions provide improved and increased accommodation for passengers and public. Extension of the aircraft parking area is necessary to enable jet aircraft to be brought close to the terminal building and the work is proceeding. The new freight terminal building which is required to provide for the increasing terminal traffic during the winter will, it is hoped, be completed by October, 1961.

Whilst the number of aircraft landings at the airport—8,300 during 1960—showed a decrease of 11 per cent. on the 1959 figure the total number of passengers handled increased by 2 per cent. to 416,300. This represented one-fifth of all the air travellers on the North Atlantic route. The airport's total freight traffic at 18,163 metric tons was down by 11 per cent. as compared with 1959 but mail increased by 7 per cent. The drop in freight was due to decreases in transit traffic. The North Atlantic freight traffic through Shannon at 17,904 metric tons amounted, however, to one-third of all the air cargo over the North Atlantic. There was a substantial increase in terminal traffic. The number of terminal passengers—62,705 embarked and 58,132 disembarked—increased by 26 per cent. over 1959 while the amount of terminal freight—904 tons embarked and 901 tons disembarked—increased by 29 per cent. For the first five months of 1961 the terminal passenger traffic increased by 49 per cent. over the corresponding 1960 period.

The decline in passenger and freight transit traffic at the airport during the year has been counter-balanced to a great extent by increases in terminal traffic, i.e. in traffic originating and finishing there. An important element in the increasing terminal traffic at the airport is the development of the new industrial estate which is already providing about 70 tons of air freight a month. The availability of this new and increasing cargo should prove most attractive to airlines operating through the airport.

Eight foreign airlines are operating scheduled jet airplane services through Shannon airport. Present information indicates that with the introduction of jets on the transatlantic passenger services the airlines will schedule more passenger flights to land at Shannon this summer than they did in 1960. It is also encouraging to see that there is a recovery in the downward trend of landings by scheduled cargo aircraft at the airport. At this stage an estimate of total non-scheduled landings cannot be made but these are beginning to form quite a considerable proportion of the traffic at the airport—almost 40 per cent. in 1960. In the months of December 1960, and May, 1961 for example, a total of 103 and 147 jet planes landed at Shannon.

The increase in overall passenger traffic at the airport is reflected in an increase in the turnover of the sales and catering service. Turnover in the half-year ended 31st January, 1961, the latest period for which figures are available, amounted to £743,349, an increase of 7 per cent. on the turnover during the corresponding period of the previous year. This is a satisfactory development after the decline in trading which occurred in 1959 as a result of decreased activity at Shannon airport. This service necessarily depends on the level of traffic particularly passenger traffic at the airport.

The total capital expenditure on Shannon airport amounted to £4,615,000 on 31st March, 1961. For the financial year ended 31st March, 1961, total revenue at the airport was £728,472 and expenditure was £579,958. The operation of the airport in that year yielded a surplus of £148,514. This figure, however, makes no allowance for pension liability nor for depreciation and interest on capital which amounted to £456,000 for the year. Although air travel is now a normal feature of modern life airports all over Europe lose money. I am glad to say that the operating revenue at Shannon is considerably more than the operating cost while at Dublin both items are virtually even. But additional revenue is required to pay interest and depreciation. The receipts as a percentage of total costs are favourable when compared with other European airports.

In my view it should be the aim to operate all airports without any loss whatever. Unfortunately, there is a factor present here which does not apply to other types of transport in that an increase in landing charges to balance expenditure would distort the cost structure of fares charged by both our own and foreign air operators. Until the other countries cease imposing an unnecessary tax on national and municipal budgets in order to maintain their airports though the total may be small, I cannot enforce a "pay as you go" system at our airports.

Activities at Dublin airport continue to expand. During the year 1960, there were record totals of 15,200 aircraft landings, 818,800 passengers and 14,400 tons of freight handled, representing increases of 24 per cent., 27 per cent. and 39 per cent. respectively over the 1959 figures. Since June, 1960, when I last spoke on this matter, new sceduled services have commenced to operate into the airport. B.K.S. Air Transport Limited, in conjunction with Aer Lingus, operate a passenger service between Dublin and Belfast; Airlines (Jersey) Limited operate from Exeter to Dublin and Air Safaris Limited have recently introduced a service from Bournemouth.

Perhaps the major development during the year in this respect was the introduction in April, 1960, of the Liverpool-Dublin vehicle air ferry service, which carried over 1,500 cars and other small vehicles during the season. The service, which was suspended for the winter season, has been recently re-introduced. There is still a great untapped potential for carrying vehicles by air which can be of considerable benefit to the tourist industry. One essential to profitability is, however, that the service should be provided over the shortest possible route and I am hoping, therefore, for a favourable outcome to negotiations which I am having with the British Minister of Aviation on the provision of more suitable terminals on the British side. Other routes have already been approved and in the meantime the B.K.S. Liverpool-Dublin service will continue.

Extensions of the main runway and of a subsidiary runway to provide for the full economic use of the Aer Lingus Viscount 808 aircraft and to permit of the Limited jet operations which Aer Lingus are carrying out between Shannon and Dublin, have been completed. The new hangar for jet aircraft was put into use in December, 1960. The continuing increase of traffic at Dublin airport has necessitated additional aircraft parking space and the work is nearing completion. Traffic developments have also necessitated the provision of extra passenger and public accommodation and a new "finger" building or pier as an extension to the main terminal building is under construction. Progress has been delayed owing to the calling off of cement supplies during the industrial dispute. Nevertheless, it is expected to be available for the greater part of this year's busy season. Other projects include offices for administration and staff catering, flight victualling and cabin services and a new peat fuel boiler unit.

Owing to the steady and considerable increase in traffic at Dublin airport in recent years, it has become necessary to provide for further developments. A co-ordinated overall plan of development for the foreseeable future is at present being formulated.

The total capital expenditure on Dublin airport up to 31st March, 1961, amounted to £2,417,619. In the year ended 31st March, 1961, total revenue at the airport was £340,000 and expenditure amounted to £343,867. The operation of the airport, therefore, showed an operating deficit of £3,867 in that year. This figure makes no allowance for pension liability nor for depreciation and interest on capital which amounted to £229,000 for the year.

Construction of the new Cork airport, which commenced last year, is progressing steadily. Due to the 70 per cent. above normal rainfall from October 1960 and during the early part of this year progress was inevitably retarded but advantage has since been taken of the improved weather conditions to press ahead with the work as quickly as possible.

It was intended that flying operations would commence at the airport on 1st September, 1961, but owing to the industrial dispute affecting cement supplies, it will not now be possible to start operating until 16th October, 1961. Aer Lingus will operate scheduled services from Cork to Dublin, London, Bristol, Cardiff and Paris. Cambrian Airways, a British independent airline, will operate in conjunction with Aer Lingus on the services to London, Bristol and Cardiff. Services to Cork by other British independent airlines from Derby, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Jersey and Exeter are also envisaged.

Total capital expenditure at the airport up to 31st March, 1961 amounted to £457,483.

In order to meet the future financial requirements of the air companies, a Bill has passed the Second Stage in the Dáil to increase the authorised share capital of Aer Rianta from £10 million to £13 million and to make provision for the issue by the Exchequer to Aer Rianta of repayable advances up to a maximum amount of £1 million. The total amount of issued share capital of Aer Rianta at present is £9,975,541 as against the figure of £10 million authorised under the Air Navigation and Transport (No. 2) Act, 1959.

I would like in referring to the progress of the air companies to mention that Aer Lingus has just completed a quarter of a century's operations. The directors and management of the air companies are to be congratulated on the successful expansion of activities in Britain, Europe and North America, based on sound economic principles and wise guidance since 1936. In the year ended 31st March, 1960, Aer Lingus made an operating surplus of £170,148 and in the six months ended 30th September, 1960, the operating surplus was £210,000. The financial accounts of the company for the year ended 31st March, 1961, are not yet available but I understand from the company that the airline will show a surplus of about £180,000 for that year. The company's total passenger traffic increased by 25 per cent. from 567,000 in the year ended 31st March, 1960, to 712,000 in the year ended 31st March, 1961. Freight traffic increased by 39 per cent. to 10,875,000 kilos (10,680 tons) and mail by 4 per cent. to 1,650,000 kilos (1,630 tons). Aer Lingus recently inaugurated a new service on the route Dublin-Jersey-Rennes. The company's frequencies of services on many of its existing routes are being increased. In the first five months of 1961, passenger traffic increased by 28 per cent. over the 1960 period.

The present operational strength of the Aer Lingus fleet consists of 7 sixty-five seater Viscount 808, 7 forty-seater Friendship F.27 and 5 thirty-two seater DC 3 aircraft. The passenger and freight traffic have increased in the first four months of this year by 24 per cent. and 44 per cent. respectively, over the 1960 period.

Aerlínte financial results for the twelve months ended 31st March, 1960, showed that there was an operating loss of £589,080 for the year, compared with an operating loss of £788,599 for the eleven months ended 31st March, 1959. The accounts for the six months ended 30th September, 1960, showed an operating surplus of £143,000 compared with a deficit of £286,000 in the same period of 1959. The provisional accounts for the year 1960/61 show a probable deficit of the order of £80,000.

The Aerlínte transatlantic service was inaugurated in April, 1958, with the leasing of Super Constellations from Seaboard and World Airlines Incorporated. This arrangement was terminated in December, 1960, when the company introduced its own Boeing Jet service, each plane carrying a maximum of 137 passengers. In the year ended 31st March, 1961, the company carried 35,176 passengers representing an increase of 51 per cent. on the previous year. Freight carried increased by 210 per cent. to 347 tons and mail by 9 per cent. to 48 tons. In the first five complete months of operation of the jets, January to May of this year, a passenger increase of 78 per cent.—11,645 as against 6,547—was recorded over the corresponding five months of the year 1960, when piston-engined aircraft were used.

As Deputies are probably aware, there has been much publicity in regard to the failure of the world's airlines to reach agreement on the levels of rates for transatlantic air freight. With the increased capacity now available and the introduction of new specially designed all-freight aircraft, the way is clear for a considerable reduction in the freight rates previously charged, particularly for the larger consignments. Agreement has now been reached on new rates and subject to the approval of Governments, they will come into effect on 1st October, 1961. Quite substantial reductions are to be introduced, especially for large consignments. The rates are at present being examined in my Department.

The Shannon Free Airport Development Co. Ltd., which was incorporated in 1959, continues its activities to promote the increased use of Shannon airport for passenger and freight traffic and for tourist, commercial and industrial purposes. The company works in close harmony in industrial matters with the Industrial Development Authority and, in tourist development matters, with Bord Fáilte Éireann.

The company's main sources of finance are provided under the authority of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited Act, 1959. The Act authorises the Minister for Finance to subscribe for shares in the company up to an aggregate limit of £1,500,000. The Act also authorises the provision by way of Grant-in-Aid voted annually of sums which in the aggregate shall not exceed £500,000.

The capital is being used by the company for the construction of factory buildings and dwellings. The income from these activities is used to supplement the company's grant income. The non-repayable grants are used by the company in meeting its running expenses and providing financial assistance to new industrial undertakings at the airport. Capital issues to the company up to 31st March, 1961, amounted to £1,168,000 and payments by way of grant-in-aid to £367,500.

I am happy to say that encouraging progress has been made with the development of the industrial estate. Sixteen factory bays and a special factory for a piano manufacturer have been completed and on the basis of the continuation of the present promotional programme, the company envisages building in the current financial year a further ten factory bays and ancillary buildings and a scheme of one hundred dwellings for workers will also be undertaken. These dwellings are in addition to ten houses which have been constructed and a scheme of 137 flats which are at present under construction and which will be completed during the current year. Employment in May was 724 and it is estimated that by next March this figure will have reached about 1,250. The following are among the commodities being manufactured at the airport: radios, floor maintenance machinery, knitted jersey fabrics and fully fashioned garments, wire gauze, precision threaded fasteners and miniature capacitors and pianos.

Apart from the direct incentives to manufacture which are available at Shannon, such as factory premises for rent, taxation relief, grants for machinery and training, and relatively low labour costs, firms have been attracted by the availability of air transport from their factory doors to any part of the world. They are primarily export industries and do not intend to compete in the home market with other Irish manufacturers. Factories providing goods of high value in relation to volume, where speed of delivery is an important element, are in a position to deliver goods by air to any part of the world within a few days. Freight traffic has been constantly increasing and it is estimated that by 1965 over 5 million kilogrammes of air freight will be generated annually by the factory operations now established or planned at Shannon.

The company has leased factories as quickly as they can be built and, given the resources necessary, proposes to maintain a continuous programme of factory building up to the limit of demand. To enable the company to continue its work of attracting industries to the airport, legislation is before the House to provide additional finance when the present statutory limits have been reached.

I attach great importance to the introduction of modern methods in industry in Ireland and to the desirability of employing the best technical assistance to study problems of productivity, rationalisation and the use to the best advantage of labour. These problems have been the subject of wide international study and I am glad to say that the State-sponsored bodies under my control are fully alive to the need for employing modern methods of work study and organisation in their structures.

In all cases, industrial consultants have been engaged to examine existing systems and to recommend improvements. Officers of the companies have been sent abroad on courses in management to keep in touch with the latest trends. Each company has a special division, including work study teams specially trained for the purpose. These divisions are actively engaged in a constant review of existing procedures so as to ensure that the most up-to-date systems are adopted. Training courses for staff employed in the organisations are an important part of these arrangements. I may say that training courses for certain grades of staff are also becoming a feature of my own Department. The results have proved to be advantageous and are a clear proof of the profit to be gained from applying the latest techniques of work study to the problems that arise in every industry.

In the case of the transport and power industries forward planning is essential to expansion and economy. We must endeavour to be ready in good time to meet the growing demands of tourism and industry and not allow ourselves to be overtaken by events and committed willy-nilly to wasteful and inadequate temporary expedients. Both in relation to the activities of the Department and those of the State bodies for which I am responsible I have repeatedly stressed the importance of this forward-look approach. The development of our airports is kept under continual review so as to ensure that the ever-growing air traffic will not find us unprepared. The airlines watch traffic developments with the need in mind for timely replacement and additions for their fleets. SFAD Co. are pushing ahead with the development of the World's First Air Industrial Estate which involves planning over the next five years. C.I.E. have embarked on a comprehensive programme of improvements which look forward to bigger business created by better service. The need for long term planning and co-ordination by E.S.B. and Bord na Móna is obvious to all. Irish Shipping Ltd. has a long term programme for the expansion of the fleet to the approved target of 200,000 tons.

It is not enough to plan ahead. Both now and in the future the State-sponsored bodies must aim at the maximum of efficiency in their operation and to this end it is essential that advantage be taken of new modern techniques of management and production. I can tell the Dáil that in the introduction of new methods and techniques the State-sponsored bodies are in the front rank and will, so far as I am concerned, remain there. Only by those methods can they play their full rôle in the development of our economy. Increased productivity is also the only means by which a rising standard of remuneration for their staffs can be guaranteed.

We have just heard the Minister introduce his Estimate for possibly the last time under a Fianna Fáil Government for a good while, we hope. The Minister is the first Minister for Transport and Power, which was a branch of the Department of Industry and Commerce prior to this. Therefore it might be no harm to review the activities of Fianna Fáil in so far as transport and power are concerned since they came into office.

The Minister's Department deals with three branches of transport and power. It deals with transport by land, transport by sea and transport by air. So far as power is concerned, it deals with power by electricity and power from mineral sources, but I think it is agreed on all sides that transport and power now are developed from one main source and that is from electricity. The others are merely subsidiaries. It might be no harm if I opened up my remarks on the debate with electricity.

I was delighted to hear a Fianna Fáil Minister pay such tribute to the E.S.B. and to the magnificent work that is being done by it. I am not in the least surprised when I see some Fianna Fáil Deputies hang their heads. I am afraid that Deputy MacCarthy is the only one of the senior members present who remembers the description by the present Tánaiste of the E.S.B. —the whole Shannon Scheme. It was described by him as a white elephant. Away back in 1927 when we had pioneers in this country—thank God we have one still on the front benches of Fine Gael in the person of Deputy McGilligan—who set out to develop electricity in this country. They were the pioneers. I am referring to politicians so far as Deputy McGilligan is concerned, but we had the technicians too. One is still with us— Dr. Tommy McLoughlin. They were the real pioneers of electricity in this country. As a result of their initiative they were able to turn out, through the development of the Shannon Scheme, electricity at roughly .3d. per unit.

We thought in those early stages— I did not; I was too young to think of it but my predecessors on these benches did—that we would continue the initiative displayed by the Cumann na nGaedheal Party in the development of electricity. I wonder do Deputies remember what the Shannon Scheme was described as? I am very glad to see the present Lord Mayor of Limerick here when I know what was done for what I might describe as the magnificent city of Limerick by those pioneers, Deputy McGilligan and Dr. Tommy McLoughlin in the development of electricity in this country.

When I think of what the present Government thought of the magnificent work done by those pioneers it annoys me. We all know what white elephants are but suppose we had accepted their advice?

I know what pink ones are.

The Deputy may and some day I hope he will initiate me into a knowledge of them. Suppose we had adopted the advice of Fianna Fáil and shut our eyes to the development of electricity; unfortunately in 1932 the people of this country did adopt the advice of Fianna Fáil and what has happened? In 1927 we were able to turn out electricity at .3d. per unit but, as a result of the advice of Fianna Fáil to the E.S.B., electricity today costs us 1d. per unit. If we had developed the rivers and the various other schemes then advocated by the old Cumann na nGaedheal Party and adopted by the technicians of the E.S.B., we would now be able to turn out electricity at .3d. and we would have no necessity for the protests of the Deputies from West Donegal, West Cork, West Mayo and the various other constituencies along the western seaboard against what the Minister described as "something over which he has no function"—the increase to consumers under rural electrification.

It amuses me to hear the Minister say today: "bodies under my control" and he includes in them the E.S.B. I asked a question last week to know the number of households cut off by the E.S.B. in the Rosses of West Donegal within the past six months and the reasons for it. I was told by the Ceann Comhairle that he refused to submit the question to the Minister for the simple reason that he had no control over the day-to-day activities of the E.S.B.

The same answer as we got.

No, that is where the Deputy makes a mistake. The reason was emigration but the Ceann Comhairle refused to submit the question as the Minister was not responsible for the day-to-day affairs of what he now describes as "bodies under my control."

What about the removal of the rural subsidy?

Which you did not put back.

Which you refused to put back. You would not have rural electrification in this country if it were not for the inter-Party Government. It is Deputies like Deputy O'Malley from cities such as Limerick who have left rural Ireland as it is today. Take rural electrification. We initiated the E.S.B. in 1927. Unfortunately the Cumann na nGaedheal Government went out of office in 1932. From 1932 to 1948 we never heard of rural electrification and then, in 1948 for the first time, an inter-Party Government decided that every house in Ireland was entitled to electricity and they did their best to provide that social amenity for every house. We were doing very well; we had reached the stage where 23 out of 26 counties had reached a position in which they could say that rural electrification was available for every house. Back came Fianna Fáil and what has happened? Deputy Breslin and Deputy Brennan, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, are going round the country protesting against the charges now being made for rural electricity, all imposed by the body which the Minister takes credit for—"bodies under his control". Yet when we ask a question here, he holds up his hands in holy horror and says: "I have nothing to do with that body."

Can he answer that question for the people of the country because I am going to pose it and so are my colleagues here at every meeting during the coming general election? I want to know why a body under his control has left 120 people in west Donegal without rural electricity? Some, of course, have gone for reasons over which he has no control. However, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Taoiseach have. The other day in my own area the Minister for the Gaeltacht opened a new Irish college and we had there the pessimistic statement of the local parish priest that in ten years' time all we shall have left in the area will be 20 old people.

I do not see how this arises on the Estimate.

I know the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is slightly blind. With the greatest respect, I did not mean that. I should have said that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is possibly deaf at times when statements are made outside this House. Inside the House his hearing may be perfect. Be that as it may, I heard that statement, and the Leas-Cheann Comhairle heard it, in an area where cheap electricity should be made available for the people by the Minister for Transport and Power.

The next matter with which I wish to deal is C.I.E. I was but a young qualified professional man when C.I.E. was established by Fianna Fáil. I remember the old Dublin South-Eastern Railway, the Great Southern Railways and the Great Northern Railway. I also recall the days of the Lough Swilly Railway and the other County Donegal railways. When Fianna Fáil came into office they told the House, the country and myself, through the medium of the newspapers, how a national subsidised body such as C.I.E. would run the transport of the country efficiently and cheaply and that in future there would be no need to subsidise small lines like the Lough Swilly Railway.

At that time we were prepared to accept the arguments offered by the present Taoiseach who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce. But what did we find? After about four years there began an automatic closing-down of these railways. Before I came into politics I remember, as a solicitor, being instructed by the people in the Rosses, in Gweedore and in other areas in West Donegal to oppose at an inquiry the closing down of the Lough Swilly Railway Company. All I had to go on were the instructions of my clients, the poor people of Gweedore and the Rosses and the other places up there. They instructed me, and senior counsel through me, to oppose the closing of these railways and the present Taoiseach, through C.I.E., put the case before the tribunal that, before the lines were closed, the main roads and the county roads would be put into such a condition that they would be able to carry all the traffic which might be diverted from the railways.

We argued against that. We said it could not be done. We said also that the freight rates would be increased. That was the case put to the tribunal by my senior counsel, Mr. Seán MacBride. That railway was closed down 21 years ago and in the mean-time every penny we could afford to divert from the Road Fund was put into the main roads instead of going towards the improvement of the county roads. I remember some years ago a deputation led by Senator Louis Walsh and including the Deputies for the county, going to the present Taoiseach and making a case for the retention of the railway line between Glenties and Stranorlar. We were told by the very efficient officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce, over which the present Taoiseach then presided, that the road between Glenties and Stranorlar would be able to carry all the traffic which would be diverted to it from the railway line.

What do we find now? All the moneys diverted from the Road Fund are being put into a road carrying the traffic which the railway line could carry much more efficiently and much more cheaply. I shall not refer to the Tramore and the Waterford line. Deputy MacCarthy knows all about that and perhaps he would be able to tell me that advantages have been taken of the Road Fund grants but is he satisfied with what the Minister for Transport and Power is doing in that area? Is it any substitute for the railway line which was there and which is no more? That is all I shall say as far as C.I.E. is concerned.

Tell us about the transatlantic air services.

Losing £70,000.

Deputy O'Malley is a very intelligent man.

I doubt it when he chooses that bait.

I have the greatest respect for him. Let us take Shannon airport. Supposing you had not the Shannon scheme where were you today? Supposing Paddy McGilligan and Tommy McLoughlin and their colleagues of the day had not developed the power of the Shannon where would Shannon airport be today?

In Shannon, of course.

Developed by whom? By the people who called it a white elephant? You would be burning turf somewhere down in Birr. I have nothing but respect for the general manager of Aer Lingus, for the former manager of Bord na Móna and for the general manager of C.I.E., but where would they be were it not for the foresight of Deputy McGilligan in developing the Shannon for hydro-electric purposes? Were it not for that Shannon airport would at the moment be an undeveloped area. I say that with nothing in my mind, even on the eve of a general election, but respect for the men who have now developed Shannon Airport.

I agree with that.

Will the Deputy agree that the people who developed the Shannon scheme are people who deserved the greatest credit? What about the people who called the Shannon scheme a white elephant? The Minister for Transport and Power now takes credit for the development of the harbours.

Tell us about the transatlantic airlines.

Deputy McGilligan will tell the Deputy. I am speaking only of the people who made it possible for Shannon airport to be developed.

Does the Deputy agree with the transatlantic services?

I know what the Deputy is getting at. He is Mayor of Limerick on the eve of a general election and I know he wants to be elected again. I do not want to express any opinion on that. However, when he talks about the development of the harbours there is something in which he may be interested. Did he hear the Minister for Transport and Power today say a word about Limerick harbour?

The Government gave us £500,000.

Go up along the whole west coast of Ireland and where is there one solitary harbour grant mentioned in the Minister's speech to-day? He talks about the transfer to the container service between Greenore and the Six Counties. I am very glad to see that the Minister is interested in the Six Counties.

He is moving closer to it.

I hope he continues to move closer. I can remember the time when he thought that there were no harbours anywhere but on the east coast.

That does not arise on this Estimate.

It does, Sir. The Minister dealt with harbours in his speech.

The Minister referred to grants in his speech.

The Minister tells us that grants were given. The western harbours have not received grants.

The major harbours did.

Tell us where they are?

Limerick and Westport, and Galway is coming.

Not one of them received a shilling under Fianna Fáil. Galway did not get a shilling.

It is on the way.

Where was it spent?

The decision was made at the end of the War.

Oh, yes, the decision.

Deputies should allow Deputy O'Donnell to make his speech. There are far too many interruptions.

Would the Minister tell us in what year any money was spent on Galway harbour?

When the new "Dún Aengus" tender was supplied——

In what year?

I suppose it was the Coalition supplied it?

Of course it was. Deputy O'Malley should move north and north west and get to know what is happening. I know that he used to go there in his early days like the rest of us but of late years he has lost touch. I am dealing only on very general ground with the Minister's speech and I will leave it to my colleagues to deal with it further, particularly Deputy McGilligan, to whom I will pay a tribute for the various schemes initiated by him in the time of the old Cumann na nGaedheal Government.

At the outset I would like to pay a compliment to the excellent introductory speech which the Minister has made on his Estimate. It is comprehensive and enlightening and Deputy O'Donnell, for one, has not gone to any great trouble to read it or he would not make some of the allegations he has made. Before dealing with some of the points referred to by Deputy O'Donnell I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one matter which I hope he will deal with in the course of his reply.

A great injustice is being done at the present time. It has nothing to do with the day-to-day administration of C.I.E. but I think a responsibility rests on the Minister to investigate the matter and put it right. Briefly, I refer to the appalling state of C.I.E. pensioners. I am not going into detail and I do not think it would be in order to do so or to go into the inadequacy of the pension generally but it is only fair to say that when pensioners reach the age of 70 years and become eligible for the £2 a week old age pension, these pensioners who have all been in insurable employment have the pensions paid to them by C.I.E. cut to a certain extent. I think that if a pensioner has £X or shillings a week and gets the £2 old age pension he is entitled to get that £2 plus X.

That is not the Government's view.

We shall hear what the Government's view is. Personally, I am not interested in whether the Government agrees or disagrees with me. I am telling the Government what should be done. We cannot be muzzled because we disagree or agree with the Government.

Hear, hear.

When we see that an injustice is being done it is our duty to bring it to the attention of the Government. I have already written to the Chairman of C.I.E. on the matter. It is not only the pensioners in Limerick that are concerned; it also concerns those in Dublin, Galway and everywhere else. The people who get £2 a week when they reach the age of 70 are entitled to it and it is no skin off the nose of C.I.E. whether they get it or not. There is no reason why C.I.E. should cut their pensions when they get that £2. I shall leave it at that. No doubt the Minister will have some explanation of it.

We heard Deputy O'Donnell refer to the Shannon scheme and bring up the hardy annual that Fianna Fáil classified it as a white elephant. It would be well worthwhile for Deputies on the Opposition benches who wish to perpetuate this suggestion to look up the records on the matter. One of the best speeches made at that time, in 1926 or 1927, was made by the former Taoiseach, now President de Valera. There was no question that we opposed the Shannon scheme but the Fianna Fáil Party at the time were opposed to the location of the Shannon scheme at Ardnacrusha. As President de Valera pointed out, the Fianna Fáil Party were in full agreement in principle with the absolute necessity for electricity for our industrial development and for the advancement of agriculture but he stated categorically that the Fianna Fáil Party were advised by their experts, and, after considering the matter themselves, were of the opinion that the best possible location for hydro-electric power in this country would be the Liffey. All that is a long time ago and time has proved the attitude then to have been the correct one.

Initially the Liffey would have been the correct location. It matters not the slightest now. Suffice to say that, so far as I am concerned, I agree with Deputy O'Donnell that the people who initiated those projects deserve the everlasting thanks of the people and the State. I do not think anyone would try to deprecate the Shannon scheme or the initiation of hydro-electric schemes in this country. It is as well that we should clear up the matter once and for all; Fianna Fáil were never opposed to the introduction of hydro-electric schemes in this country. The only argument was simply one of location. Deputy O'Donnell suggested, if my hearing is correct, that in 1927 electricity was being sold at .3d. per unit.

No. He said experts said it could be produced at .3d. and it was. That is what the experts said.

I understood Deputy O'Donnell to say that the price of electricity in 1927 was .3d. per unit.

No. He did not say that.

Deputy McGilligan interrupts and says that what Deputy O'Donnell said was that the experts said electricity could be produced at .3d., and it was. Where is the difference? Electricity in 1927 was .3d. per unit.

Generated, yes.

I accept that. Deputy O'Donnell then went on to say that electricity is 1d. per unit today. Was that the figure he gave?

And he castigated this Government for being in the main the principal contributory factor in that increase from .3d., or 33? per cent. to 100 per cent. Surely all costs have gone up substantially. Labour charges have increased. Wages, thank God, have risen substantially. The price of fuel has increased. So have many other things. I cannot see how that line of argument can be sustained. However, Deputy O'Donnell did not pursue the argument about rural electrification very far. In actual fact, the increase on the rural consumers is due to the action of the last Coalition Government, in which Government Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, with the agreement of the last Coalition Government, removed the subsidy on rural electrification. Deputy McGilligan asked: "Did you put it back?" We did put it back actually.

You did not.

We did not?

You did not.

We restored the subsidy some time——

You did not.

We did not?

The subsidy is in operation now.

There is a subsidy, but by whom is it being paid?

There is a subsidy in operation for the current year.

And it is being paid by the rural consumer. You restored a subsidy and it is being paid by the rural consumer.

We restored the subsidy some time in 1957-1958.

You did not.

First of all, a statement is made bluntly in the belief that people will swallow it. It is stated we did not restore the subsidy, that we never put it back. Now the admission is, yes, we did put it back.

You did not put it back at all.

We restarted the subsidy for the current year. We did not restore the subsidy that had not been paid by the Coalition Government.

I am dealing with the subsidy which was removed by Deputy Norton when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce.

And which was not put back by you.

It was pointed out in a debate in this House by Deputy Lemass, who was in Opposition at the time, that the result of removing the subsidy would be to increase the cost of electricity to rural consumers, and Deputy Lemass was proved right.

He was not.

In the annual report for 1956-57 published by the chairman and directors of the Electricity Supply Board, and signed by the chairman, they attribute the increase in the cost of electricity to rural consumers to the direct result—there is no other reason given—of the action taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the Coalition Government, Deputy Norton.

Has the Deputy a quotation to that effect? I want the quotation to that effect.

I have given the reference. It is in the report which was placed on the Table of this House. It is available in the Library. It is the report of the directors and chairman of the Electricity Supply Board for the year 1956/57 and they attribute the increase in the price to the action taken by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Norton. Deputy Lindsay can get the report and can castigate me later, if he so wishes. That report attributes the increase in the cost to rural consumers to the direct action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day. Deputy Norton, in removing the rural subsidy.

No. 1, he did not, and, No. 2, if he did, you did not make any attempt to put it back.

Order. Deputy O'Malley must be allowed to speak without interruption.

No. 1, he did not. I shall quote from Volume 171 of the Official Report, Columns 508 and 509. The House was debating the Electricity Supply (Amendment) Bill, 1957. It was the Second Stage. I hope Deputy McGilligan will listen carefully and not contradict me. I have accepted his challenge to quote. At Column 509 the Minister stated:

The object of Section 3 is to reintroduce a Government subsidy of 50 per cent. for rural electrification as from 1st April, 1958.

I repeat "the object ... is to reintroduce a Government subsidy of 50 per cent. for rural electrification."

That was not what was taken off.

Exactly. What was taken off by Deputy Norton?

A subsidy of a particular type, which was not restored.

It is quite obvious Deputy McGilligan will not listen to the full explanation. I shall continue the quotation:

The object of Section 3 is to reintroduce a Government subsidy of 50 per cent. for rural electrification as from 1st April, 1958.

That is one point fixed.

Such a subsidy was payable from the commencement of the rural electrification scheme in 1946 until 1955 when the subsidy was withdrawn. It was then argued that the board had reached a position in which, from their own resources, they could provide all the finance required for future development. The financial expectations of 1955 have not, however, been realised. In the year ended 31st March, 1955, the board had a gross surplus of £928,659 including a surplus of £44,130 on rural revenue account.

The next surplus fell to £50,184 in the year ended 31st March, 1957, the deficit on rural revenue account being £491,645.

We have the position, therefore, that before the action taken by the Coalition Minister for Industry and Commerce the rural revenue account showed a surplus of £44,000 on 31st March, 1955. Then, on 31st March, 1957, as a result of the deliberate action of the Minister for Industry and Commerce of the day, on the rural revenue account the deficit was £491,645.

However, Deputy Lemass covered every aspect of the scheme and he continued:

While other causes, notably a reducing rate of increase in demand for electricity generally and the charges arising from the bringing into operation of new generating stations in the last few years, have operated to reduce the board's annual surplus, the fact is that the demands of rural electrification have meant the difference between a modest surplus and a loss on the Board's electricity net revenue account. The average return on capital represented by fixed charges is falling heavily with the connection of new rural areas and the annual deficit on rural account when the scheme is completed would, in the absence of a subsidy, be well over £1,000,000. The board have been increasingly perturbed by the growing deficits on rural electrification.

Need I deal with that any further?

Wait now. You were to give us a quotation from the Chairman of the E.S.B. You have not given it.

It was Deputy Lindsay who was to give it, not I.

I thought you said it was in the Report for 1956. It is not there.

I referred the House to the Report of the Electricity Supply Board for the year 1956-1957, signed by the chairman and the directors. In that they point out in no uncertain manner that the increase in the cost and this appalling deficit of £500,000 was attributable to the then Attorney General's colleague, Deputy Norton, as Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Have you finished now with the quotations?

I have finished.

Have you mentioned anything from the E.S.B. Report?

No, you have not.

Deputy O'Malley might be allowed to make his speech.

It would be better to let him alone.

It would be far better to let me alone and not to draw me. The Minister in his reply can deal far more competently with this matter.

The Minister never replies to anything.

The innuendo in the interruption by Deputy McGilligan is that, in fact, the Electricity Supply Board was not worried in those years about the cut in the subsidy.

They never said in the Report that it was a fact.

We will see.

They have given me the facts about it.

The E.S.B.

Have they put it in their Report?

I do not know.

They have not. That is the main thing.

It does not mean anything. It is of no account whatever. They have given me the facts.

Given you more facts than they have given the public? I do not believe it.

They are in front of the Minister and he will read them.

The Minister will never give any information. When asked, he will not reply.

Deputy O'Malley is in possession. Other Deputies will get an opportunity of making their own speeches.

I have already pointed out, and Deputy McGilligan has been listening to me, that the then Minister on 6th November, 1958, gave his reason for re-introducing the subsidy when he uses the words: "The board have been increasingly perturbed by the growing deficits on rural electrification."

On page 10 of the 1960 Report there is the reference to the subsidy.

Page 10 of the 1960 Report.

I was referring to one in 1956.

The Deputy seems to think that I can memorise these reports which I study so assiduously. I thank the Minister. The reference now, for Deputy McGilligan's benefit, is page 10 of the 1960 Report. So, Deputy Lindsay will have to go back to the Library and bring that one up with him.

It is the 1960 Report now. You have changed your ground.

In the 1956/57 Report the matter is also dealt with. Deputy O'Donnell said that in 1948 in 23 out of the Twenty-Six Counties the rural electrification requirements had been satisfied.

Of course, he did not say that either.

What did he say?

He said that in 1948 in 23 out of the Twenty-Six Counties the rural electrification requirements had been satisfied.

Not at all.

Whether he did or he did not, I wrote it down here. I have not shorthand but I wrote it down to the best of my ability. I accept Deputy O'Sullivan's statement that he did not say it. I withdraw my suggestion that he did.

Fair enough.

What he said was they started it, that the first scheme began in 1947.

Which, of course, was entirely incorrect. As everybody knows, rural electrification was started by the Fianna Fáil Party.

When was it started?

In 1947 the first line was put up.

How much had been done before 1948? How many areas had been electrified?

The switch was pulled by us.

Nothing had been done from 1932 to 1947 regarding rural electrification—15 years.

That is the important point.

As a matter of fact, in 23 out of the Twenty-Six Counties the rural electrification requirements are not even satisfied today. I do not know what Deputy O'Donnell is speaking about. Deputy O'Donnell started off on C.I.E. and he castigated the Minister. He spent quite a lot of time in the Rosses, in his own area, in Gweedore. It seemed we were on the eve of a general election. It was very interesting news to me personally.

I thought all these matters were sub judice, or that there were other plans.

They do not tell you everything.

Having dealt with C.I.E. and parochial matters, he then went on to deal with harbours. Deputy O'Donnell invited interruptions and when I asked him to deal with the transatlantic service or air services generally he evaded the issue by asking me where the reference was made by the Minister in his introductory speech to any harbour in the western part of the country. I have already said that over £500,000 had been given to us in Limerick for harbour development, for which we were very grateful. A very substantial grant has been given to us for the purchase of the new dredger which is working very effectively. The "Dún Aengus" is operating in Galway. If one looks at page 18 of the Minister's speech one can see that £340,000 has been earmarked for Galway——

Earmarking is one thing.

——and £175,000 for Drogheda. The Minister goes into far more detail. Deputy O'Donnell, obviously, did not listen to the Minister or read his speech. It is quite all right to criticise Fianna Fáil for saying that the Shannon Scheme was a white elephant.

That was a mistake that you made.

Deputy Murphy was not here in time and the rules of procedure would not allow me to repeat myself. He will see it all in the Official Report. I know that air navigation is a very sore point——

With the Irish tax-payer.

——with the Fine Gael Party. We will come to the Irish taxpayer in a second. It would be unfair for me to isolate the Fine Gael Party. Equally responsible for these sins of omission or commission at the time are the Labour Party, such Independents as supported the Government, the Clann na Poblachta Party at the time, Clann na Talmhan—all of them were in it together. There is no point in rehashing in this present atmosphere all these old sins. They sold the transatlantic planes. All right. When they were in a week they came to that decision. We know what happened. We know what the frightful consequences were and how far it delayed us getting back into the international field in such a highly competitive transport project.

We are on the eve of an election and I want to ask two questions of Deputy McGilligan, the former, very able Minister for Industry and Commerce. No doubt, when he is replying he will answer those questions and not be as evasive as he apparently thinks I am. If it should happen and naturally—I suppose I am rather biased—I must add "God forbid" that Fine Gael were returned to office and we took up our papers and saw "Fine Gael to Form New Government" and in brackets "With the aid of Labour, Independents, etc., who are not participating", the question I should like to ask is this: Will this new Fine Gael Government decide to sell our transatlantic fleet of jets? That is the first question for which we will award two marks——

Six million marks.

As a matter of fact, I think my question is rather rhetorical in view of Deputy Lindsay's interruption. The Minister has very lucidly given figures here for the administration of Dublin and Shannon airports. He has given details of the accounts of Aer Rianta and full information in regard to the very substantial trading profits of Aer Lingus. When Deputy Lindsay so glibly interrupts with what the cost is to the Irish taxpayer, how many million marks, as he says, it is going to cost, I should like to remind him and other Deputies that that type of interruption and that type of mentality does not appeal to the people. As a result of these air services we are giving employment in Dublin and Cork and, indeed, all over the country in tourist offices, in hotels and, bringing it to the final analysis, to the agricultural community who provide the produce for these hotels and for the tourists. This is a very large industry——

And ferrying thousands of emigrants.

If we are to be constructive, Sir, Deputy Lindsay should allow me pursue my line of thought. The position is that there are many thousands of families in this country earning their livelihood as a result of the progress made by this country in the international field of air transport. Now that we are on the eve of an election, I want to know, particularly for my own area of Limerick city, what the Fine Gael attitude is. Shannon Airport is the biggest employer in that area. Clare benefits to a very large extent also, probably even to a larger extent than we do. We are thankful for these crumbs which have fallen to us from this airport.

They are expensive crumbs.

There is this consistent mentality of Fine Gael of echoing their leader's viewpoint. Do they not have minds of their own? We know Deputy Dillon's outlook with regard to civil aviation. We know he does not approve of the transatlantic air service. At least, I admire him for his consistency. At least, if he disagrees with it, he is sticking to that. But we are going to hear a masterpiece, from Deputy McGilligan, the former Minister for Industry and Commerce. As I said, in certain respects he was a very efficient one. I am not trying to be rude or insulting in any way. But I say there is a responsibility on a Party which is going to go before the people of telling them what they are going to do in certain respects. If I were over there I could talk about the food subsidies. Why did you not throw that one in?

The Deputy must be running short of material when he is looking for interruptions.

There is a responsibility on the main Opposition Party who are seeking a mandate from the people. We are told they are putting up sufficient candidates to form a Government. I suppose it is a good thing to be ambitious.

We are delighted the Deputy approves.

There is a responsibility on them to tell the people of the country, first, are the transatlantic planes to be sold? They are, are they not?

Does the Deputy want us to be as specific as his leader was on food subsidies?

That is a very simple question. Do you or do you not intend, if you form a Government, to sell these planes? Do you intend again to stab in the back civil aviation in Ireland? Do you intend to bring to an end—and it must be the tendency in your minds, judging from some of the questions I see from leading members of your Party in regard to Shannon Airport looking for ammunition for this fusillade about to be launched by Deputy McGilligan— these developments and to close down the industrial zone in Shannon?

"How definite must our denial of these stupid allegations be?"

They have it off by heart. His Master's Voice; 78 revolutions per minute.

The then Leader of Fianna Fáil in 1957 at Waterford.

In 1948, when it was suggested in my constituency that the transatlantic air service would never see the light of day if a Coalition Government headed by Fine Gael got in, one of their leaders stated at a meeting in my area: "How often must these stupid allegations be denied?"

Quote. Author and source?

Please do not attempt to addle the Ceann Comhairle. No sooner were they back in 1948 than these foolish allegations, which they would not bother to deny, were thrown overboard and at the first Cabinet meeting it was decided that the planes would be sold and the Lockheed factory in Shannon scrapped. When we got back we had to start from scratch again. It has caused me a great deal of anxiety since. These are possibly very embarrassing questions. I am glad the Press have taken very careful note——

The Deputy should not be canvassing publicity.

——that on the debate for the Estimate for Transport and Power the youthful and active Deputy from Limerick put these questions to the former Minister for Industry and Commerce and in his reply the Minister for Industry and Commerce asked Deputy McGilligan at the end of his speech would he not answer Deputy O'Malley—this is what I prophesy—and the Deputy concluded without dealing with the matters in question.

Now they have copy for tomorrow morning.

Now we have the fairy tales of Ireland.

It is grossly unfair to attribute fairy tales to me. I am searching for information as to the state of mind of the biggest Opposition Party in this House. We are now discussing the Estimate for Transport and Power. I want to know what their policy is. It is true for the Taoiseach when he castigated Fine Gael for having no policy on transport and power. All we hear from Fine Gael in this House is: "You did so-and-so on such-and-such a date.""You said so-and-so on such-and-such a date." Then there is that unfortunate trick of taking remarks out of their context. The position is that this responsibility will have to be faced once and for all. The country will not put up with them any longer. There is a nation on the march and they will not be impeded by the obstructionist tactics of the Fine Gael Party.

Will the Deputy discuss the Estimate for Transport and Power?

What am I discussing but the Estimate for Transport and Power?

Let us get away from generalities and discuss the Estimate.

I am not dealing with generalities. I am dealing with civil aviation which I respectfully submit is highly relevant.

The Deputy is in flight.

He is airborne.

The Minister dealt comprehensively with the position at Shannon airport and gave us full information with regard to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited. There is one thing that would want to be cleared up in the minds of quite a few people; indeed, there are people who should appreciate the position better, including leading industrialists who are not very clear with regard to these facilities at Shannon Airport.

It has been explained that the raison d'être of the industrial estate in Shannon Airport is to find compensatory employment, so to speak, because of the anticipated falling off both in revenue and in employment due to the advent of jet aircraft. It was the considered opinion of the experts of the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Transport and Power that a substantial amount of revenue and employment would be lost due to the over-flying of the airport by jets. In order to preserve the economy of the entire area, including Clare and Limerick, the economy of both of which depends very much on the prosperity and the wealth of Shannon Airport, it was decided that this new project would be brought to fruition as soon as possible, that is, the idea of an industrial estate.

There is one point that should be brought home to the minds of industrialists and the public generally. When the Industrial Development Authority, which has a representative on the board of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited, examines applications for loans or grants, the sine qua non is, as the Minister recently stated, that air freight be utilised in the main for the export of the finished goods. It is true that the Shannon Free Airport Development Company has growing pains the same as any other major organisation. Certain raw materials have had to be imported by ship which is quite understandable but that could be twisted around to suit the mentality of those opposed to the whole concept of this industrial port.

Then again it was necessary in some cases to export certain of the finished products of two of the factories by ship and, as will be seen from a statement by the management concerned, with the variation in the charges for air transport cargo they are very happy to say they are now in a position economically to export all their finished products from the factory. This is a tremendous development at Shannon in the industrial zone and I would genuinely appeal to all members of the House to co-operate in not making, or attempting to make it, at any time a political cockshot.

Nobody is trying to do that.

I have not made the allegation that such is the case. I have appealed to all sides of the House not to treat it politically no matter who is in power because it means so much to the young people of this country.

They are nearly all gone.

Where are they?

(Interruptions.)

That kind of clap-trap will not cut any ice with anyone. Look at the gleeful way Deputy McGilligan smirks as he gets his tongue around the figure of 50,000 gone.

Two hundred thousand.

There was never any emigration under the Coalition Government in their periods of office?

You were going to bring back the emigrants.

Deputy O'Malley should be allowed to speak without interruption.

There was never any emigration in this country from 1948 to 1951 and from 1954 to March, 1957? No one left the country?

I do not think emigration arises relevantly on this.

With all due respect, I am dealing with the development of the industrial zone in Shannon and if I were allowed to develop my line of argument I would point out it is a deterrent to emigration.

It is a pretty poor one in the light of the emigration position.

The Deputy has plenty of food for thought but I hope Deputy McGilligan is using his pencil to give me the answers to my questions. Another point is that there is no question of another area of the country losing. On the question of employment I would appeal to all members of the House to co-operate in any way they can, particularly those who go on delegations abroad, using their influence to propagate the advantages of Shannon. There are young people there learning trades. There are people of all political persuasions. They do not ask your politics when you apply there.

Most of the time the position in Shannon is that the number of industries vetted annually is on the increase. There is often a suggestion that people who come with proposals to set up in Shannon have the decisions held up for a considerable time. We know perfectly well that "chancers" have come to this country. They are here now. There are probably proposals before the Industrial Development Company by these "chancers." And some "chancers" got money in the past. That is the risk we have to take and that is the reason the Industrial Development Company and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company must be careful in their inquiries and careful in arriving at a decision, as to whether an industry will be set up in the area with their approval.

Therefore, Sir, the main point I stress is this, that other areas in Wexford, Galway or Drogheda are not suffering if a new industry is starting in Shannon. It is primarily for the encouragement of air freight, and that position should be put up to people who may have any doubts about it. The Minister in his recent speech at the Rippen factory in Shannon referred to the position, and the primary duty that has developed concerning air freight. No other county or city in the country can be at a loss if an industry goes to Shannon.

A question the Minister might be good enough to answer when he is replying is: There have been certain changes in the Shannon-Dublin daily plane services. They are at an hour which is completely unsuitable for people who want to travel from Limerick to Dublin and back. It may be that there are good reasons for this; it may be that it is necessary to facilitate the transatlantic travellers but the time is completely unacceptable for the people in the south.

The Minister did not give us any information—perhaps he is not in a position to do so—as to what is the anticipated programme of Aerlínte with regard to the purchase of future aircraft. I know they have ordered planes for a time ahead but the Minister did not refer to it and, with the substantial increase in freight and the number of passengers, I think that we will have to make substantial purchases of new aircraft in the very near future. It is not for an ordinary layman like me to attempt to tell the very efficient board of directors of Aerlínte their business but it is of interest to hear what is envisaged.

Another point that the Minister might give consideration to is this: he did deal in his speech with the landing of Irish planes in different areas in Britain. I wonder if it would be possible for the Minister for Transport and Power to propagate among the international users of airlines the idea of seeing in Shannon airport a terminal point for a transatlantic flight— in other words that all the transatlantic aircraft should have Shannon as their permanent landing point and then ferry the passengers to London, Paris, Rome and other airports by smaller jets or maybe piston aircraft.

The obvious answer is: "why ask someone to land at Shannon and delay a considerable time?" Well now the position as everyone knows is that the conditions at London airport are completely untenable. The congestion is appalling. The plans which have been made for future development, we read in an article in the Sunday Times three or four weeks ago, are now out of date and it is not possible to extend the facilities in Gatwick. The position in the London area is that they are faced with a serious crisis which is insoluble for a period of at least ten years. It would be a good deal for this country if it were feasible to point out (a) that we have the facilities in Shannon Airport and (b) that the landing charges —one of the big bones of contention is the increase in passenger rates on transatlantic aircraft—are reasonable. We are one of the most economical airports in the world from the point of view of landing charges. That is a bait which we could hold out.

We could point out that we have the facilities and capacity to handle these aircraft, reasonable landing charges, accommodation in the area for overnight passengers and adequate facilities to ferry the passengers to parts of Britain and parts of Europe. I think that the suggestion is worthy of consideration because in the next two years London will have to be closed to a very high percentage of the traffic which would in the ordinary course of events be catered for there. I see a tremendous opportunity for this country if we try to sell this idea to the other airlines. Perhaps there are other reasons or perhaps the British have other ideas, that they are not going to have landings in Shannon but I do not think that they will have any option because it will be a very long time before adequate airports are available in Britain to serve this need.

I was rather surprised on Saturday morning to find in my post a rather bulky document from the Department of Transport and Power setting out the many functions of that office because in the course of statements made by the Minister in the Dáil I, and a number of other Deputies, had assumed that this individual had little or no function. The House will recall that on a number of occasions when I addressed Parliamentary Questions to the Minister for Transport and Power the Chair disallowed these Questions on the ground that the Minister had no functions in the matters to which the Questions referred. The Questions related to matters dealt with by C.I.E., the E.S.B. and other State-sponsored bodies. Now we find in the Minister's memorandum a statement setting out the functions of his office. That suggests that the Minister had responsibility for the matters involved in my Question and that the Chair erred in disallowing those Questions. Possibly, as I alleged in the Dáil previously, there is connivance between the Chair and the Minister.

I will not allow that statement. The Deputy will withdraw it without reservation.

In order to comply with the regulations——

The Deputy will have no qualifications. Either he withdraws it or he does not.

I withdraw the statement but I am entitled——

The Deputy will have no reservation. Does he withdraw the statement?

I withdraw the statement in order to satisfy you.

That is another proviso.

This is a very important matter because in the opening paragraph of the Minister's statement to-day he asks for almost £4 million out of public funds to discharge the responsibilities of his office. That is a formidable figure and I maintain that Deputies in this House should get more information on expenditure of that magnitude than they have been getting since the Minister began to hide behind regulations, some of them artificial, in order to evade giving necessary information to the House.

In the course of this memorandum the Minister states that the Department of Transport and Power was established to take over the functions previously held by the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to such matters as transport, fuel and power and he then goes on to say that a significant part of the work is concerned with the State-sponsored bodies for which the Minister has overall responsibility. He states he has overall responsibility. That being so, I believe we Deputies are entitled to address questions on these responsibilities and to get proper answers. We have been denied that. I feel sure the Chair would be only too pleased to avail of the opportunity to get me to resume my seat were I to ask such questions in the ordinary way. However, on this debate on the Estimate, we are entitled to ask why the Minister is evading his responsibilities on questions put to him on matters for which his Department is responsible.

On June 8th last I asked what, in my opinion, was a very important Question relative to C.I.E. employees in the constituency I represent. We all know what happened in West Cork due to the Minister's activities and those of the Board of C.I.E. during the past twelve months. About 200 men have become redundant and consequently a number of them had to move out to some other district to find employment with C.I.E. or else to emigrate. In a number of special cases there were people who, for domestic reasons, could not leave their district and I endeavoured to get some information in these particular cases. However, according to the Ceann Comhairle, that was not a function of the Minister and my Question was disallowed.

At that time I asked the Minister if he was aware that workers transferred to C.I.E. in another part of the county required free travel between their homes and places of employment. I also asked him if he would allow workers of 55 years of age or with 33 years' continuous service to retire on pension. I thought these Questions were very important and I am asking the Minister now during the debate on the Estimate for his Department, to answer those questions. Dealing generally with the work of this Department, we had a long discussion on some of its activities some months ago. It concerned the activities of the Minister, through the Board of C.I.E., ending in the closing down of a number of railways, particularly the complete railway system in my constituency. At that time we charged the Minister and C.I.E. with adopting a very dictatorial attitude. I think I am quite right in repeating that charge to-day.

I think the Deputy must know that there is an action pending in the courts in respect of C.I.E.'s action in that matter. Therefore it may not be discussed here.

The matter might be referred to in a general way.

It may not be discussed in a general way, because if we deal with it at all we are impinging on the activities of the court. We may not discuss an action before the court because it may prejudice the fair hearing of it. It may not be done.

We had a review of the policy of C.I.E. during the past year particularly in relation to Cork county. That situation was brought about by a board set up two years ago and according to the Chairman of that Board, Mr. Andrews, he has no knowledge of public transport in this country. That is a very peculiar statement coming from a man placed in charge of public transport. I shall not hold up the House with long quotations, as Deputy O'Malley did, but I would repeat what Mr. Andrews said. In 1959, and again in 1960, he pointed out that he was under a great handicap in dealing with public transport since he knew nothing about it. He said his mind was in a flux. Surely it was out of place for the Minister to put in charge of public transport in this country a man who, on his own admission, knows nothing about public transport? Mr. Andrews said that his mind was in a flux and that he did not know how to tackle the problem. These are Mr. Andrew's own words. He said that at a function in Dublin. This man was placed in charge of C.I.E. by the Minister. I believe he was the most unsuitable type of man to put in that post and I believe that his attitude and the dictatorial manner in which he dealt with matters referred to him would not be allowed in Eastern European countries today. I further assert that the manner in which the present Minister and the State-sponsored bodies under his control operate would fit in better with the system of public administration in Communist countries than with that of a democratic country such as ours. It is a completely undemocratic set up.

The Minister was asked to receive a number of deputations relative to what we regarded, and what was regarded by many public bodies such as Cork Corporation, Cork County Council and Cork County Committee of Agriculture, as very important questions. The Minister set himself up as a little Hitler or a Mussolini and said that he would not waste his time in meeting such deputations. I think such an attitude is completely out of place in a Minister who is responsible for the spending of almost £4,000,000 of public taxation. I cannot be sufficiently vehement in voicing my protest in this matter because in doing so I am voicing the protests of the people of West Cork whom I have the honour to represent.

We pointed out to the Minister that in the course of the debate on the Transport Act of 1958 the present Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, gave certain assurances to this House and, on the 8th May, 1958, he gave a very definite assurance that should any question arise regarding the closure of railways he or the Board of C.I.E. would meet any deputation that might wish to discuss such matters with him. That was a definite guarantee given to the House and quoted by a number of Deputies some months ago when the closing of railway lines was being debated. The present Taoiseach did not honour that undertaking although he could not deny that it was given. The Minister went down to Cork and in the course of an address there he made a number of ridiculous statements which he found it very difficult to withdraw subsequently but he kept to his dictatorial attitude that he was not going to give way and that he was not going to receive deputations.

Every Deputy knows that from time to time the occasion arises where Deputies representative of public authorities and local organisations have to come to Dublin to discuss matters of common interest with Ministers. I think it can be said that usually all these deputations are received in a friendly and courteous manner. The Ministers of the present Government, with the exception of our wizard, the Minister for Transport and Power, have received numerous deputations during their term of office and the same can be said of the inter-Party Government. That is as it should be. That is the democratic way of doing business in this country but Deputy Childers is such a know-all that he does not want to get the point of view of anybody. He puts little or no value on the viewpoint of the Cork County Council and other such organisations. I feel that the Minister's attitude on this matter should change and I was not surprised to find that the Minister is now about to take flight and to move away from the constituency of Longford-Westmeath. He is flying to Monaghan.

That matter does not arise.

I am quite entitled to comment on the dictatorial attitude of the Minister and his Department.

The constituency for which the Minister stands does not arise on this Vote.

Is it a coincidence that the Minister's dictatorial attitude is not acceptable to the people of his own constituency or to the people of the rest of the country?

The Deputy will cease on that line of argument.

The Deputy's contemptible abuse of me does not bother me but I think he should come back to the debate.

My main reason for contributing to this debate is to voice my protest and the protest of the people I represent against the Minister's attitude. I believe that his attitude is that of a dictator and that is the reason why he approves of your attitude on questions.

The Deputy will leave the Chair out of this discussion. He has referred to it on several occasions and I have borne with it. I will not bear with it any longer. The Chair has acted towards the Minister for Transport and Power as it has acted towards every other Minister and it will continue to do so.

I am saying——

The Deputy will not challenge my statement.

I am not challenging your statement but on this question of parliamentary information——

The Deputy is proceeding to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The Deputy will not continue to do that. He will not discuss any ruling of the Chair on this Estimate.

A number of questions have been placed on the Order Paper addressed to the Minister for Transport and Power and dealing with the activities of these State-sponsored bodies. Side by side with them have been questions dealing with C.I.E. and a number of these have been disallowed.

The Deputy is proceeding to discuss the ruling of the Chair.

I was pointing out——

The Deputy will either leave that line or resume his seat.

Before the interruption I was dealing with the Minister's refusal to meet deputations. I also mentioned that he dishonoured an undertaking given by the man who is now Prime Minister of this country that these deputations would be received. What has happened in the meantime? These railways have been closed down and 210 workers have been thrown out of employment. Transport in West Cork has been disrupted and traffic on the roads is being impeded by C.I.E. lorries and trailers. It is almost impossible to travel on the roads nowadays. Have we anything to be thankful to the Minister for? I think we have not and it is my duty as a Deputy from that area to tell the Minister so.

Everybody is anxious to see that C.I.E. should become an economic unit. Every Minister and Deputy is unanimous in their desire that C.I.E. should pay its way. We believe that when the Transport Act was passed and subsidies to the extent of £1? million yearly were agreed by this House no action such as was taken in the case of the West Cork Railway should have been taken until the year 1964.

I told the Deputy he may not discuss the West Cork Railway.

If you were from West Cork you would discuss it. There is a West Cork Deputy sitting behind me. When we approached the General Manager of C.I.E.——

The Deputy appreciates surely that when a case is taken before the courts it must not be discussed in this House. He knows there is a case in the courts and it is clearly disrespect for the courts to discuss a matter which is before them for consideration and decision.

On a point of order. The matter before the courts is a question as to the validity of the Board's action.

The results that flow from that action are most assuredly matters which should and could be discussed here.

No. The matter is to test the validity of the Board's action in relation to the closing of the West Cork Railway. That matter cannot be discussed in this House without impinging on an issue that will come before the courts for decision and, therefore, I cannot allow it to be discussed.

The Minister said that, in order to bring about a situation whereby C.I.E. would be able to meet its commitments, without any subvention from the Exchequer, it was necessary to take certain action and the best line of action was to close uneconomic railways. According to the Minister's statement, we have a number of uneconomic lines in the country, in the opinion of the Board of C.I.E. Now C.I.E. made a peculiar decision. They decided it was not necessary to close all the uneconomic lines. They decided that, if they closed a certain mileage, that would suffice and they would be able to pay their way. Putting their decision into practice they decided to close down some railways, which they assert are uneconomic, and to allow other railways to continue, even though they were equally positive that they are uneconomic as well. People are entitled to be treated with equity and it is the responsibility of State-sponsored bodies, bodies which enjoy very sheltered positions, to deal equitably with all. Discrimination against certain areas is not in accordance with the Constitution. To comply with your wishes, A Cheann Comhairle, I will not deal further at this stage with the matter.

They are not my wishes at all.

You do not like to have the matter mentioned too often.

It is a question of the conventions, rules and long-established precedents of this House.

That is a point on which I was trying to get information at the outset. I was wondering why the convention allows certain questions to be addressed to the Minister and disallows other questions, even though they are substantially the same.

I warned the Deputy before. He does not know whether he is criticising the Ceann Comhairle or the Minister.

Leaving C.I.E. for a moment, I should like the Minister to address himself to the matter of special charges in relation to rural electrification. These special charges are fixed in a number of areas. Those affected by them are in the main those living in remote and isolated areas where the Board have to incur additional expense in connecting them up. I believe we should have a national charge where payment for E.S.B. current is concerned. It is unfair to ask the householder to pay a special charge, which often exceeds the statutory charge, just because he lives in a remote area. The charge should be a general one. People who live in out-of-the-way places should not have the additional burden of special charges placed on them so that they can avail of a scheme which was meant to benefit every householder in the country. I ask the Minister to address himself to that matter with a view to making current available in remote areas at the same price as current is made available in areas more centrally located.

Another matter I wish to raise is in connection with marine transport. In seaside resorts boating parties are arranged to give tourists an opportunity of visiting scenic coastal points. Because of the restrictions imposed by the Department it is now becoming impossible to run these boating trips. The biggest fishing boat could take 150 passengers quite safely but it is not allowed to take more than 12 unless a special licence is obtained. That means extra expense. There should be some relaxation of these regulations. It is the responsibility of the Minister and his Department to ensure that the boats are seaworthy and to ensure the safety of the passengers, but the regulations are altogether too stringent.

I know the Minister's attitude with regard to meeting deputations and I think it would be a waste of time for me to suggest that he should meet a deputation on this matter from the areas concerned. During the next few months, while he continues as Minister, he might think over the matter. Deputy Moloney laughs. Possibly he expects to succeed. I have no hard feelings towards the Minister but I think he should get it firmly into his mind that rural Deputies are legitimately entitled to the information for which they ask and he should not put it into the mouths of other people to disallow questions on his behalf.

The Deputy has, by implication, indicated that the Minister indicates to the Chair what attitude he should adopt in respect to questions.

I understand that is so, sir.

That is not the position. The Chair decides definitely on his own and the Minister neither directly nor indirectly endeavours to influence the Chair in respect to questions.

It was a revelation to me to learn that the Minister had some responsibility for his Department. I shall not go on the lines of a former speaker, Deputy M.P. Murphy, but I must support him in the suggestion that we have continuously asked the Minister questions relating to various aspects of transport and power and have consistently got the answer from him that he had no function in the matter. Apart from that, I have to find fault with the Minister in that when he did answer questions, he set riddles.

In this Vote the Minister is looking for £3,964,510. Thank God, I went to a Christian Brothers' school and they did not believe in the psychological approach to the child. We were taught the decimal system and the French metric system and the English system of weights. But for that, I would not be able to understand the Minister's brief. In one part of his brief the Minister mentions that the new industrial estate is already providing about 70 tons of air freight a month. That is marvellous. He goes on to say at the end of his brief:

Factories providing goods of high value in relation to volume, where speed of delivery is an important element, are in a position to deliver goods by air to any part of the world within a few days. Freight traffic has been constantly increasing and it is estimated that by 1965 over 5 million kilogrammes of air freight will be generated annually by the factory operations now established or planned at Shannon.

He could have made it many more millions in milligrammes. On page 36 he speaks in kilogrammes and on page 25 he speaks in tons. These are deceiving figures. The Minister is trying to fool the people with these figures. The commodities being manufactured at the airport are radios, floor maintenance machinery, knitted jersey fabrics and fully fashioned garments, wire gauze, precision threaded fasteners and miniature capacitors and pianos. I say "good luck" to the Shannon industrial estate but ordinary people like myself cannot help asking why these factories were not built in Limerick city. It would not have cost a great deal to transport the products to the airport.

Coming from the constituency of Waterford I could not but be amazed when listening to the figures given by the Minister. The Minister must have some of the courage that Deputy Haughey says we must have. On page 33 of the Minister's speech we are told that Aerlinte financial results for the twelve months ended 31st March, 1960, showed that there was an operating loss of £589,080 for the year, compared with an operating loss of £788,599 for the eleven months ended 31st March, 1959; that the accounts for the six months ended 30th September, 1960, showed an operating surplus of £143,000 compared with a deficit of £286,000 in the same period of 1959; that the provisional accounts for the year 1960/61 show a probable deficit of the order of £80,000. In the context of those large figures £80,000 looks a mere bagatelle, a small bet that one would put on a horse in the 3 o'clock race.

I shall now turn to my constituency, in particular, to Tramore. No matter what we did to give the Fianna Fáil Taoiseach a chance to rehabilitate himself in carrying out the undertaking that he gave when he piloted the 1958 Transport Bill through this House, he ran out on it. Now the Minister for Transport and Power is doing the running out for him, dodging it instead of bravely saying, as he could have said, to the Chairman and the Managing Director of C.I.E. that they should meet the persons concerned on account of the Taoiseach's undertaking. I protested in this House on several occasions. I was told the Minister had no function in the matter. The Minister now tells us that he is responsible for C.I.E. He comes here looking for money for C.I.E. Only for that, I suppose he would duck his head again.

I was one of the deputation received by C.I.E. but we were not allowed to discuss the position of the railway. We had to take it as a fait accompli that the railway was gone. Nothing that we could say would convince either C.I.E. or the Minister. The Minister hid behind his statement that he had no responsibility in the matter. I pointed out to him in the House that his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, had acted on the occasion of the bus strike. I was ruled out of order in referring to that subject at a time when the negotiations were proceeding. I can refer to it now that the strike is over.

When the bus drivers were on strike, the spirit of William Martin Murphy was walking in Kingsbridge and there was a lock-out of the bus drivers. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, as was only right and proper, called representatives of the bus drivers to his office to discuss this matter. I protested to the Minister for Transport and power that when the Minister for Industry and Commerce could bring the Chairman of C.I.E. to his office to discuss a matter concerning C.I.E. that he surely could ask the Chairman of C.I.E. to come to his office to meet a deputation from Waterford City and Tramore and hear the case they had to make. The Minister would not do that.

I could see that the Minister's mind was made up and that the Taoiseach's mind was made up. In the bitterest fashion the Taoiseach came in here to defend this. He would not give Parliamentary time when we asked for the Bill, even before there was a line torn up in Tramore, According to the Irish Times of December 8th, 1960, the Taoiseach said: “If the House wanted to discuss a motion of that kind in Government time, Deputies should frame a motion seeking amendment of the transport legislation.” He knew the time was running out and he was fighting a delaying action to cover up for the Minister. I do not know what they wanted to cover up.

They just wanted to destroy this little railway line which we were first told was losing £3,000 a year and, then, that it was losing £9,000 a year. C.I.E. could not bear the burden of £9,000 a year. It would be a terrible thing. Mr. Andrews could never make any progress if he could not get rid of this £9,000. The Minister or the Department of Transport and Power could make no progress if they could not get rid of this £9,000. But it was all right for Aerlínte to lose £700,000. Forty thousand or fifty thousand terminal passengers come to Shannon. Good luck to them. I do not want Shannon to be closed. I think it is a good idea that this House is brave enough to put up the money for it. But the half a million of my constituents and people from the neighbouring counties who used the Waterford-Tramore line in 1959 were entitled to consideration. But they did not get it, all for the sake of this miserable £9,000.

They are very happy.

They are not very happy. I hope the Minister will come to Waterford in the coming general election to address my constituents on behalf of Fianna Fáil. He will see the happy meeting he will have.

I should be delighted to. Officials of the Deputy's city have already praised the new service.

I shall deal with this matter the Minister is trying to twist. Last Saturday, in company with my colleague Deputy Kenneally and the Mayor of Waterford, I was on a deputation to the area manager of C.I.E., Mr. O'Neill, to discuss the fares and this "adequate service" the Minister promised. We did admit to him that the busmen were doing the best they could. What I should like to know is how much is that costing. The Minister has to keep the buses, and I shall see to it he will keep the buses and will not have a crowd of people standing waiting for buses—that he will have to give this "adequate service."

As the Minister interrupted me, I shall tell the Minister what we went to see the area manager about. It was the question of the fares from Waterford to Tramore. One of the Minister's wreckers went and smashed up the Tramore railway the week previous to that. Up to that time an adult could get to Tramore from Waterford for 1/9d. and a child could get there for 11d. They could bring a pram out to Tramore with them for 11d. They now have to pay 2/6d. for an adult, 1/3d. for a child and 3/- for the pram. They are told that if they bring along a folding pram, it will be all right. Of course, the working man's wife will have no trouble buying another pram for the few days she will spend in Tramore!

The Minister may say that only a few days are involved and that this is the service we should give. The Minister can quote any figures he likes, but I can tell him that these family parties are no longer going to Tramore in the numbers they used to go. The Minister said that officials are praising the service. As I told the Minister, I was on that deputation of three and any praise we had was for the men trying to run the bus service. They are doing the best they can.

You saw fit to bear with Deputy M.P. Murphy, Sir, when he was so annoyed about not receiving answers to Parliamentary Questions. But look at my position, even when I do receive answers to Parliamentary Questions. On 18th May, 1961, as reported at Column 696, Volume 189, Official Report, I asked the Minister for Transport and Power:

.... if he is aware that the bus service between Waterford and Tramore is inadequate; and, if so, what action he proposes to take.

I want you, Sir, to mark that word "inadequate" because when the Ministher was trying to prove the blessing it would be for the people of Waterford and Tramore to have this railway wrecked, he said he would replace it with an "adequate service."

In reply to my question the Minister said:

I am not clear as to whether the Deputy is referring to the contract bus service which he claimed in this House on 16th February (Official Report, Volume 186, Column 669) would take £2,000 to £3,000 a year from the coffers of C.I.E. or to the C.I.E. service which on the same occasion he exhorted Waterford people not to use. I am not aware of any inadequacy in the service provided by C.I.E.

The Minister made his wisecracks about the contract bus service. As far as I know, the contract bus service is an adequate service and a cheap service. Any worker who has made that contract can travel from Tramore to Waterford, go to his lunch and come back again, and save £15 a year. That is no bagatelle for a workman.

The Minister said he was not aware of any inadequacy in the service provided by C.I.E. The Official Report then goes on:

Mr. T. Lynch: The Minister said he would provide an adequate service. The service provided by C.I.E. is not adequate to convey the people to Tramore. Sixty-five people had to wait at the Manor Street cross from 1.45 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. last Thursday. Some of them did not get to Tramore at all. Where were the 20 buses C.I.E. promised us.

Mr. Childers: C.I.E. have received only one complaint——

Mr. T. Lynch: Only one complaint?

Mr. Childers: Yes, in regard to inadequate service on the 11th instant, Ascension Thursday, the day to which the Deputy refers. On that day, in spite of the Deputy's propaganda, for some extraordinary reason a vastly greater number of persons wanted to travel by bus than travelled by rail on the same day the previous year. C.I.E. have occasionally to face difficulties of that kind. They must go on the basis of logs in previous years and make whatever adjustment they think necessary, having regard to the special circumstances. This year, for the above reason they grossly underestimated the traffic. There was some delay but it was not as excessive as the Deputy has stated.

It was as excessive as the Deputy stated and the Minister was told that by my colleague. The Minister knew when he said to me that he was not aware of any inadequacy in the service that the service was inadequate that day. The Minister comes along with this clap-trap now that more people wanted to travel by his wonderful bus service on that day. That was the finest and the sunniest day that came for two years. That is why the people had to go by bus. Thanks to the Minister the unfortunate working people of Waterford have no other way of getting to Tramore unless they walk.

This was a disgraceful act. It was an act that is regretted by many fine servants of C.I.E. I will give Mr. Andrews some credit for appointing area managers. They are active men and are dedicated to their job. I am sure if he had appointed an area manager there and if he had left the Tramore line and said to the area manager: "See what you can do with that for a year," as we suggested, it would have been made pay. They would not do that. They proceeded to take up the Tramore railway line. In the most spiteful and venomous manner possible the Tramore railway was torn up——

The Deputy is tearing up his nervous system.

The Deputy is not tearing up his nervous system. The Deputy opposite ought to go down and speak to the people in Cork. He is sent in here as the chief interrupter of Fianna Fáil, one of the conscripts ordered by Deputy Donnchadh Ó Briain, the Parliamentary Secretary, to come in here and do this stunt. When the sands were running out and when the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, and the Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, were engaging in their delaying actions in this House, Deputy Tom Kyne, who is my colleague in Waterford, and myself approached our colleagues in Fianna Fáil and gave them the opportunity of joining us in a matter that I will discuss now. Our colleagues declined but Deputy Tom Kyne moved a resolution at the Waterford County Council in the following terms:

That the Council, in their estimate of expenses for the coming year, provide a sum of £1,000 for payment to Córas Iompair Éireann to be applied, as far as may be required, towards any deficiency in the coming year in the expense of the operation of the Waterford and Tramore Railway Line and that if necessary the sanction of the Minister for Local Government for the raising and paying of such sum be obtained.

That was brought before the Waterford County Council and the Waterford Corporation. We sent a joint telegram to Mr. Andrews and pointed out we were doing this to relieve him of the awful impost of this £3,000 that was weighing him down. Mr. Andrews sent Deputy Kyne and myself a letter to say it would be impossible, that the line had to go. I will show the venomous and spiteful way this was carried out. The Waterford and Tramore Railway line was closed at 2 o'clock on Saturday and on Monday morning, in torrents of rain, the C.I.E. permanent way gang went down and destroyed the metal bridge and started to take up the line. They went at that with the greatest of despatch, tore up the line and destroyed the platforms. There is now some kind of an excavator at the Sheep's Bridge end to ensure they will destroy the whole railway in case the courts might do their stuff and that the Minister might have to put the line back again. That is one of the things about which my constituents feel strongly and about which the Minister's supporters feel strongly, too, the disgraceful way it was done.

What difference would it make to C.I.E. if they had given the new area manager an opportunity of making the line pay; then, after a year, if the area manager did not make it pay, neither I nor anybody else would have much argument. The majority of the people down there who were talking about this know the Tramore railway line. They know that the Tramore railway line under the old régime and in the old time was a great paying concern. This small line made itself pay by reducing the fares. When they wanted to make a lot of money they reduced the fares.

I know times have changed and I do not want the Minister to jump the gun on me in this respect. However, the fares could have been changed and when the summer season started if they had returned to the old excursion fares in proportion to the rising costings, I have no hesitation in saying that the line would be made pay. But no, they would not listen to that. People who had experience of transport in other places but who had no experience of transport on this small line made the decision. With all due respect to the General Manager of C.I.E. he did not have such a lot of experience of transport up to the time he wrecked this line.

I want to get back to the point I was making in regard to the Minister's manner of answering questions. The Minister said on the 18th May, 1961, that he was not aware of any inadequacy in the service provided by C.I.E.; further down he did admit inadequacy. Then I used an unparliamentary word which was a true description of what the Minister said. I withdrew that because the Ceann Comhairle asked me to withdraw it. I withdrew it only because it was unparliamentary.

I want to repeat again what the Minister said: The numbers of persons travelling by rail in the month of April, 1960, were just over 16,000. Travelling by C.I.E. alone by road in 1961, they were just over 17,000.

That was the difference; that Thursday was the finest day that came but only 17,000 travelled. I have kept a close watch on what happens in regard to roads through the wrecking of railways and I have discovered that, in respect of other constituencies, enormous road grants had to be given to make the roads good. Deputy O'Donnell mentioned this. Money which should have gone elsewhere was used to make the roads good for the buses of C.I.E., for the extra traffic C.I.E. would be putting on the roads. This was a free way of creating a permanent way for C.I.E., by stuffing the cost down the taxpayers' necks. In Donegal it will run to £375,000 in five years. I do not think we have got 2d. yet in Waterford. I know that the road is much longer in Donegal but I know that there are some frightful bottlenecks on this road and I am afraid for what might happen in the coming year.

The Minister mentioned here the increase in harbour grants. He mentioned many activities going on in several ports but I would draw the Minister's attention to the fact that last year we collected £50,000 roughly in harbour dues in the port of Waterford and ports that do not collect anything like that are to get harbour grants far in excess of the Waterford grant. I read in the newspapers the other day that there would be a delay in the taking over of the wharf at the north side by the Waterford Commissioners who had agreed to pay C.I.E. so much for it some time ago. The delay was due to the fact that it would take a year and a half to put a Bill through the House here. That statement was made by the general manager of C.I.E. I think the man who was able to wreck the Tramore railway, get the whole business going from 2 o'clock on Saturday evening until 8 o'clock on Monday morning, could show more activity than that.

I have something to say of the manner in which harbours are administered. I was a member of the Waterford Harbour Commissioners in 1947 when a Bill was sent there that was to become the Harbours Act of the country —a new Harbours Act that was coming before the Dáil. That Harbours Act actually put the Minister in control. The Waterford Harbour Commissioners and their general manager are a very competent body; so are the people in Cork and Dublin and I think it was only a kind of justification for Parkinson's Law that we passed these Acts to put these harbours under the control of the Minister for Transport and Power here in Dublin so that even anything that is not important must come up for sanction to the Minister. Last month when I was at a meeting of the Waterford Harbour Commissioners, they agreed to give 10 guineas as a subscription to some very deserving old seamen's charity but, of course, it was subject to the sanction of the Minister. These things are ridiculous. The sooner people down the country or the people here in Dublin on the Dublin Harbour Commissioners are put in charge of their harbours the better it will be.

Constituents of mine have complained to me about the Gestapo sent around by C.I.E. to sit upon the benches at cattle marts and fairs, and go into bars and such places, to find out if any farmer is carrying home a lamb or something for his neighbour. I think that is unworthy of a national undertaking.

In regard to the building of ships, Irish Shipping has on order two further deep sea cargo vessels of 14,700 tons and of 15,000 tons dead-weight which will bring the dead-weight tonnage of the company to 177,000 tons. My opinion is that these two ships could not be unloaded or berthed in any port of the country except in Dublin. If we are to go into the deep sea charter business, that may be very well but, in the event of a war breaking out, it would mean the centralisation of everything in Dublin if we are to have everything unloaded in Dublin.

I would point out to the Minister that during the term of office of Deputy Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce he opened a jetty in Waterford and announced to us that night at the dinner afterwards that Irish Shipping was to build 10,000 tonners. The chairman of the Waterford Chamber of Commerce and the Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners at the time, Mr. Martin Breen, and myself who happened to be the Mayor of Waterford then, pointed out to the Minister that none of these ships would ever tie up at the dock he had opened that day and the Minister took cognisance of that. This is what I want the present Minister for Transport and power to recognise—his predecessor took cognisance of that and the specifications of four of the ships were adjusted so that they could come into the port of Waterford or the ports of Limerick or Cork. I commend the former Minister for Industry and Commerce for having done that. That is what a Minister of State should do. That is what the present Minister for Transport and Power should have done when the approaches were made to him. But he would not do it.

We find this further in the Minister's speech:

"Irish harbour facilities have been considerably modernised since the war to permit the speedy handling of goods. Among works carried out are a large dry dock and two modern warehouses at Dublin, quay reconstructed at Cork, reconstruction of dock and river deepening at Limerick, quay reconstruction and transit sheds at Waterford."

I have nothing to say to any of these. These are all ports that are earning money. Then we come to "new piers or wharfs at Fenit, Killybegs, Rathmullen, Sligo and Arklow." When the Minister cannot afford to lose £9,900 a year on the Tramore Railway, I think he should not be constructing piers where nobody wants to send ships or harbours where there is no prospective trade. I saw recently where a pier was put up at a place from which a certain product was being shipped—potatoes. You would swear that the potatoes were worth £10 each. An expensive new pier had to be put up to ship a few loads of potatoes.

There is a scheme before the Minister at the moment for the further deepening of Waterford Harbour. This is not a mud bank. This is what is called hard bar and if that is taken away the harbour will not need any maintenance. This is not one of those sandy or muddy places. It is a place where, if this cutting is made, Waterford could take ships of up to 15,000 tons.

We have British Railways running a service between Fishguard and Waterford. That service is doing well I am glad to say. There are no passengers on it now, because British Railways have taken out all the passenger cabins in order to carry cars and containers. That is all to the good, but there is still a demand for a passenger service on that route. If the Minister is not going into the business himself, I think he should ask his counterpart in Britain to provide a passenger service in the future.

I see the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is now substituting for the Minister for Transport and Power. That reminds me of another occasion when he sat in for the same Minister —during the discussion on the C.I.E. accounts. In that debate I asked the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to take a note of what I had to say and to bring it to the attention of the Minister for Transport and Power and ask him what he was going to do about it. It had to do with the supposed adequate services that were to replace the Tramore Railway. I said this, as reported at Column 272, Volume 187 of the Official Report:

There are two employees of C.I.E. who live in Tramore, not actually working on the Tramore section of C.I.E. but at Waterford-North. They travelled in each morning, on a privileged ticket that railmen get, to their work and they paid 9/9 a month for the ticket. Now, with the Minister's magnificent "adequate service", they will pay 11/9 a week. These men will never have income tax worries or P.A.Y.E. worries. One of them is married and has four children and he takes home £6 13s. a week from C.I.E. The other man has twice as many children and he takes home £6 18s. a week. His travel bill comes to £2 7s. a month— it used to be 9/9d. a month.

What has the Minister for Transport and Power to say now about his "adequate service"? He is taking the bread out of the children's mouths. He should see to it that the privileged tickets these men enjoyed should be given to them in respect of travel in the bus service C.I.E. are now running from Tramore.

I have a few more questions for the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance announced to the House recently that he was going to build a new office for the Social Welfare Department which would accordingly vacate the offices they are in at the present time in Arus Mhic Dhiarmada. The Busarus is in the neighbourhood. The Parliamentary Secretary said in passing that C.I.E. were to get the offices now occupied by the Social Welfare Department. Would the Minister tell us if C.I.E. are getting a present of those offices? If C.I.E. are not getting the offices as a present, what are they to pay for them? If they are not buying them, will they rent them and what rent will they pay?

Perhaps C.I.E. will claim they built those offices originally. Did C.I.E pay for them or were they charged on the Central Fund? I would not be surprised if C.I.E. were getting them for nothing because that is the way transport companies appear to be working in this modern age. The old railway companies had to build their own station houses, their offices and loading banks, but the modern "boyos" with the aeroplanes have got the various countries to put up the airports for them and get the taxpayers of the various countries to subsidise the maintenance of those airports.

I had a great love for C.I.E. as a company and for its bus services and for everything C.I.E. did. At one time I thought they were making a great struggle—a good show. They have some very fine people working for them. The bus drivers here are a credit to any service. They perform miracles every day in driving through what I would describe as the wildest traffic in the whole world. At the same time I have no love for C.I.E. now. No man from the city I come from or from my constituency could feel any other way. I want to make sure that this goes down on the record of the House—that it was not a question of taking up a railway, it was not a question of taking away this small service, as the Taoiseach called it. He said it was not nationally important. It was the way in which it was done, with venemous spite. That is what I have against C.I.E. They would not listen to anybody. They had their minds made up that they would tear up that railway and that no one would stop them and they did it in a vicious way. They closed the railway at 2 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon and they tore down the bridges in the rain at 9 o'clock on the Monday morning. They had their minds made up that they were going to close it in spite of everybody.

I shall go back to the question of the airports, to Shannon Airport where we can vote £700,000 and lose it in a year. Then the Minister mentions that we will have 70 tons a month of air freight and, to give us the shocker of all time, he says at the end that he has no doubt that by 1965 it will increase to 5,000,000 kilogrammes. I think that is magnificent. He should have made it milligrammes and then he would have noughts enough to go across the whole page. This is clap-trap from a Department that should never have been set up, from a Department that is a justification of Parkinson's Law which I have mentioned in another instance.

Perhaps this is the last year that the Minister for Transport and Power will be with us. The Minister has said in his statement that he is in control of C.I.E., Bord na Móna, Aer Linte, Aer Lingus and the rest of them. This is the Minister who has refused to answer questions put to him about these bodies in the Dáil. Let the Minister remember that in this Dáil, and in any future Dáil, if questions are put down about these matters I shall see to it, and my colleagues will see to it, that the Minister will answer them.

In dealing with the question of harbours the Minister refers rather briefly to the provision of £240,000 as a grant for harbour improvements. That provision indicates a substantial increase in expenditure under that heading during the current year. It shows an increase of about £120,000 in this Vote. The Minister also mentions the Dublin dockyards and Galway for which special grants are available. In these cases the Minister is giving a grant of 50 per cent of the cost of the improvement works. There is further reference to a sum of £83,000 for work at Dublin, Cork and Limerick for which grants are being made available from the National Development Fund.

All these projects are praiseworthy and I am sure that grants are not made available without proper investigation being made and without the Department being satisfied that the expenditure is warranted.

My main purpose in addressing the House is to ask the Minister to do the needful in connection with proposals concerning a major new deep sea port on the Shannon Estuary. This proposal has got quite a lot of publicity in recent times and I regard it as being of prime importance. I am sure that Deputies of my own and other Parties share my views in that connection. When the newspaper articles began to appear three or four years ago in connection with the feasibility of development of the Shannon estuary, some people were inclined to accept the idea as wishful thinking. However, this publicity had very satisfactory results in that it got our people thinking as to what might be done with such a valuable potential as the Shannon estuary.

A number of interests got together to see where a start could be made. Members of harbour authorities in Kerry, Clare, Limerick and, I think, Tipperary, met under the auspices of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners to consider the whole question and to make some practicable approach to the matter. A joint local committee was then set up and was considering what could be done when a private company was formed by other interests for the development of the Shannon estuary. That was known and still exists as the Shannon Estuary Development Company Limited. It proceeded to engage certain technical advice. Marine experts were retained to make the survey which was required in connection with any proposals that were to be formulated.

At the same time a well-informed person commenced to buy land on the Kerry and Clare sides of the Shannon. The land may not have been bought on a speculative basis, but I am sure the interest involved was satisfied, probably with good reason, that the purchase of land in that area held out certain prospects. The joint Harbour Committee did not, however, proceed very far. Probably they were frustrated to some extent by the emergence of the new limited liability company on the scene. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting the three interests already mentioned which generated a certain amount of action then in connection with this very important matter. It is immaterial whether the organisation that develops this area is a private concern or publicly owned. It is a matter of opinion as to which may do the job most efficiently.

My own view is that the proper organisation would be a State-sponsored body similar to that operating in the industrial zone of Shannon Airport. However, people may differ in that regard. At this stage it does not really matter who handles the job. The Shannon Estuary Development Company have, however, given the lead. They have spent considerable sums carrying out surveys and have prepared a comprehensive report on the entire project. The company has acquired considerable knowledge and experience, both of which would be invaluable to the Minister and his Department in further reappraisal of this matter.

On the 19th April of this year, in reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Deputy Russell, the Minister said that the proposals put forward by the Shannon Development Company envisaged the grant of exceptional facilities and concessions to enable the company to pursue their ideas for the establishment of a harbour in the estuary as the basis for the possible creation there of an industrial estate. He indicated that the Government had made it clear that they would require further information in regard to the practicability of the proposals before they could take any further action.

I do not feel myself competent to judge whether or not the proposals put forward are practicable or whether they could, in the final analysis, be implemented. I suggest, however, that they are worthy of more consideration. The proposals were based on the advice of expert international consultants. Economic surveys were also carried out at considerable expense. I think the plan in general is one that holds out great possibilities. I do not propose to enter in detail at this stage as to the general basis of the proposals. I do believe, however, that some official action should soon be taken in this matter. I hope the Minister will deal with it when he comes to reply and that he will consider sympathetically the suggestions put forward by me for a re-examination of the proposals submitted.

The chairman of the Shannon Development Company said in a Press interview a couple of days ago that the company requires Government encouragement and backing. Government encouragement does, of course, commit the Government to certain things. Backing might not mean merely approval; it might also connote assistance either from central Government or local authorities. I am a member of the local authority in Kerry and I am sure the members of the Kerry Co. Council would be prepared to provide any services required, such as water and sewerage, for any industrial zone that may emerge in Bally-longford-Tarbert area.

I feel that the time has come when the Minister might consider adopting a new line of approach to this whole plan. The technical officers in the Minister's Department could give valuable assistance in such circumstances. If it was good policy to spend money in the development of an industrial zone in Shannon Airport just across the river surely it would be good policy also to develop the Kerry side of the estuary as well.

Heavy freight can be carried much more economically by sea. Indeed, certain types of heavy freight cannot be carried by air. There is a transformation taking place in shipping today and the tendency is to replace the conventional type of ship with very heavy tonnage vessels in order to transport larger quantities at cheaper freight rates. It is generally agreed that the time is coming when major ships will be in general use and when it will be necessary to have transhipment arrangements with certain ports. In view of the possibilities as a result of the European Common Market it is more than likely that transhipment will become a reality in a shorter period of time than was envisaged five or six years ago.

Everybody will admit that the geographical position of Shannon estuary gives it a special advantage in this regard if the Common Market develops and with the possibility that transhipment will be the only workable arrangement in operating an economic freight service. Apart from the geographical position that Shannon estuary occupies, it has two other advantages—one is the vast expanse of deep sea waters there which maintains depth right to the line of the foreshore and the second is that it is comparatively free of fog. That information is based on technical reports from the appropriate sources. There are very few seaports that can boast of that advantage. Furthermore, through the people to whom I referred at the outset, a lot of the hinterland has been acquired for development as an industrial zone.

It would be a pity if the present indefinite position between the Shannon Estuary Development Company and the Minister's Department were allowed to continue. It is in the national interest that further consultations should take place between both parties to try to reach some satisfactory solution. If there are deficiencies in the proposals, which there are, according to the Minister's statement, the Minister should try to iron them out. He has facilities at his disposal which could help to smooth out many difficulties that may be retarding progress up to the present.

If it was necessary to vote money to back this private enterprise, I am sure the Dáil would take kindly to the introduction of a Supplementary Estimate for such a purpose. This is a very good undertaking which could pay very considerable dividends if it came to fruition. Interest in the project seemed to be waning in recent months, which is rather unfortunate. The Minister is a man of foresight and vision, prepared to take reasonable risks and if he now intervenes in this connection he will be doing something big. The people who formed this Shannon Estuary Development company are well known in business and commerce in this country and are men of outstanding achievements in their respective spheres. They have invested private money in this project and have already taken the major part of the job. The State should show confidence in this worthwhile project and I appeal to the Minister to lose no time in showing that the Government are not prepared to dismiss this matter without further investigation.

In fact, I should like to see a sizable sum of money spent in investigating the possibilities of bringing the estuary proposal to the stage where it could be objectively considered. It is of sufficient importance and promise to warrant very special action. The possibilities that would flow from the establishment of deep sea ports are tremendous. It would have a very large industrial zone in the hinterland, thereby creating considerable employment.

I saw from a newspaper report of an interview with the Chairman of the Shannon Development Company that he indicated that even if the Government were prepared to help in a small way by influencing industries, particularly of a major type, to go into the area that would be a step in the right direction. I consider that would be putting the cart before the horse. I am of opinion that a person promoting major industrial undertaking would be rather slow to site such undertaking in an area which he would not be sure would be developed with port facilities. If some assurance could be given at official level that development is to be undertaken, indicating the lines which that development will take, it may be possible to get people to site industries in the area.

I do not want to labour this matter unduly, but as a Deputy who represents the area I feel that a more realistic approach might be made to it on both sides. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Minister has dismissed this proposal lightly. I appreciate he has to be satisfied that the proposal is worthwhile, but even if no private interest were prepared to go ahead, this is a project which might be undertaken by the Government. There is a precedent for such a course at Shannon, where the Government very wisely created an industrial zone in view of the possibility that planes might eventually overfly Shannon, and on the basis, that if the worst came to the worst, the industrial zone would be able to absorb people who became unemployed. That has not happened so far and, fortunately, the zone is developing nicely and is attracting industries and, as the Minister has told us today, quite a number of people are employed there.

In conclusion I ask the Minister to spend money in independently investigating the possibilities of the Shannon estuary as a deep sea port. I suggest there is a vast potential in the Shannon estuary, as is in Shannon airport. Because of the connection between the two, one sea and the other air transport, I would be very happy if we could get the Minister to consider favourably the suggestion I have made for further action which I have no doubt will be worth while.

There are many matters that can be discussed on this Estimate. It is useless to speak about the railways which have been closed but we certainly can criticise the decision to close them. When I stand up to speak on the closing of the West Clare Railway, I cannot help feeling that it looks like nothing more or less than taking a corpse out of its grave and holding another post mortem on it. That post mortem has already been held; not alone that, but the verdict of the inquest has been carried out, and carried out very well. The West Clare Railway is gone. There is no more about it. The rails have been torn up as far as Milltown and there is not a whole lot more to be done. Time will tell whether poor “Michael” was right or whether the Board of C.I.E. were right in what they have done.

One thing has tempted me to speak on the closing of the line. I want to speak again on behalf of the people of Clare. Even though they and I knew the line was losing £16,000, we believed, and still believe, there were Government Departments losing very much more. More important still, we believed that the taxpayers of Clare, who were, and still are, paying a part of the subsidy of £1 million a year to keep other lines open—other lines, which perhaps, were losing as much— were at least entitled to be left that line for the five years and that the subsidy would be paid. Then, if it was not paying as it should, by all means close it down. Nobody in Clare would raise a voice against it. That is all we wanted, but we were not given that.

Some people are satisfied with the present service, but others are very dissatisfied with it. Recently Kilrush Urban Council held a meeting and decided to send a deputation to C.I.E. and to the Minister to help them in this way. The present system of transport is not bringing their customers to the markets in Kilrush which the West Clare Railway did heretofore.

I shall conclude with this remark. In future when the Deputies from Clare, whoever they may be, approach either the Minister or C.I.E., I hope they will listen to their views. They, and only they, can know the grievances of Clare. At least, they should be given what they were promised when the railway was torn up—an alternative transport service which would satisfy the wishes of the people of Clare.

As the last speaker touched on the railways, I shall touch on them, too. I do not blame the Minister for closing down railways which do not pay. When putting a house in order a beginning has to be made somewhere. I think the Minister was justified. It was up to the local people themselves to save the railways. I am speaking from the point of view of Dublin city. It is the people of Dublin who had to meet those losses. There is, and always has been, a considerable profit made on the transport services in Dublin. It is the same on the E.S.B. account. The losses are in the rural area, but again the people of Dublin have to pay. I am satisfied the people in those areas could have saved their railways if they made any attempt.

While we are on the subject of buses, I notice that the age limit for half fare has been raised to 16 and that students and apprentices are also to receive an additional reduction. I shall make again a case I made last year. If it is all right to give half fare to children of 16 and a reduction to students up to 18, why cannot old age pensioners have half fare? How can people with only 30/- a week assistance pay full fare? Those old people would like to get around but they cannot afford to pay the full fare. If they want to go to Portmarnock for the day, it costs 1/2d. out and 1/2d. back. That is 2/4d. How can old age pensioners hope to have a Sunday out or, perhaps, visit their children in Ballyfermot, to which the fare is 9d.? The Minister should make representations that old age pensioners at least be given half fare when travelling in trains and buses.

I am not satisfied that the bus service is adequate. Some months ago I attended a function in the Mansion House which did not conclude until about ten past eleven. Because the last bus in that direction went at about a quarter past eleven, by the time the people got out they had missed it. I know a lot of people had to walk several miles home. Surely in a capital city like Dublin it should be possible to get a bus later than 11.15 p.m.? The last bus to Finglas is at twenty-five past eleven. If a fellow is in a pub having a drink he can forget about the time. He misses the bus and he has to walk to Finglas.

There should be some comparison with other capital cities where there are all night services. The Minister might say that these people could have got taxis, but not everyone can afford them. Something should be done about providing a bus later than 11.15 or, as in the case of Finglas, 11.25 p.m.

I shall pass now to shipping services. During the year I raised the question of the conditions on the cross-channel passenger ships during the summer period. Admittedly, it is only a short period, but an adequate service should be provided for the people. I have seen them sleeping on the stairs. There are only a limited number of bunks available. While we know a bunk cannot be provided for everyone, at least there should be a sufficient number of reclining chairs with, perhaps, a pillow and blanket, so they could sleep out on the deck on a fine night. Two-thirds of the people travelling during peak periods have to sleep up against walls or on stairs. With the children crying all the night, it becomes a night of agony for most people who travel. If there was an adequate number of reclining chairs with pillows and blankets, which they could purchase at a nominal price, it would ease the position. I can assure you it is not easy to sleep sitting up, even if you have a seat. I travelled a few times and I could never do it.

My principal contribution will be in connection with the E.S.B. This is one concern that affects the people more intimately than any other. If you do not want to travel by bus you can walk or cycle or, if you are fortunate enough, you can go by car, but almost everyone from the poorest to the richest must have electricity. They must have some light at night. They must have electricity for a radio which might mean life to them. Nevertheless we find that those who control the E.S.B. are tyrants although they have mended their ways in some respects.

Up to about two years ago it was their practice to cut peoples' light off for non-payment at 1 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon just before the whole concern shut down, thus giving people no chance of paying their bill and getting their light restored the same evening. If a holiday intervened it meant that people were in complete darkness for three days. As a result of representations and agitation in this House, they have changed that practice. They no longer cut off the light on a Saturday or on the eve of holidays. Therefore making complaints in this House is justified.

Another practice was to cut the light off in the evening. That is being changed and it is now cut off just before 1 o'clock, which gives people a chance of paying their bill after lunch. Another practice was that if your bill was not paid they refused to accept payment on the spot but cut off the light. They now accept payment on the spot if you pay 5/- for the trouble they have taken in coming to you. Therefore something has been gained by the pressure we have used in this House and elsewhere.

There are other matters for complaint. I want to humanise this organisation because it is a monopoly on which both rich and poor depend. I raised this question before and I raise it again. The E.S.B. charges 10/- for meter rent. If you never used the electricity you still must pay that amount. To many people that is infinitesimal in proportion to the light they use but to an old age pensioner who lives on his own, to a man who has 30/- a week, who uses little or no light, who goes to bed early, that 10/-every two months for meter rent is a bit too much.

The Minister's reply to my complaint was: "We will arrange to have collection boxes." That collection box system was a failure and it is not now in practice. These old age pensioners cannot afford to pay 10/- every two months or £1 if it is four months. We all know how they live. They pay their rent, feed themselves and at the end of the week on the eve of their pension payment they have not got twopence. It is always a sort of standing threat to them that at any time someone will come in and cut off their light. They are not able to save up 10/- or £1. With a view to minimising their bill, sometimes they do not use any light at all. Even if they use a shilling's worth of light they must pay this meter rent which was increased this year from 9/- to 10/-.

In the case of these people there should be some system of "pay as you use." The E.S.B. refused to adopt such a system. There seems to be too many old age pensioners. The E.S.B. are making a lot of money out of it. Many of these people whose light has been cut off have refused to have it restored because they know that they will not have the 10/- to pay when the inspector comes around. This blackmailing system should be ended. If the Minister is not prepared to adopt a system of "pay as you use" he should at least reduce this meter rent in such cases by at least 50 per cent.

There is another practice indulged in by the E.S.B. to which I object. If you happen to have two dwellings and you owe a bill in respect of one of the dwellings, the current is cut off in both. That is a sort of blackmail. The person might be in rather poor circumstances. He might have a 2½d. shop and an old shack of a home but because he owes a few shillings in respect of the shop not only is the light cut off in the shop but in his home as well, or vice versa. If he owes money in one of two houses let the current be cut off where the money is due and not have a blanket cut-off.

The E.S.B. are now competing with many private firms in the sale of electrical goods. You are constantly being talked into buying electric irons, electric refrigerators, and all the rest. If you make the fatal mistake of buying them on the hire-purchase system and if you slip up on the payments not only do they take the article back but your light is cut off as well. That is another form of blackmail.

I will keep raising these points every year until there is some satisfaction for the people with regard to them. I want to see this whole business humanised because I know the type of organisation the E.S.B. is. Fifteen years ago, the year the War ended, I remember being on the spot myself. I owed the E.S.B. about £8 in respect of a little business I had. When they cut my light off I went along and said: "If I give you half of it will you restore the current?" They said: "No." They wanted all or nothing. I was unable to operate my business for a year and I was really on the floor.

Some time ago an E.S.B. official came along to my house. I am like many other people; it is not that I have not the money but I can forget to pay my Bill. I believe Denis Guiney forgot to pay his bill one time and they cut off his light. That statement is true. It was made by a member of the Board who made a remark the implication of which I did not like. He said: "You are very tough on us in the Dáil," as much as to say: "We will get tough with you." I can assure you I do not care whether they cut off the light or not. I will continue to shout here on behalf of the people who sent me here. I can understand these people being tough but I want them to be human too.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all but I rise merely to thank the Minister and the Government most sincerely for the grant of £340,000 pounds made available for Galway Harbour. I think it is long overdue and I sincerely hope that the Minister will get on to the Harbour Master and his board in Galway and get them to complete whatever documents are outstanding at the present moment.

In connection with the E.S.B., when the E.S.B. go to canvass an area to see whether it is willing to accept electrification they canvass every household in that townland even if it stands on its own away from where the main line is to come. I dare say the decision is based on whether a certain percentage of that area takes the E.S.B. supplies but when they come along to develop the area they leave out the odd house that is off the beaten track although they have canvassed it. That house is denied current when it comes to the area. I think in a situation like that the Minister, while it may be very costly to bring in that house, should introduce some scheme whereby he would be able to supply the house with gas or something like that.

There is a turf-burning station in my area and I feel that we should approach the Minister for Lands to try to develop some virgin bog. This station is closed at certain times of the year through lack of turf. I can assure the House it is not through lack of men to cut the turf but to lack of virgin bog in the locality to which roads could be run. I would like the Minister to take up with C.I.E. the question of a better pension scheme for its workers.

The Minister in a document which he circulated to us at the week-end and in his opening address on the Estimate covered the whole range of transport, both air and surface. He seemed to be confident regarding the financial progress in some of these concerns over which he asserts he is in control. In the course of the document I was particularly impressed by the tribute he paid to British Railways for their response to representations made to them regarding the improvement of services on the lines that would normally affect travellers to and from this country. That example of reasonableness, to what I am sure were reasonable representations, was entirely contrary to the Minister's own response to representations from groups of people who united, irrespective of creed or politics, in an effort to preserve the branch lines in the part of the country in which I reside. It will be a long day before the people involved in that effort will forget the manner in which they were flouted and derided, the manner in which on every single occasion the Minister directed their attention away from his office directly to the management of C.I.E.

The Deputy knows that there is an action before the court in respect of this branch line area. I cannot permit discussion on that line. The Deputy should remember that one cannot discuss the substance of that matter without impinging on the matter before the court.

I did not mention any particular line; there are a number of branch lines closed.

The Deputy said in his area.

I was familiar with one of them.

That is discussion by reference or by inference perhaps.

That is stymieing the discussion completely.

The Deputy understands my position.

I cannot allow any disrespect to the court in that fashion. I am not suggesting that the Deputy is willing or anxious to show any disrespect.

But, Sir, without referring in any way to what occurred, am I not at liberty on this occasion, on the examination of the operations of the Minister for Transport and Power for the year to refer to the manner in which the Minister failed to meet the people?

It is the substance of the action that may not be discussed. That is surely the substance of the case, as to whether the Board were right in their action.

The action is brought by an individual.

It is before the court.

It is not associated with the Cork County Council or any other bodies.

It is before the court and this is something that might influence the court. We are not allowed to make any reference to a matter before the court, lest we should impinge on the authority of the court.

This is probably the last time that this Minister will be answerable.

That does not remove the responsibility from us of not impinging on the authority of the court.

I agree Sir, but the court will not determine the conduct of the Minister in relation——

The substance of the action is before the court and we cannot discuss the action without impinging on the substance of that action. I would ask the Deputy not to proceed on those lines.

Does not the Minister deny that he has any connection with C.I.E. if we ask a question in the House?

I do not consider that contribution very effective.

The Minister has said there is an improvement in the position of C.I.E. which is contrary to the assertion of his some months ago that drastic action was necessary because of the financial position of the country. He proceeded to conduct a process of amputations. Of course the Minister did not advert to the fact that it was the decision of an earlier Government and an earlier management of C.I.E. to dieselise our main lines and eventually practically the whole system. That decision I regard as one of the wisest decisions ever taken in relation to the improvement of rail travel and since that development more people have enjoyed rail travel and have travelled more frequently by rail than they ever did before. It has been commented on most favourably by travellers from abroad whom we meet so frequently travelling by rail when we are going to and from Leinster House.

In the Minister's report on the finances of C.I.E. he did not of course include any comment on the fact that it was the intention of the company to recover Busarus as offices for that concern. The effect of that decision is to unload a charge of a quarter of one million pounds on another Estimate—and also the fact that a previous Government redeemed losses that would have continued were it not for their action at that time in taking that building and utilising it for a purpose which saved other Departments of State. This made it possible for them to concentrate the activities that were divided in a number of offices: It was certainly the first contribution towards the saving of a situation which was nearly desperate in 1948. We had the general manager of that company away in the United States buying race horses at a time when affairs at Kingsbridge were chaotic. The quarter of a million pounds which will be necessary to provide for the new Social Welfare offices can be put down to the fact that C.I.E. feel they are entitled to use this building as offices. Therefore we must charge the quarter million pounds involved to the affairs of the company in the time ahead.

Without impinging on the matters to which the Chair has ruled I should not refer, I would ask the Minister—I think the Chair will agree this is reasonable—whether he is satisfied, where there are curtailments in rail services, that the alternative services the Minister said would be provided have proved adequate to demands. We have no indication of the compensation which local authorities must get to enable them to bring the roads up to standard to carry the formidable increase in traffic as a result of lines being closed. This is a matter on which many people are awaiting an indication with considerable interest and unless there is adequate compensation I can tell the Minister that there will be very considerable criticism and very well-documented demands for adequate compensation comparable in every way to the amounts other parts of the country got where similar closures took place.

I think it was Deputy Sherwin who said we should humanise C.I.E. On that point let us consider the treatment of the C.I.E. workers who have been disemployed in the areas affected by closures. Is the Minister satisfied that the offers of alternative employment given to those men are adequate and suitable to them? In two instances it is represented to us that the offers made were outrageous and completely unacceptable, that they were merely a device to get these men to opt out of C.I.E. service altogether. When men have their homes and rear families in a locality over a long period, and particularly if they are at a certain age when moving means a considerable disturbance, surely we should ensure that their lot will not be disimproved in consequence of arbitrary action such as has been taken in certain instances.

We know many of the improvements that have been effected in the financial position of C.I.E. have been achieved by the granting of a monopoly in road transport to that company. In common with other countries we are now facing a most serious challenge in the impending entry into the Common Market. There we will be faced with open competition in the sale of goods we produce, whether in agriculture or in industry. Accordingly, the matter of giving this monopoly to C.I.E. impacts very heavily on agricultural costings.

This is a type of transport in which any organisation like C.I.E. could not possibly participate profitably. It is a type of transport that can be catered for adequately by permitting people in different localities to assist neighbours and to co-operate one with one another in the transport of stock and goods in conditions where the type of transport vehicle operated by C.I.E. could not possibly work. We know how impossible it would be for C.I.E. to provide a service in substitution for one that can be provided only by the people who reside in certain areas. This is one of the things we must revise in order to compete favourably in agricultural prices if we become members of the Common Market.

Before leaving the subject of C.I.E., I should like to say that all my remarks are not critical. I want to say again, as I have said in former years, that there is an improvement in the service catering for the transport of visitors to the country. I have heard nothing but the highest commendation of the standard of guides provided by the C.I.E. coach service. These comments are made regularly. They say that the service is of a standard exceeding anything experienced in other countries. These guides are intelligent men who can describe the country and tell the history of the country and not alone make the trips educational but interesting as well.

I should like again to refer to the necessity for the provision of car parks at railway termini. Many of us have to park cars at Glanmire in Cork, for instance. The cars have to be left there for days and we would welcome an arrangement such as that which obtains at Dublin airport where it would be possible to park one's car and know it was secure. We have all had experience of draining water from our engines in extreme weather conditions in the winter. Recently on the occasion of the visit to Cork of the Papal Legate there was an extension of the parking arrangements to adjoining grounds. Even on the payment of a charge, it would certainly be very helpful and would encourage more people to travel by rail, particularly now with the increased traffic on our roads, if adequate parking facilities were provided at railway stations. We must, however, be certain that our vehicles are parked in security and out of the elements.

The Minister referred today to the opening of Cork airport. We have had so many postponements in the date scheduled for its opening that the people of Cork have become very sceptical. Of course the excuse was trotted out again that the difficulty regarding building materials had a considerable effect on the delay but it is true that the local authority was not affected in its schedule regarding the provision of roadways between the airport and Cork. However, I am glad to see that the Minister did suggest that there was a definite date by which flights will be operative and we hope that that is the true date. The Minister referred to the service as being the Cork-Dublin service. I think that is incorrect. According to the schedule it is the Dublin-Cork service. It is to facilitate people who wish to fly to Cork and return. According to the schedules that we have seen there is no advantage to Cork business people.

On another occasion I referred to the re-routing of the airport transport services from Dublin airport to the city terminus. I might appear to be quoting an outrageous example when I ask the House to consider the magnificent highway built from Orly airport to the heart of Paris on which millions must have been spent. I do not suggest that we should follow suit but we should route these buses through O'Connell Street. They have now been diverted through dark, dismal, slum streets of the city. We all know what first impressions mean to travellers when they arrive in any country and certainly, if they are to judge Dublin from the streets through which the buses pass, their impressions cannot be very good ones.

I happened to be travelling on one of those buses and I heard the comments of some of these strangers. Having arrived at Arus Mhic Dhiarmada in the dark, and having disembarked in a dark street, they found that there was absolutely no transport available to take them to the part of the city to which they were going. Emissaries had to be sent to Amiens Street to obtain taxies for them. This may be a small thing but it is important.

I think that matter has been put right since the Deputy last mentioned it.

I am glad to hear that. Before I leave the subject of the air travel I want to say that Deputy O'Malley sought to make Fine Gael announce their policy in relation to the purchase of the jet aircraft. He wanted a firm statement from us as to what we would do if we attain office. He seems to consider that the circumstances now are the same as they were when the previous inter-Party Government in 1948 decided to dispose of the aircraft at that time, incidentally at a profit.

Deputy O'Malley did not advert to the fact that the then Government placed certain matters on a priority list. We considered then that the thousands of turbercular patients in the country should be our first charge. The housing situation was one which demanded prior attention from the Government and so we abandoned all prestige schemes until such time as the more necessary matters had been attended to. It was only a few months before that that the Government then in office said that they could not increase the old age pensions by 2/6d. because the money was not there. The inter-Party Government decided to defer the prestige schemes until such time as the ordinary people had received attention in matters regarding heath, housing and social welfare.

The Minister referred to the advances made by Bord na Móna in the production and sale of briquettes. The two factories he referred to were decided upon by his predecessor and their erection was ordered. Tribute was paid then to the benficence of one company in Dublin that advanced half a million pounds towards the erection of one of those factories. We are glad to hear that their products are meeting with such ready sale but I cannot understand why the Minister says that they would have to be a marketing assessment before any extension could be considered. There is not a town or a village in Ireland in which these briquettes could not be sold if they could be obtained. We know that foreign markets have been developed for these products. That is a most excellent development but in our own towns at least five times the amount could be disposed of if they were available. I do not think there is any great risk in extending the production of these briquettes particularly having regard to the price movements of alternative types of fuel.

When listening to Deputy O'Malley and to Deputy Moloney I found it hard to reconcile the views they expressed. Deputy O'Malley wanted to know how many more jet aircraft the Government were going to purchase. Then he referred to the advisability of having the free airport authority established at Shannon in order to absorb the unemployment that might result from the overflying of Shannon Airport. These two statements are contradictory. Which of them are we to accept? He also pointed out that industrialists interested in the establishment of industry were being directed to that region but he did not advert to the fact that in other towns in the country, where a united local effort is being made to have industries established, the people are under the impression that industries which they themselves might have obtained were being diverted from them.

Personally I do not think that the Industrial Development Authority directs industry into any particular location. I was gratified to hear Deputy O'Malley pay a tribute to the I.D.A. As he said, and I think he was the first to be frank enough to say it, if we are attracting a number of good people with good potential we are also attracting a number of "chancers." The Industrial Development Authority were doing an excellent job of screening. He was explaining why—this was his reasoning—the employment content in Shannon is not greater than it is. We can recall when the previous Government established this Authority and the criticism that was levelled against them by the Leader of the present Government. We are glad that time has proved us right in our decision to establish that body. We are glad to hear tributes now paid to that body by those who were so very critical of it when it was first set up.

In relation to Coras Iompair Éireann, I should like to take this opportunity to commend the excellent catering on trains and at the buffets at Glanmire and Kingsbridge. Seasoned travellers, here and abroad, have commented most favourably on the catering.

I should like to pay a small tribute to the Minister for the very comprehensive memorandum issued to us a few days ago and the very comprehensive statement he made to the House this afternoon. Normally, one looks with horror at the sheafs of paper one receives on various aspects of policy but, on this occasion, reading the Minister's memorandum and listening to his statement here today were most informative exercises.

Since the Minister intends to introduce certain proposals to increase the State contribution to the Shannon Airport Development Company, Limited, that may present a more appropriate occasion on which to discuss the operations of the company and the results achieved to date as against discussing the matter on the Estimate, and I shall therefore reserve my comments for a later occasion.

Irrespective of certain criticisms we may have in regard to the policy of C.I.E., it is only fair that we should pay tribute to the Chairman and the Board for the initiative shown in the past two or three years in their efforts to put the finances of the company on a sound basis and, at the same time, give a first-class service to the community. They have succeeded in doing both to a very substantial degree. It is only fair that we should acknowledge that fact. It is true that their success has been brought about not only by the efforts of the Board to attract new business and cut down losses but also by a certain aggressive, almost ruthless, policy pursued. Furthermore, the Government have given considerable help in writing-down capital and writing-off the liability to repay very substantial advances from central Funds, thereby saving the Board a continuing liability of over £600,000 per year.

In spite of the success of C.I.E. in reducing its losses over the past two years, I personally am of opinion that railways per se cannot pay. If, and when, we get to the end of the reconstruction period we find our national transport service still in the red I do not think we should put on them an arbitrary obligation to pay their way or carry out further curtailments of public services. I would personally prefer to contribute a reasonable subsidy each year rather than force a further curtailment of essential passenger and goods service, particularly in outlying areas. It is unfortunate that the services which are lopped off are those which serve the extremities of the country.

Deputies who represent constituencies in which branch lines have been closed are essentially voicing the feelings of the local people who suffer a deep sense of loss in the cutting off of these branch lines. The only branch line of which I have had experience is the West Clare Railway. Apart from financial considerations, which were very slight as compared with the losses to which we turn a blind eye in other Government sponsored services, there is a real sense of loss on the part of the people not only of Clare but also of Limerick in regard to the closing down of this line. An institution has been closed for all time. That is what it means. From the point of view of Limerick people, Lahinch and Kilkee are the logical seaside resorts to which excursions from Limerick run, carrying 200 or 300 people at a time. It may be true that satisfactory substitutes have been provided in the way of bus transport. Anybody who has travelled by train knows that you cannot substitute a bus for a train from the point of view of carrying a large number of people. From that point of view the loss suffered is irreplaceable.

The Minister referred to coach tours. These tours are a very welcome development and increasing numbers of cross-Chanel passengers are availing of these tours. There is a tremendous potential for greater development there. I hope every effort will be made by C.I.E. to encourage the ordinary working-class English people to spend their holidays in Ireland. The Minister might discuss with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, the difficulties of parking these coaches. No provision is made for parking. I speak with regard to Limerick in particular since I have an intimate knowledge of Limerick. It is not unusual to see two or three of these coaches double-parked in the main streets of the city. I hope the Minister will take the initiative in solving the problem by a co-ordinated effort between himself and the Minister for Local Government.

I join with the Minister in hoping initiative will be shown by private enterprise in providing more car ferry services. The easier we make it for a man, his wife and his family, to travel from Great Britain to this country the more response we will get to the appeals of Bord Failte for increased tourist traffic between the two countries.

The Minister referred to the question of cross-Channel freights. I cannot refrain from making some comment on this subject as it has been a matter of deep interest to me for some years past. It is a sad reflection on the ability of this country to have any control of cross-Channel shipping when the Minister responsible for shipping has to stand up in this Dáil and refer to the unhappy experience of the National Shippers Committee which he established in 1960 of being presented in their first year of operation with an increase in cross-Channel freight rates, which came into force in November, 1960. The Minister went on to say that there is no statutory authority vested in him or in the Government to control international freight rates nor in the nature of the trade could such unilateral control be effectively exercised.

I have expressed the view in this House on more than one occasion that the only solution to this continuing increase in the cost of cross-Channel freight, which bears so heavily on all our exports, livestock and livestock products and manufactured goods, is for this country itself to participate in the cross-Channel freight traffic. I appreciate that there are substantial difficulties in the way. Some of those difficulties were indicated by the Minister himself and by the present Taoiseach when Minister for Industry and Commerce. But, it is a fact that four years ago the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, indicated in the House that negotiations were in train between interested parties in this country and the British shipping companies to provide for some degree of participation in the cross-Channel freight business by Irish interests. From that day to this I, as one Deputy, have heard nothing further about those famous negotiations. I do not know if they failed completely or if they were merely a blind at the time to defer this whole subject. Certainly, the matter appears to have been dropped and it is one that is likely to have even more serious repercussions on the trade of this country when we have to engage in a far wider trading area than we do at the present time.

I also regret that the Minister did not make some reference to the transport difficulties and necessities which are bound to arise if and when we enter the Common Market trading area. At the present time, as the Minister is aware, there is virtually no adequate freight services between this country and the Continent and we should now be thinking of that development, not in two, three or four years' time, when our competitors have got in ahead of us. I should like to see the Minister taking the initiative in that regard. If we cannot participate in cross-Channel freight traffic between this country and Great Britain, surely now is the time to talk about participating in freight traffic between this country and the Continent which we hope will be a growing and valuable market to this country in the years ahead.

There is one other subject that I want to touch on in connection with the freight services and that is the lack of refrigerated freight services between this country and the Continent. Again, they are virtually non-existent and if we are going to rely, as I believe we will have to rely, substantially on the produce of our farms to provide the major content of our exports to the Common Market area, we certainly will require vast cheap refrigerated transport both by sea and air. I hope the Minister will give that important matter his active attention.

Again touching on the question of the European Economic Community, I wonder if the Minister has considered the effect that our participation in that trading area will have on our plants here for power production? As the Minister knows, the present six participating countries in the Common Market are joined in a coal and steel community. Will we become members of that community and, if we do, what happens to our power plants here, particularly those using native fuels? I refer specifically to turf. What will happen to them or can we retain our own power producing plants in isolation from the rest of Europe or will the European power producers be able to sell electric power here against our existing small units producing from turf as a basis? I do not pretend to be informed on this subject. Perhaps the Minister when he is replying will tell the House something of the developments he visualises in the production of power and light in the years ahead.

So far, we have taken no steps in regard to atomic power. I know there are very good arguments against that and the E.S.B. who, presumably, will be the authority charged with responsibility for atomic power, feel that the necessity for this will not arise for ten to fifteen years. I should like to ask the Minister if they still feel that this likelihood is still as far away as they mentioned in their last report.

Also, I wonder if the E.S.B. have been doing anything further in regard to the experiments they carried out some years ago in connection with the generation of power from wind by the use of windmills. I think I am correct in saying that some years ago experiments were carried out and I wonder what the outcome has been.

Some other Deputies referred to the question of harbour development. Again, I should like to ask the Minister if future harbour development in this country will tie in with the development of transport generally in the wider free trade area. It is no secret that one of the biggest flour-milling combines in this country is building silos at Antwerp which, presumably, will supply its requirements of coarse grain to its mills in Ireland. It seems a pity that this type of installation could not have been erected at Foynes harbour or somewhere in the Shannon estuary, where the necessary deep water is available. I wonder if, thinking along those lines of big ships bringing bulk transport of oil, coarse grains, ore or similar raw materials, whether the Minister should not, as Deputy Moloney has suggested, have another look at this Shannon estuary project.

I know that some years ago the Taoiseach took the view that whereas there was an undoubted national asset in the Shannon estuary, the likelihood of its use had not been satisfactorily proved to him. The trouble about these things is that with the world changing so fast, with transport of both passengers and goods developing so rapidly, it is quite likely that a use could be found for the Shannon estuary and I do not think the Minister would be looking too far ahead in again examining these plans in the light of the new developments in Europe.

The Minister also mentioned certain surveys and exploration work that are being carried out in certain of the coalfields of this country. I should like to ask if any consideration has been given to carrying out a similar survey in what are known as the West Limerick coalfields with a view to their exploration and later development.

I should like to pass a few remarks on Shannon Airport. I shall not dwell on it because it has been covered by other Deputies today. I welcome any development at Shannon Airport calculated to increase employment there. Naturally, it benefits the city of Limerick, as it does the town of Ennis and the two contiguous counties. The Shannon Airport Development Company are to be congratulated on the initiative they have shown to maintain the airport as an important employment centre. However, it is a fact, that the information given by the Minister and by the Development Company in their last annual report does not indicate to what extent they have been successful in securing the re-employment of persons who have lost their employment in the airport and to what extent outside persons have been brought into the airport to man the new industries there.

The point I wish to make is this. The initial idea of developing the industrial zone was twofold. The first aim was to encourage more terminal freight traffic in and out of Shannon Airport and thereby increase the revenue from freight through the various 'planes calling there. The second aim was to maintain the level of employment at Shannon Airport having regard to the threat to overfly Shannon with the development of jet aircraft. I should like the Minister to indicate if the airport authorities have confined themselves to this task because I do see a distinct danger to the city of Limerick if a new and expanding town is to be erected at Shannon Airport.

I can recall being at a meeting at Shannon Airport in November, 1957, when the objectives of the then Shannon Airport Development Authority were outlined to a large number of people who came down to listen to Mr. O'Regan and the other experts who addressed the meeting. At that time there was no question of building a large number of houses and flats. What we did understand was that in order to get certain industrialists to set up their factories at Shannon Airport, it would be necessary to erect a certain number of houses and flats for the benefit of key personnel.

I would suggest to the Minister that if you go beyond that objective there is a great likelihood you will have to go on providing more houses and flats and then you will have to provide schools and churches and the other amenities people quite rightly require, whereas, in fact, those amenities are already available within twelve or fifteen miles of the airport in the city of Limerick and the town of Ennis. The Minister would agree with me it would be very bad policy to overlap in the cost of capital outlay on houses, schools, picture houses or any of the other institutions which form a modern community centre. I should like the Minister when replying to tell the House quite frankly what the ultimate development at Shannon Airport would be, with particular reference to the number of houses and flats and other buildings it is intended to erect there.

I should also like to ask the Minister if he has any plans to encourage private flying in this country. There are a few small private airfields here. There is one just outside Limerick. I think there are tremendous potentialities for the encouragement of private flying, particularly between Great Britain and this country. There is a big number of people in Great Britain who have aircraft of their own. It would be a step in the right direction to encourage them to fly to Ireland and to land on small airfields like the one at Coonagh near Limerick. The Minister should not overlook the opportunity of giving financial assistance to these small private airfields.

I referred a few weeks ago to the change which has taken place in the schedule of the Shannon-London air service. At that time the Minister informed me that the change was due to a desire to link up with the trans-Atlantic air service. I should like to repeat again what I said on that occasion. I think that was a mistake. The old schedule for Shannon and London was greatly appreciated by the travelling public. Even though there are other airlines prepared to take over that service, it is bad policy to give away business that you have already secured. I hope the Minister will ask Aer Lingus to reconsider that flight schedule.

I should like to refer to a few local complaints which have been brought to my attention from time to time. Several Deputies have referred to the cost of bus transport and have asked for concessions to persons badly off, such as old age pensioners. I should like to refer to the very high comparative cost of bus transport in Limerick compared to Dublin city. I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister that he might pass on to C.I.E., that is, that a special fare would be made available to persons travelling to work in the early mornings, say, up to 8 o'clock or 8.30. With the development of housing estates in Limerick city as elsewhere, workers have to spend a large part of their wages each week on travelling to and from their work. It would be a valuable concession, and one appreciated by them, to allow a 50 per cent. reduction to persons travelling in buses up to 8 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. I should also like to suggest that some means might be found for doing what I believe is done by transport companies, certainly on the Continent, and that is, giving a concession to old age pensioners or other people in that income group.

I should like to ask the Minister what arrangements are made for the attendance of taxis at Shannon Airport. I am informed a small group of taxi owners have a monopoly there. It has been pointed out to me by taxi drivers and hackney owners in Limerick city that they have no hope at all of securing employment at Shannon Airport. I would be glad if the Minister would look into that problem and put it right as soon as possible.

I should like to join with Deputy Russell in paying tribute to the Minister for his generosity in circulating these voluminous notes over the week-end. Nobody could have followed the Minister this evening unless he had a copy of his script. We realise it is not possible to supply scripts to everybody but these notes have filled that void very effectively. They contain a good deal of admirable information and a good deal of statistical information as well. They were largely embodied in the Minister's speech this evening. There is a note here on the front page: "It is not intended these notes will be circulated in future years." I wonder is the implication that this Ministry will not exist in future years? Personally, I see no justification whatever for a special Ministry for Transport and Power since the various activities of the Department are in the hands of independent boards. We have C.I.E. taking charge of transport, the E.S.B. taking charge of power, Bord na Mona of fuel, and so on.

In a Department that is so organised in various sections with efficient personnel to look after them, I cannot see why they cannot begin sometime or other to cut down administrative costs at top level. Some day or other a Government will be compelled to tackle this question of public administration at national level and to try to effect economies. The people realise that a much more efficient service could be achieved without all this extravagance. I am not reflecting in any way on the Minister who is the present holder of the office. No matter who would be in his place I would have the same criticism to offer. There is the tendency in recent years to transfer certain activities of Departments to state bodies. That is being done very much in the Department of Industry and Commerce and perhaps in other Departments as well. The more that is done the more one feels the Minister is largely in a supervisory capacity and that it is not necessary at all to have a person of that standing supervising the activities of a Department.

In the earlier part of the Minister's statement road transport has been dealt with comprehensively. Under the 1933 Act, I think it was, power was given to the railways at that time to buy out any competition that they envisaged would be against them. That was done in some instances up to 1939 until it was seen that the policy was ineffective and then it ceased completely. The result is that we have today 965 private licensed hauliers in this State. I doubt very much if it was ever wise to have adopted that compulsory measure. In the past these hauliers fulfilled a great need. Through their own initiative and thrift many poor men, cottiers, small farmers or small businessmen, purchased lorries in order to supplement their meagre livelihood. They were able to pay a very remunerative wage to lorry drivers who were very useful in the locality where they lived. These hauliers are very much restricted. They are restricted in the first place in regard to the unladen weight of the trucks and lorries they operate.

That would be a matter for another Minister.

Surely this is a matter for the Minister for Transport and Power. Does it not come under transport? I dare not raise it on Industry and Commerce. However, I am only making a brief comment on it.

Surely it comes under transport.

I had an idea that the limitations referred to by the Deputy were a matter for another Minister.

The Deputy is dealing with the effects of them.

Because of the goods they carry they are restricted in their area of operation. As I say, in late years there have been concessions made with regard to the unladen weight so that owners of lorries could be facilitated in providing themselves with the heavier trucks that we see on the roads today. The same concession could be reasonably made in the case of the restriction of the area of operation.

I have in mind the position that arose last harvest. Anybody living in the country must realise the agonising time the farmers went through last year. In County Cork we had the worst harvest weather in the whole country. For the odd day that corn could be harvested there were several days when it could not be touched. The day following the dry day there was a full demand for all the transport that was available. There were several lorry owners living within a few miles of the mills; I remember one case of a haulier who had a licence to haul within 15 miles of Cork city. He lives 12 miles north-east of Cork and just about six from the Castlelyons co-operative creamery. The farmers were beseeching him to deliver their grain but he dared not take it. It was held there in sacks and was rapidly deteriorating. The agonising fact about the whole thing is that during all that adverse weather the guards were in squad cars waiting at the creameries to make sure that there were no infringements of the Transport Act. Just picture that happening in a free country during a most difficult season in which we had the worst weather I have ever experienced. That was the co-operation we got in that situation because of Acts passed in this House. That is not the kind of freedom I would visualise for our people who were deprived first of all of the opportunity of making a living on their land, who were restricted by Acts of the House in making a living as licensed hauliers and who were deprived in a grave crisis of the opportunity of hauling their neighbours' grain.

We all realise that no matter what efficient service C.I.E. can give they can never give a service that is as efficient and as accommodating as the service given by the local licensed haulier. That is a well known fact and if a farmer can get a local licensed haulier at any time he will not go to C.I.E. which has its depot many miles away from him and which will have very big lorries to take a load of moderate size. There are various other factors obtaining because in a small community people like to avail of any service they can get from another local person operating in the locality.

I notice that the Minister in the course of his review of the activities of his Department talks about omnibus owners. There are 34 small omnibus owners who still operate under licence and when there is a demand for a bus in an area there is great competition between these and perhaps others in applying for a licence to operate small buses. Deputy Desmond and I know that in Sandycove, a few miles from Kinsale, there is a demand there for the running of a service to that little seaside place. The road is narrow and if C.I.E. cannot provide one of their own buses would they not consider allowing a bus to operate under licence one day in the week? That is not a great deal to ask of them.

Coach tours have been referred to. C.I.E. at one time had a monopoly of coach tours but wiser councils prevailed. Conditions have been liberalised and foreigners operating coach tours are allowed into this country and to bring buses here so long as they stay four nights and that those they carry are resident outside the country. There is no greater medium of advertising our country as a tourist attraction than coach tours from outside the country.

We are all very pleased with the Minister's figures showing that the numbers travelling by those tours have increased so much from 1958 to the year 1960 which was an abnormal year and one in which the weather might have reacted very adversely on tours. Side by side with that, passengers carried on C.I.E. tours increased by 50 per cent. That is very gratifying. We all realise this is the age of travel; we must realise that these are the peak years and very likely when the novelty has worn off in a few years' time, there may be a recession in internal travelling in this country. That may not come about but the danger is obvious. The educational tours have been most attractive but, there again, in time the novelty will wear away.

I was interested in reading that in 1922 we had 3,500 miles of railway while today we have 1,500 miles. It is a very sharp reduction in a period of 40 years when we realise the effort that was put into the making of these railways, the generosity of the people who put their money into them and the efforts that were made to provide public transport at a time that was very difficult. It illustrates the irony and ruthlessness with which we can come along and close railways which served our people in the past; there is a ruthlessness, as far as those who put up capital are concerned, that that capital was written off regardless of the people who subscribed it and regardless of their circumstances. The Minister states in his note that we retain 1,500 miles of railway at the moment. I wonder does he include in that the 420 miles that are to be closed under the 1958 Act or is that the net amount?

The net amount.

Thank you. He has mentioned Irish Shipping also in these notes. I think we are all very pleased that Irish Shipping has justified itself. It is not a great money earner but it is well to have these reserves available if another emergency should arise. The fact that we have something like 148,000 tons of dead weight shipping is something to be proud of. These ships find their way into many ports of the world. They could be a great way of advertising our country and our goods.

It is gratifying to hear that there is a vast improvement by British Railways in their cross-channel services operated between Holyhead and Dún Laoghaire. That was a headache for many years to the unfortunate exiles coming back at Christmas who got very rough handling because of lack of accommodation.

My main purpose in rising was to refer to the policy of the Board of the E.S.B. There are many remote areas in this country yet to be developed but I think that no consideration about capital should end that development. The E.S.B. undertaking is a national one and no matter where a person resides, he is entitled to the little amenity that can be provided through the E.S.B. I am glad that the policy is being considered at the moment; I hope that a right and wise decision will be arrived at and that nobody will be penalised by his location. If we are going to hold people on the land and prevent emigration from these impoverished areas, let us give them all the amenities we can. In my own parish of Glanmire adjacent to Cork there is still a big stretch of country which has no E.S.B. current. There is an area called Glashaboy, an area belonging to Burnfort parish and an area belonging to the Watergrasshill parish where there are people anxious and agitating for electric current for many years.

I have heard from the local priests that there is 95 per cent acceptance now for current in these areas. That is not very remote—just 12 miles from Cork City. There is a big forestry development in that area where a lot of the land is unfertile but that should not be held out as any excuse. I agree there will be little return from any electric current put into an area like that but nevertheless forestry development is very laudable and if people living adjacent to it are going to be deprived of electricity because there is a big area between them and the area already developed, I think special concessions should be made to those people.

There is the question of the special charge for those people who did not take the current when it was first provided. Who knows whether they were in a position to take it? Why should they be penalised now? It is unreasonable that a person should be penalised in that way. It is holding a pistol to a person's head to compel him to take a thing he does not want and if, in later years, he decides he was wrong I think his decision should be welcome.

I read through the notes provided by the Minister and there is one sentence that seems somewhat amusing. The Minister informed us that he and his Department are sharing offices with the Department of Industry and Commerce. I thought it would be the other way around, that, as the junior partner, the Minister would be a little more humble, perhaps, and say that the Department of Industry and Commerce is giving him a few rooms.

I should like to draw attention again to the losses of C.I.E. Again this year the Minister is anxious to take credit for the wonderful achievement of the organisation within the past two years, including the reorganisation of the Board and the appointment of a new Chairman. I think the Minister is unfair to C.I.E. and all associated with them in their earlier days when he condemns them for their activities or inactivity during the period from 1949 to 1956. He says that even with the introduction of dieselisation they were still heavily in arrears. A long time ago the Minister tried to forget the fact that during that period C.I.E. were year after year spending more on dieselisation.

After all, the programme that now has given us an improved service cost a lot of money to initiate during that period. The Minister will realise that this dieselisation and reorganisation was very expensive and was bound to fall very heavily on the company during the period of reorganisation. I completely disagree with the Minister when he tries to claim all credit for C.I.E. from the period 1958 onwards and criticises them for their record before that time. I readily agree that C.I.E. had its failings in the 1950s. Perhaps they were too slow in introducing improved methods which should have been brought into operation much earlier.

I should like to make some reference to the provincial bus services and to their effect on the people. During the past few years C.I.E. have increased their charges and, while people in large centres like Cork and Dublin have found these higher fares a heavy strain, the rural people have found them almost intolerable. I would advise C.I.E. that they have come to the time of diminishing returns. That has been proved by the fact that people in the country areas have refused to travel by C.I.E. buses. Many of them have been able to travel in their neighbours' cars. C.I.E. have reached a stage where they have to admit complete failure and that the new charges were a complete fiasco. There were places where the weekly bus tickets were increased by a comparatively enormous amount. But C.I.E. suffered so gravely by the fall off in passengers in a short period that they had to revert to the original fares.

I think there is need for considerable improvement in the provincial bus services. While in certain cases the bus fares were reduced over long routes, people getting on and getting off at intermediate stages had greater charges imposed on them. While C.I.E. is governed by an Act of Parliament, I believe they are breaking the law through some of the prohibitive charges they levy for intermediate stage fares. If one goes a distance of three yards beyond a certain stage the fare becomes prohibitive. I have particularly in mind the route between Crosshaven and Cork where the intermediate fare is comparatively very heavy. I would suggest to the Minister that when he speaks so proudly of the wonderful success of C.I.E. he would have this matter of intermediate stage fares re-examined.

We have another serious provincial problem. On Sundays many people in villages and towns 20 to 25 miles from Cork or other big cities like to go to the cities to visit relatives in hospital, perhaps, or to attend matches or sports meetings. They find this impossible because of the inadequacy of the Sunday services between these towns and the cities. Surely if C.I.E. are facing the financial prosperity the Minister forecasts for them, they should be able to give better bus services on Sundays to the people in rural areas who need them so badly.

What strikes me very forcibly is the statement of the Minister on page 4 of these notes in which he mentions C.I.E. being given full discretion as to the closing of railway lines subject to the provision which requires the Board to satisfy themselves that there is no reasonable prospect that they could be operated economically. I think it is an extraordinary situation that the Minister should come in here and blandly tell us that it is a matter for the Board and that, if they are not satisfied on economic grounds, they can disregard the demands and entreaties made by local people who are trying to retain a service to which they believe they are entitled. Despite the fact that the Minister was so eloquent about the wonderful alternative services that would be provided by C.I.E., I believe that if there had been any attempt to provide the service envisaged by the Minister it would have been more costly than either he or C.I.E. anticipated.

The alternative is to give a little service for a while and then gradually reduce it. Only when C.I.E. is satisfied that a railway is economic is it to be continued. That is why I disagree with my good friend and colleague, Deputy Manley, when he talks about the importance of arriving at the time when there would be no need for such a Ministry because of the go ahead policy of these various boards. May I say that while I am apprehensive of the policy of C.I.E. in regard to these matters, I have no intention of not giving credit where credit is due and I believe it is due to him to give credit to the new manager of the bus section in Co. Cork. He undoubtedly is doing everything possible to co-operate with the people and to provide extended bus services to different parts of south Cork. I hope that the co-operation he is giving will provide us with greatly improved services to those places including a little place called Summer Cove. We were told by C.I.E. that if the County Council improved the roads to this place, they would provide a bus service. The County Council did so and then we were told by C.I.E. that the road was too narrow. That is the attitude of the company but I believe it is not the attitude of the present manager down there. His attitude is that he will do everything possible to co-operate with the people.

I took a special note of what the Minister said about oil pollution on beaches. I am not blaming the Minister for that and, while this year it does not seem to be such a severe handicap to the people in the seaside resorts, I must say that last year it proved a matter of grave anxiety to residents and visitors to those areas. It affected the livelihood of people who had houses, bungalows, and rooms to let. Conditions were so bad that after one trip to the various beaches of south and south-west Cork many visitors refused to go back there. There has been an improvement this year but I think it is something that must be closely watched. It is essential that the tragic situation of last year should not be allowed to recur.

I agree with Deputy Russell and I, also, am disappointed that we have made no progress towards securing our share of cross-Channel shipping. I know that it may be very difficult and some of us may be more anxious to build up a successful mercantile fleet. However, it is about time that we made some move to break the stranglehold that is affecting this country through the high freightage rates in operation on this route. This is too serious a matter to leave in the hands of the privileged few who are making much more from it than they are entitled to by the profits which they are taking form our agricultural and industrial production and by the charges which they are imposing on our imports. I think the Minister should give consideration to the possibilty of obtaining a share in this traffic.

The Minister mentioned the matter of our foreshores. I understand all that is covered in the Foreshore Acts but I think the Minister, by having a chat with the Minister for Local Government, may be able to help local authorities in this matter. In many places in Cork there are pleasant little seaside resorts. Transport to them is a big problem but parking is a bigger one. If there was co-operation between the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Local Government something could be done to help local authorities to avail of the space that is there for the asking. That would be a great help to all concerned. I have seen instances recently where C.I.E. buses were held up for an hour and a half or two hours because of traffic jams leading to these places. The spaces are there and the Minister should look into the matter.

Another item which is of interest to us is Cork airport. All I can say is that I am not satisfied with the excuse that the Minister gave about the delay. We had all hoped that the airport would be opened sooner than it seems will be the case. From my information—I am not off the mark at all in this instance — they were not held up owing to the cement strike. They were not short of cement. The Minister may shake his head, but I know contractors who gave them some of their cement supplies. The delay in the completion of the work is not due solely to any shortage of cement.

I am disappointed to learn that the Minister did not go into the matter more carefully to find out what the true position is. I know that earlier in the year the bad weather was a contributory factor in slowing down work. Since then we have had very fine weather indeed. Since then considerable progress has been made, but yet not sufficient progress. That is not due to any fault on the part of the workers. The cement strike is not an excuse for the unduly long delay in opening Cork airport.

Deputy Manley said he was chiefly interested in electricity. All of us who come from rural areas realise what electricity means to the people in these areas. The Minister made it quite clear in his statement that the demand for electricity is increasing every year. He did not develop the statement by saying that, as the demand increases, so does the price. It is really an extraordinary situation. Many years ago people were told that, if they would take electricity, after a period of years the charges would go down. The more people who took it the cheaper it would be. Looking back now over the years we all realise that the reverse has been the case. I believe the increase in the price of electricity is far more than it should be.

I do not take this line merely because Fianna Fáil happen to be in power. All through the years I have had my own personal view in this matter. All through the years successive Governments and successive Ministers have been far too ready to agree to increased charges. Of course, I know what the answer will be—increased costs, increased capital charges. What of the future? Why burden the people of today to get a return in the immediate future so that those in the distant future will reap the benefits for which the present generation are asked to pay. That is not a sensible policy.

I believe the time will come when this State body will find itself with all its commitments cleared and with a very comfortable bank balance. I wonder what will capital expenditure be from then on. I wonder what the reserves and profits will be used for. These impositions at the moment are more than people can pay in present circumstances. It is wrong for a Minister simply to agree every time the E.S.B. want to increase their charges because costs have gone up and capital charges have increased.

Deputy Manley drew attention to the extraordinary situation obtaining in many parts of Cork. All over the county there are pockets left without electricity. Planning was bad in County Cork. I made inquiries about the programme in other counties and I was informed that in other counties— Wicklow is one of them—there are no pockets in which the people are left without electric current as they have been in County Cork. We are facing a situation in which 25 per cent. at least will never be able to enjoy the benefits of electric current. They will have to depend on paraffin oil or calor gas. They will get nothing from the E.S.B. There is no place for them in rural electrification. Obviously the policy has been to pick the plums, the areas that would give the best financial return and to leave those areas where connection might have cost a little more without any current simply because it would not pay the E.S.B. There are areas eight, 10 or 12 miles from Cork city which have no electric current. There is no justification for that. As far as I can see, there is no reason for it. Unfortunately the Board are in a position to pick and choose, and people are at the mercy of the Board.

I am sorry the Minister could not see his way to discuss in conjunction with his Estimate, the motion which has been on the Order Paper for the last six months. I accept his decision. Apparently it did not suit him to have a dual discussion. I believe time has proved this new Department of Transport and Power a failure. When the Minister for Industry and Commerce was in charge of transport and power, he came into this Chamber and informed us that he had no responsibility in the day-to-day workings of such and such a board or such and such a body. When this new Ministry was set up full responsibility was given to the Minister in relation to transport and power. Some of us anticipated that there would be a change in the daily refrain: "The Minister has no responsibility." That has not proved to be the case. To date, we get the same reply — the Minister has no responsibility. The Minister has no responsibility for the day-to-day administration of C.I.E. and the closing of the branch lines.

Major statements on policy were made by members of these boards around the country. If the Minister was asked a question in relation to those statements, what was his reply? "The Minister has no responsibility." A short while ago when the unfortunate bus workers were out on strike, apparently, the Minister for Transport and Power had no responsibility and even then the Minister for Industry and Commerce had to be called in. In the case of the increased bus fares, again we were told the Minister had no responsibility. If the Minister has no responsibility, he should not be there. I am not speaking of the present occupant of the office, but of any Minister for Transport and Power.

A Minister should have responsibility and, above all, a Minister should have control. It is quite obvious that the Minister for Transport and Power has no more control, or does not want to have it, over these State or semi-State bodies than the ordinary person walking the streets in rural Ireland. We are paying the Minister and keeping the Department going. I would be the last person to object to any salary for any Minister. I believe that a hardworking Minister is not properly paid. I am afraid the Minister for Transport and Power, although he may be terribly anxious to work, has no work to do in connection with his Department when it comes to these State or semi-State bodies.

It is fantastic to continue this system. It may be convenient for a Minister to divest himself of responsibility. Without such power or responsibility in the Minister we have seen autocratic decisions, such as the closing of branch lines, in spite of demands by the members of this House to hold up such decisions and of requests to the Minister to inform them or to meet them to discuss the matter.

These boards may be giving a good return, but we are paying dearly for it because of the autocratic control they now have. What proof have we that, as years go by, they will not grab to themselves greater power, greater control and ignore to a greater degree the desires of the people as a whole and the questions that may be asked in this Chamber? I do not agree with that policy and that is why I say this Department is a failure so long as the Minister has not that control and is not prepared to accept the responsibility of control over these bodies.

Of course, the Minister should not have to come in here and answer for every tittle-tattle when any Deputy wants to know why such a bus did not leave a certain village at a certain time. There is a happy medium. There is the right of a Deputy to know why a board is acting in a certain manner. Deputies who did inquire got the same answer—that the Minister has no responsibility. In spite of all the information given to us in the notes that have been circulated, and despite the Minister's personal belief in the importance of his Department and his Ministerial post. I still think that the Department has been a failure.

I do not wish to be vindictive but we must face realities. The Minister seems to prefer going around the country making statements on general policy, very often completely removed from the activities of his Department and his own responsibility to the Government and the people. I was surprised recently by one of the Minister's many statements, as quoted in the Cork Examiner of 26th April, 1961. The Minister excelled himself in speaking in Dublin city at a political meeting. At one stage we are told C.I.E. is in the position of paying its way. In my view the Minister's statement goes to show that in a few years' time C.I.E. will have money to throw away.

On the subject of roads, the Minister spoke of arterial highways, 24 feet wide in the main with double carriageways where required. It is not a question of an odd case but "where required". He suggests that by 1970 the amount of £150,000,000 will have been spent on that development. He goes further. Apparently he gave a full survey of the whole transport field but when speaking of C.I.E. and their new railway carriages he said that with these new railways carriages there would be even fewer stops. Apparently C.I.E. will have grand carriages and will be going at an average of 60 to 70 miles an hour, so that they will have far fewer stops than they have at the present time. With fewer stops, they will probably have fewer passengers. Can C.I.E. afford all that? They will probably leave Cork and arrive in Dublin in a few hours, with no stops at Limerick Junction or anywhere else, and no passengers getting in at intermediate stations.

That is an idiotic supposition.

I am dealing with what the Minister said in Dublin on 26th April.

I never said that.

I have yet to find the Cork Examiner telling an untruth, whatever about the Dublin papers.

I did not say the trains would be empty.

The Minister states here that with the new trains with an all-round average of 50 to 70 miles per hour on main arterial routes, there would be even fewer stops. At the present time even on these main lines, the few stops they have give a good return in that passengers get aboard. With fewer stops there will be fewer passengers on the intermediate sections of the line from Cork to Dublin and perhaps from Dublin to the West. The Minister can change that now if he wishes. Again, he says the new coaches will be brighter, better designed, as noiseless as a modern car and running on very much improved tracks. They will, but they will not be in West Cork.

Speaking of the modern buses at a time, apparently when C.I.E. will have money to throw away and provide the very best of luxury, that is between now and 1970, the Minister said the bus services would be speeded up, with more modern, more silent buses. They will, and at that stage the buses they have at present in Dublin will be drafted out to the rural areas. The rural areas will get the noisy ones. They will have the noiseless, modern, beautiful buses in Dublin.

I did not say that.

I am saying it for the Minister.

The Deputy must be very careful to distinguish between my statements and his own.

The Minister was not satisfied with that. It was a very happy occasion.

Was it a party?

It was a political meeting. Speaking of air services he said the development of small private air services using licensed airfields in the vicinity of large provincial towns might become a practical proposition. We will have an airfield in Dunmanway, another in Bantry and no railway between Cork City and the West. They will have their little airfields and aeroplanes will be coming into Cork City. That will be grand. Instead of going into this orbit of high fantasy on the 26th April the Minister should have remembered that he is the person who sat back and refused to meet a deputation in connection with the closing of railway lines, the Minister who never raised a finger against an increase in charges by the E.S.B., who refused, or at least did not come to the fore, to settle the bus strike when the men were out. If he thought of these things he would speak less of the position in 1970.

Whether in regard to C.I.E. or Aer Lingus, the Minister is doing no good for this country. The other day he was in Limerick in all his glory, but he was far removed from Transport and Power. I would suggest he should come back to reality. We believe transport is essential for this country, but we can never forget that when C.I.E. wished to cut down transport and abolish the railway lines, it was the Minister who made sure they had their way at all costs.

The concluding page of the Minister's speech tells us "C.I.E. have embarked upon a comprehensive programme of improvements which looks forward to bigger business created through better service." I want to inform the Minister that the alternative service provided in West Cork as a result of the closing down of the railway lines is not a better service and is not giving satisfaction.

Am I to be allowed to reply to the suggestion by Deputy Wycherley? Have you any observations to make on that, Sir?

I have already stated that references may not be made to a case pending in the courts.

When we were trying to meet the Minister previously to discuss the closing of the railway, we were debarred from speaking also. I am discussing only the alternative services now. May we not even discuss the alternative services?

That is impinging on the case before the courts.

I do not think so.

Of course, it is.

What courts?

I do not know what courts.

I do not either.

I know there is a case pending before the courts. Does the Deputy challenge that?

We do not know.

I am just saying I know there is a case pending before the courts.

What case?

Is the Chair speaking of an official note communicated to it from the Central Office of the High Court or any other office of authority?

I am satisfied the information came to me from a reliable source.

I do not know whether sources ever turn out completely reliable.

I am satisfied the source is reliable.

If the source were official, I would have no quarrel with the Chair's ruling in the matter.

Is the Deputy denying there is a case before the courts?

I do not know.

Is the Deputy challenging it?

I am only asking if the Chair has an official note of the fact that there is a case pending before the courts.

I have told the Deputy I have knowledge that satisfies me there is a case pending before the courts.

What is the case?

Does the Deputy think I am making a statement without knowledge of the facts?

If the statement the Ceann Comhairle has made is correct, that there is a case pending before the courts, I consider it a good job for the people of West Cork that when all other efforts failed to reach some agreement, there is still some authority left in the country, and that authority is the Courts of Justice. We made every effort in regard to this. I admire the efforts of the people of West Cork who have resorted to this last measure, whatever the outcome will be, because I know their mettle. They never lay down under pressure.

The loss on C.I.E. to the 31st March was in the region of £250,000, an insignificant sum compared to the £4,615,000 spent on the development of Shannon Airport and the industrial zone. I was glad to see the Minister within the past few days opening a piano factory there to give employment to 200 people, exactly the same number as were put out of employment in my constituency as a result of the closing of the railway. I am shocked to find that after all the money spent on Shannon the number of people employed there is only 724. You need only travel a couple of townlands in my constituency to find that number employed in an area where no Government assistance ever finds its way. It is no wonder Deputy O'Malley and Deputy Russell were proud of the achievements in Shannon, considering the amount of money poured into that small area to provide employment for 720 people. We should be more realistic in our approach to development in this country.

I should like to see greater trade developed here. The greatest trade that can ever be developed will spring from the soil of the country. When the Minister contemplates building more ships and aircraft, at least the ships should be fitted out with refrigerators, because in the near future when we enter the Common Market, as we surely will, it will be important for us to go more and more into the dressed meat trade and to send our beef and mutton to the Continental market in refrigerated ships. I hope those ships will be part of the Irish shipping fleet and will be built in our own Verolme Dockyard. We should be making our preparations now. Instead of spending the resources we have lightly, we should concentrate on building up an export trade for the produce of the land — beef, mutton, bacon, eggs, butter, milk, cheese, and all the commodities which can be produced here in abundance and transported to the Continent in our own ships, if we provide them in time.

I have one request to make to the Minister. I am doing so because of representations made to me by the people I have the honour to represent. If the Minister is not going to have the railways in West Cork functioning again, he should in the very near future declare West Cork a free area for hauliers to carry on their business.

The Deputy is proceeding to discuss what I have already indicated he may not discuss.

I do not think it would apply in this case at all. This has nothing to do with the courts.

It is I who have to do the thinking in this case. I have told the Deputy he may not refer to this matter.

The Deputy had better get the local Fianna Fáil Cumann to apply for the licences.

If we are not going to have the railways we want a free zone for hauliers, so that there will be free competition and that goods will be delivered at the cheapest possible rate.

The Deputy is not taking any notice whatever of the ruling I have given.

Having said so much on the railways, I will switch over to the E.S.B. In that respect also I have a crow to pluck with the Minister who claims that no promise was ever made in connection with the fixed charge. I have a very clear recollection of the promise made at a public meeting which I attended that there would be no alteration in the fixed charge. It was on that undertaking being given that the people of my area had the electricity installed. Now it has come about that at the whim of the E.S.B., whenever they think fit, they increase the fixed charge.

I would not blame the E.S.B. for increasing the charge for electricity consumption if they had to but I must condemn their action in altering the fixed charge. It got the name "fixed charge" from the start, and that solemn promise was given in my presence. Whether it was given by responsible or irresponsible people, nevertheless, they represented the E.S.B. at the time. They have broken faith with the people on that score and that should not happen in a State-sponsored body. I would ask the Minister to change his mind in that respect and to ensure that is the last time the E.S.B. will try tricks of that kind on the consumers of electricity.

The cost of electricity is altogether too high and if it continues to soar I fear that many people in rural Ireland will have to abandon it altogether and revert to the old system of private power and private light. There is a limit to what the people can bear in this regard. I want to bring that very forcibly to the notice of the Minister who claims responsibility in this matter and to convey to the E.S.B. that the limit has been reached in regard to charges for electricity in rural Ireland.

My only other comment would be to express the hope that the result of the Supreme Court action will be that the railway will run again in West Cork.

The first matter I wish to raise on this Estimate is the position last harvest in regard to the carriage of grain, particularly in the eastern portion of my constituency. There was not sufficient transport. Lorries were carrying wheat to the mills and, due to the disorganisation there, the wheat had to be carried back. It had to be taken there again the following day; in fact lorries of wheat had to go as often as five times before they were taken in at the mill.

During the whole of that period of wet weather, barley, after being harvested, was rotting in the fields. The local co-operative societies called into C.I.E. for transport. They were informed of the price; they were also informed that there would be no helper sent out with the lorry and that no lorry had a mechanical loader. The smallest private lorry catering for the wants of the rural community dare not go into any haggard or yard without a mechanical loader but C.I.E. had none. When private lorries came to the rescue of farmers by taking their barley to the mills, instead of leaving it to rot in the fields, they were immediately followed along the road either by C.I.E. scouts or by guards especially employed for the purpose of issuing a load of prosecutions. C.I.E. should either cater for the demand or get out of this business.

It is nearly two years since we heard rumours of the closing down of the Cork-Youghal line. At that time I discovered that C.I.E. had a completely wrong set of figures. I went to the Irish Sugar Company who had to go to the trouble of taking their figures apart in order to find out what exactly was the value of the freightage on beet on the Cork-Youghal line. We found it was more than paying for the line and that is the line it was intended to close. It was left alone for a few months and the next thing was that the train leaving Youghal with workers in the morning to arrive in Cork at 8.45 a.m., was arriving 20 minutes late.

What is the name of the line to which the Deputy is referring? Is this the line the action is about?

No. This is the line there is no action about yet. This is the line they are trying to close. At first that train could not possibly arrive before 9 o'clock in the morning. Workers who had to be at their place of employment in the city at 9 o'clock and schoolchildren who had to be at secondary schools in the city by that time, arrived at the station at five or ten minutes past nine. Lo and behold C.I.E. were immediately able to change the whole picture. The train always arrived then at 8.45 p.m. or 8.50 p.m. after that. Having failed with that they reduced the weekly fares on the buses lower than the weekly ticket on the railway. That was the second step taken to deal with that.

Something like three weeks ago I had to deal with another manoeuvre on the same lines, namely, the train from Cork to Cobh. Apparently the idea that is behind C.I.E. is that: "We are there to cater for the citizens of Dublin and the citizens of Cork and the rural community must pay for it." I found that unfortunate men wanting to go to work in the morning had no train. I found further that some forty or fifty school children who were issued with monthly tickets for the month of June found that, if they were to get home from school, they had to walk. Whether that was considered a breach of contract or not I do not know. I brought the matter up in this House and the Minister informed me that — wherever he got his information —they now had an alternative bus service to Cobh.

It is a great many years ago—nearly twenty years ago—since I dealt with the ridiculous position of a train and a bus leaving at the same hour, travelling side by side, one on the road and the other on the railway, catering for the one class of passengers. I succeeded. There was no bus into Cobh for the past fifteen years carrying regular passengers but the Minister informed me last week that those people now had an alternative service. I tried to find a way out of it and I found it, and when the area manager of C.I.E. and the district manager came down and met the people for themselves and saw there were no fewer than three private buses prepared to cater for the passengers they were leaving after them, then the train that could not stop at all before, stopped. We had even a special bus running side by side with the train to deliver the passengers at Cobh junction and put them into the train there. They made only one mistake; they could go all right but they could not all get home. The train would not stop at all for them coming home nor was there any bus to take them. The result was that nobody bothered about the bus. They took their bicycles down to the junction. I would like to see somebody take charge and straighten it out.

I heard Deputies speak about the Minister having no responsibility. We must remember that the Act under which this is being done was passed through the House without a division —that every Deputy over there is just as guilty as Deputies on these benches. This is not a political rack that you can hang your hat on.

This is a complete racket.

The Opposition were the people who were supposed to be watching.

Was the Deputy not watching?

The Opposition did not bother, with that result.

You ought to come over here and keep an eye on things.

Deputies of the Opposition are complaining. For the last nine months we are hearing wailing and moaning from them every day but there has not been one single Deputy in the Opposition to put down a proposal to eliminate or amend that Section of the Act. None of them has done it; they are too lazy. I think Deputies with that remedy in their hands should not be getting up here and moaning about it. It would not take ten minutes for any one of the legal luminaries hanging around over there to prepare an amendment——

The Deputy is advocating legislation. The Deputy may not advocate legislation.

Big heaps of laziness.

He is pleading guilty but saying that there are others guilty too.

They are absolutely useless.

We are over-awed by the Deputy's intelligence.

One other matter I should like to deal with is rural electricity. It amazed me to find a few weeks ago that half the parish of Burnfoot, Mourne Abbey, lying on the main road between Cork and Mallow was still without rural electricity.

Is that in the Gaza Strip?

It is in the constituency and Deputy Moher would want to keep an eye on it. I want to know why it is left without electricity. It is time we got down to brass tacks about this.

Surely an active Deputy should know that.

Well it was not my baby until now and I received no complaint until now. I am bringing it now to the notice of the responsible Minister and I hope I will not have to be dragging it up here by questions and on the adjournment. They have a large piece of the county lighted by lantern at present, deprived of electricity for milking the cows, and the matter for them is a very serious one. I am suggesting to the Minister that he sharpen up the E.S.B. lads on this matter.

I do not think this House can complain they have not been made fully conversant with the difficulties Cork experiences in the matter of transport, fuel and power. It is time some other areas had a say. In his statement the Minister referred to the dumping of waste oil in territorial waters. Recently I asked him on three or four occasions—other Deputies also referred to it—what he was doing about ridding our coasts of this waste oil from ships. I am not criticising the Minister for saying that there was nothing he could do about it. Recently I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee of the Council of Europe which deals with the overall problems of the member-countries and this matter was brought up.

During the discussion I was told that recent legislation had been passed in the British Commons whereby it was mandatory on the people concerned not to dump their oil in closed water. I take it that the 1956 international legislation precludes anyone from dumping oil waste in territorial waters or closed waters. It is absolutely clear that the oil dumped on our coasts here must be dumped by British ships because at least 75 per cent. of the ships coming here are British.

It is not a problem peculiar to us in this country. At the discussion of this committee, the representatives of the Council of Europe were asked to raise the matter in their respective Parliaments. We were asked to bring the matter before each Parliament so that every country might be made aware of the problems that exist whereby all the bathing beaches in most coastal countries in Europe are being destroyed by oil and whereby bird life and all natural life generally is clearly being interfered with. It was decided that representations be made through the Council, who are the Foreign Ministers of all the 16 nations, to the people concerned to see that the resolution was brought home to every Parliament represented in the assembly. I am touching on this matter so that the Minister may know this problem will come back again, and perhaps without very much delay, at a national level from several member States of the Council of Europe. I trust he will take some action to see that something is done about it because it is clearly going to get worse and will wreck our tourism. I am sure the situation in Britain, overall, is equally bad, though the principal offenders in this case are the British themselves. I am told it is very bad in Scandinavia as well.

With regard to C.I.E., this Estimate is the only chance one gets of saying all one would like about the company. If I wanted to say all the things I should like to say about C.I.E. I would be here all night. Before I speak of C.I.E. I should like to refer to a letter sent to me on February 15 last when I tabled a Question in this House relative to the condition of the railway coaches used between Dublin and Rosslare. The letter was sent by the Ceann Comhairle and said he regretted he would have to disallow the question to the Minister for Transport and Power relative to the condition of the coaches on the Dublin to Rosslare train as the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter.

The problem we face here is: where do the Minister's functions begin and where do they end or, has he any functions at all relative to our public transport? He is the Minister who asks this House for the Vote and who will be responsible to us for the subsidy Vote which will be necessary to keep C.I.E. in existence. Therefore, what is his function exactly in relation to C.I.E.? When this Estimate comes along it is only natural I should ask those questions, since apparently it is the only opportunity I shall have during the year. If Dáil Éireann is to vote, as of necessity it does and has been doing for years, large sums of money for subsidisation, surely it is the right of any Deputy to ask a question.

I know Deputy Desmond complained about not being allowed to ask a number of finnicky questions on where a bus started and where it finished its run. I can understand that the Minister would not be anxious to answer such questions, but surely if the Minister can answer questions in relation to the E.S.B. or Bord na Mona, he can answer a question such as I asked. The route concerned is from Dublin to Rosslare Harbour which is an important entry centre for tourists coming into Ireland. It is the most important outside Dublin — all due apologies to Cork who had their share of time here this evening.

That is an important route and it is true to say that if the Minister travels on that train, provided he does not let the C.I.E. authorities know beforehand, he will see the necessity for an immediate improvement. I recall the Minister telling the Wexford Chamber of Commerce that he travelled on that train, that C.I.E. did not know about it in advance, and that he enjoyed the trip, that he was most comfortable and that he found the coaches very good. The C.I.E. officials were not born yesterday. They must have known the Minister was likely to travel down on that train.

I was on the ordinary train.

They must have taken a chance that the Minister would leave the State car behind and travel down by train and put on a few decent coaches on that day. I can assure the Minister that when I travel by rail, which is not very often because I find the coaches so uncomfortable, I find the windows will not close properly at the top, that in the winter the heating does not work properly and that the coaches generally are antediluvian.

I came back in a train like that from Wexford.

Then I hope the Minister will excuse me if I state the case properly. The reason I am doing it is that I fear the effect it will have on tourism.

More railway stock is being introduced gradually but I cannot tell the Deputy when that particular line will be attended to.

Would the Minister tell me if he thinks the Rosslare to Dublin carriages are up to standard by comparison?

No, they are not.

I will put it to the Minister that it is time they were. Why should we have to endure what other people have not got to endure? We have got no specific road grants to compensate for such a bad service. We are a tourist centre and a vital avenue of entry. It is now three or four months since he gave that encouraging report to the Wexford Chamber of Commerce in which he forecast a rosy future for Ireland as a whole. I do not agree with all he said but it is some months since it took place and there has been time since to do something about it. I would say that it would be a good idea to scrap the lot and give us completely new coaches on that line.

With regard to the service which C.I.E. gives the public, it is true to say that they are not losing as much money as they were before, but we have to remember that they have a complete monopoly of Irish transport. When the last Transport Act was going through the House they were given the right to abandon public transport wherever they found it unsuitable and that is just what is happening. They have also been given much greater control of public freight transport than heretofore. At one time a farmer could drive for his neighbour. He could carry goods to the station or to a local town or from one farm to another free of charge. He was entitled to do that, but if he drove on the public road the C.I.E. spotters and the Gardaí were after him.

Now he is not allowed to do it free. That is the appalling situation which we have reached in this democratic country of ours. C.I.E. has a monopoly of practically everything in the country and, having that, they should give the public a first class service. They do not do that. There are repeated and frustrating delays in the delivery of machinery and goods generally. There are repeated mistakes and those mistakes are made in Dublin. I have knowledge of stuff shipped into this country by wholesale machinery agents who consign it for transport to all parts of Ireland. There are repeated instances of C.I.E. sending such consignments to the wrong place. If you hand over a monopoly to one firm, that firm ought to give the public good service.

There would not be so many complaints about these mistakes if public representatives were in a position to object to them and call attention to them but they cannot do that. If a person orders something from Dublin and it is sent out by C.I.E. and is not delivered, there is no redress for that individual except to go to the courts. That is what things have come to. Is it not an appalling state of affairs under a democratic Constitution such as ours that you have a firm with a monopoly and you cannot say a word about it in Dáil Éireann? Many Deputies would not have a word to say if the Minister would answer reasonable questions but he does not do so.

I do not blame the Ceann Comhairle for sending out a letter such as the one I have got. The Chair has to co-operate with the Government of the day to try and make the working of Parliament as efficient and smooth as possible. If the Minister goes to the Ceann Comhairle and says that he has no function in the matter, the Deputy seeking information will get a letter such as I have referred to. If the Minister is going to be Minister for Transport and Power, he has to accept full responsibility for that post and he must answer reasonable questions. We all accept that the Chair is most reasonable as far as Parliamentary Questions go, but if I asked a question about C.I.E. I would be ruled out of order as the position is at the moment. When the Minister replies he ought to tell us what his intentions for the future are and whether he is going to relax the restrictions and give us information from time to time.

The Minister has mentioned that he has had contacts with regard to cross-channel shipping, that he has received co-operation from the Ministry of Transport, that conditions have been improved and that there will be easier travel for those of our emigrants coming home on holidays, particularly when they have only a few days at their disposal. I notice that he referred to catering facilities which is one of the aspects which badly need to be improved upon. He did not enlarge upon that. I should like him to give some information to the House so that we could pass on to our constituents before the election some knowledge of the comforts that are going to be made available to emigrants who have gone abroad to earn a living when they are coming home on holidays.

Many people who get aboard a train at Euston and are coming through to Holyhead, which is about a seven hour journey, cannot get food of any sort. If they could get food it is badly served and an exorbitant price is charged. When people have lined up for hours to get into the restaurants, they can get nothing. What is the position in that regard now? Are Irish people, who are entitled to as good a service as the rest of the public, going to get proper restaurant service such as is available on the routes from London to Liverpool, or Manchester or Bristol or are they going to continue to be loaded on trains like cattle and sheep as they have been over the years?

Is the Minister satisfied that there is going to be a discontinuance of the practice of leaving people shivering at the pier? Is he satisfied that the ships will arrive nearer to the time? There is no reason why they should not arrive on time as they do on all the other routes. When people come home and they have only a few days to spend at home, are they going to have an opportunity of getting a connection to bring them to their destination? Many people who try to add a week-end to their holidays find that when they arrive here on a Sunday morning they are stranded in Dublin until Monday morning because they cannot get connections to their homes.

Another matter to which I want to refer is a point to which Deputy O'Sullivan was going to refer this afternoon. That is the question of air travellers arriving at Busarus and the difficulty of getting transport there. The Minister said he had dealt with that problem. I raised that matter in the House recently and I pointed out that people coming into this country by air were dumped at Busarus in an area which has no direct connection with the main bus routes. I think that is a mistake. There does not appear to be any remedy unless the bus terminus is moved.

Another complaint I have to make is the delay in getting a taxi. The Minister promised he would look into that matter and I believe he has looked into it because I took the trouble to go down there myself the other day to see what the position is now. The same system prevails. There are no taxis but there is a man now equipped with a whistle and he whistles up a taxi for anyone who wants one. Admittedly the taxi now comes more quickly, but people still have to wait. If it is cold and wet people coming off a long journey do not want to stand about waiting.

I can see no reason why there should not be a taxi rank there to which passengers could walk over and engage a cab instead of waiting for this whistle blowing and waiting for a taxi to reply to that whistle. It makes a bad impression. I heard people complaining the other day. The general concensus of opinion was that that sort of thing did not happen anywhere else, and it should not happen here either. The odd commentary is that it did not happen in the case of the old station in Cathal Brugha Street. I do not know what the Minister can do to put the matter right. I see no reason why there should not be a taxi stand right opposite; there is room for it.

I understand responsibility for the canals rests on C.I.E. I wonder if one single reed has been removed from the canal since the Transport Act was passed some four years ago. I suggest the Minister should tour the canals in his State car and observe for himself the condition in which they are. They are certainly not beneficial to the health of the people. I understood that the canals were to be kept open by C.I.E. for the benefit of the general public. Are C.I.E. carrying out that responsibility?

I attended a deputation recently to the Minister in connection with Wexford Harbour. The situation is very critical. Unless something is done very quickly, by way of emergency grant, shipping will cease altogether. Wexford is a fairly important place. Deputy Corish will probably say it is a very important place. It is a thriving town with several important industries. There has been a harbour in Wexford for centuries. A good deal of small shipping comes in there. If something is not done no ships will be able to come in at all. I think it is unlikely the Minister will be able to give us the large grant asked for but there is an emergency condition there and an emergency grant is required to keep the harbour in operation. I ask the Minister to give the matter his attention and to do something to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.

First of all, I want to refer to the acute problem of Wexford Harbour. The Minister was kind in receiving a deputation just before Easter from Wexford Town, a deputation which included some of the Deputies from the constituency. The Minister seemed to appreciate the problem and I should like to know what, if anything, has been done since. I may have been too optimistic, but I gathered from the Minister on the occasion of the deputation that there was a possibility that something should be done. Whether it was to be a major improvement scheme or a temporary improvement job I do not know but, as far as I am aware, nothing much has happened since. There have been some queries in the interim to the Wexford Harbour Board to which, I understand, replies have not yet been sent. I should like publicly here to stress the importance of doing something.

My information in the last few days is that the harbour is virtually closed. If keeping the harbour open means an expenditure of £200,000 or £250,000 that would be money well spent. The Minister impressed upon us the necessity for compiling a report indicating the new business that would be drawn to Wexford Harbour. I think he ought to be more concerned with the possible loss of employment should the port be closed. There are 30 to 40 dockers dependent for their employment on the port. There are many others who handle cargoes unshipped at Wexford or cargoes going out from Wexford. I suppose it would be fair to say that 100 or 150 people are directly involved.

In encouraging industrial development the Government would have no hesitation in making available £100,000 or £250,000 to ensure new employment for 100 people. Here we have 100 or 150 dependent for their employment on the navigability, so to speak, of Wexford Harbour, and money is not forthcoming. I appreciate the Minister's difficulties. There may be an engineering problem involved. I want, however, to impress upon him tonight the necessity for doing something pretty quickly because the pattern of life today is such that if these men — the dockers in particular—become unemployed for two or three weeks, or even less, they are bound to emigrate. From that point of view it is a very serious situation. I ask the Minister to treat this matter as one of urgency with a view to seeing what can be done in the immediate future to permit even the minimum number of ships to enter and leave the port. The Minister has all the facts.

The only other point I wish to raise is in connection with C.I.E. The Minister referred in his speech to the mystery tours run by C.I.E. On page 5 he says:

Another innovation, the Rail Rambler ticket, introduced in 1960, earned £8,600. Mystery trains, successfully revived in 1959, carried 25,000 passengers in the 1960 season ...

They seem to be pretty successful. The Minister seems to think they are successful and I have no doubt that the Chairman and the Board also regard these mystery trains as being a project which has succeeded in getting more revenue for the Board.

Would the Minister consider a substantial reduction in rail fares in excursions, say, to sporting fixtures? The people of the provincial towns cannot understand how the people, say, from the city of Dublin can come as far as Wexford, Clonmel, and various other parts of the country for a mere 5/- to 7/- when, on the other hand, if Tipperary or Wexford or some other provincial centre find their team is in an all-Ireland hurling final or football semi-final, they have to pay 18/7d. A fair amount of extra revenue could be derived by C.I.E. from excursions to these sporting fixtures at very much reduced rates.

It may be said that Dublin has a large population and when C.I.E. run these mystery trains there is a bigger chance of the trains being filled but I trust the Minister appreciates, as I am sure the Chairman of C.I.E. does, the tremendous interest there is in the Gaelic Athletic Association games, particularly in the country. I would seriously suggest that C.I.E.'s revenue could be substantially improved if somewhat similar reduced rail prices were provided for persons travelling from provincial centres to Dublin as are charged from Dublin to the provincial centres.

Perhaps the Minister would look into the question of Wexford Harbour and pass on for what it is worth the suggestion I have made with regard to a reduction in excursion fares, especially at times when there are sporting fixtures in Dublin and other centres.

In going through the notes which the Minister very kindly put at our disposal prior to the Estimate and in going through the Estimate speech itself, one can indulge in certain mental exercises, some of them disturbing, some surprising. As I went through the notes on the activities of the Department and the Estimate speech, from page to page, I encountered debts, greater or smaller, figures that on close examination must shake the average taxpayer. The most interesting exercise of all was that which failed to find in any part of these notes or in any part of the speech the Minister's favourite expressions and phrases, such as, "dynamic", "the wind of change,""superhuman effort,""a generous response on the part of our people." Quite obviously, these much used and exaggerated expressions which are employed when the Minister is making public speeches are something at which he baulks when it comes to dealing with what are very sorry facts and figures, indeed.

In the fields of transport, fuel and power, there is a perennial record of debt following debt, with here and there an expression of hope. It appears that debt is not such a bad thing, however big it is, if you can say that in the next year the debt is not so great or, if it is greater, that it is not that much greater that we should be worried about it to any extent. There is this wholesale expenditure of public moneys, some of which is necessary. Of course, it must be conceded straightaway that if we must run our public transport system at a loss, then our best endeavours must be used to see that that loss is minimised. If we must run a service such as Aer Lingus —and I stress particularly Aer Lingus —and I think we must; I think it is an excellent service and one that has proved itself down the years—then all we can do and I am sure everybody, particularly in Aer Lingus, is doing it, is to see that the debt from year to year is being reduced. That applies to operational deficits or debts.

The thing that disturbs me and, I am sure, disturbs the people of the country, if they care to inquire, is the fact that none, or very little, of the original moneys and, in some cases, additional moneys from time to time, that are given to these public companies is ever paid back—at least, not so far. When the capital that has been given to these people is not paid back or is not being paid back at a rate commensurate with good business standards, then the taxpayer should begin to take stock of a situation that promises in the end to remain perpetually in the red.

In relation to Coras Iompair Éireann and its main transport activities, with regard to the carriage of both persons and of goods, I suppose when one deals with the debt that is being reduced or has been reduced one must look to the reasons for it. After all, if one goes without a full lunch every day and does with a repast costing considerably less, one will save but it is likely that one's health in the long run will suffer. By doing without lunch one would save, I suppose 6/- to 7/- a day — 9/- to 10/- if you were to have it in a C.I.E. hotel and 12/6d. on a Bank holiday— but one is doing damage to the system by such saving. If you do not give the service, you do not incur expense.

If you pull up the railway lines or parts of them, there is no further expense. If the loss sustained in running branch lines in order to give a service amounted to roughly nearly the same amount as is being saved, then the saving cannot be ascribed to increased business efficiency in the concern because such increased business efficiency does not exist. The saving is effected by the simple principle: "Do not spend on the service and do not give the service." Accordingly, no expenditure is involved.

I should like the Minister, in replying, to deal with the recent Statutory Instrument, No. 129 of 1961, which has been executed by him and the Minister for Finance. It deals with certain powers in relation to the promotion of companies, the principal objects of which would be the building, acquisition and carrying on of hotels, places of refreshment, and so on. Paragraph (3) gives power to C.I.E. to "sell, lease or otherwise dispose of any hotel, place of refreshment" as well as any premises, plant, vehicle, machinery, and so on. Would the Minister give us a little peep into the future and tell us the programme contemplated pursuant to that Order?

So much for the whole question of C.I.E. I think there is much to be desired yet. There are some improvements here and there, but much remains to be done. It will not be done by a propaganda effort to convince the people at home and abroad that something is being done by the "new C.I.E.", which they now choose to call themselves on posters. The "new C.I.E." was born on the appointment of Dr. Andrews as Chairman of the Board. What the new C.I.E. have achieved I have already outlined— they have saved by failing to give the service.

This kind of propaganda is well exemplified, in the same way as the Minister's frequent use of "dynamic" and "wind of change", in a poster at Store Street Bus Station. It runs somewhat as follows: the new C.I.E. have cunningly placed their hotels at strategic points of beauty and scenic amenity. Mark you, the new C.I.E. have placed these hotels, which were there since the last century and were built by the old railway company, at points of scenic interest. That is what we are expected to believe. We are expected to believe it in the same way as we are expected to believe about the improvements and the savings. That is the basis of the propaganda.

I can well imagine the surprise of some American or British visitors who had not visited this country for some time and who said to themselves: "We will go to Kenmare, Mulranny, Parknasilla or Sligo to see this new hotel which the new C.I.E. have so cunningly placed at this strategic beauty spot. We knew the old hotel and we would like to see the new one."

The Minister should have very grave misgivings in regard to the issue of haulage licences. We have had this before here. I have sponsored applications from people with tractors in areas where there is no C.I.E., where it would mean the difference between them staying at home and going away, people who put their savings into these tractors and who looked for a very restricted merchandise licence. But they would not be given it because they were told in the reply that, having regard to all the circumstances, everything was all right in that area and nothing could be achieved by the granting of more licences. I think the Minister realises better than anybody that, as a result of a political meeting, secretly held in a part of my constituency, eight applications for these licences in one area were granted over-night. It has caused terrible unrest, displeasure and public disquiet all over that area. I am sure it has caused terrible trouble to the Minister himself because of the resultant rush of applications.

The meeting was not secret.

The meeting was held in secret and the applications made in secret. These people who were contemplating making these applications were shut out. As soon as they made application afterwards, they were told by the Minister that the area was adequately served. That was done before the last Presidential Referendum. They were all in the same area of Achill Island.

I want to deal now with the question of harbours. It is only fair to say a lot of money has been earmarked for them. But we must remember we are now in the last year of office of this Government, and the vast amount of this money put aside has yet to be spent. In relation to Galway, although I cannot speak for it, another difficulty arises in regard to the contractors' insurance bonds. The thing will be put off for another couple of years as it was in the recent past.

Another matter which has been exhaustively debated here is whether the Minister has functions or not — it is still a very debatable point—in regard to the State companies. I notice that on page 1 of the notes supplied to us by the Minister it is stated that the notes were prepared "on the direction of the Minister for Transport and Power to assist Deputies in their consideration and discussion of his Department's Estimates for 1961-62, Vote No. 45."

Paragraph 3 on page 2 says:

A great part of the work of the Department is concerned with State-sponsored bodies for which the Minister for Transport and Power has overall responsibility. These are the E.S.B., Bord na Móna, C.I.E., Irish Shipping, Aer Rianta, Aer Lingus, Aerlínte and the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited. Under the relevant statutes these bodies enjoy a very wide degree of autonomy in their day-to-day administration. They are, however, subject to certain statutory control particularly in relation to finance and are also responsible to the Minister in matters of general policy.

I take it the last sentence is a correct statement of the Minister's function? I take it that if there is statutory control in relation to finance, that control is in relation not alone to the finances advanced to the various companies but also to the expenditure of the moneys and the manner of its expenditure and that the Minister has direct responsibility.

In addition to its main function of providing power and light in the cities and towns, the E.S.B. has rural electrification. In both spheres of activity it has very large powers of acquisition. There is certain machinery whereby lands are acquired by the E.S.B. followed by other machinery whereby the prices of these lands are fixed.

I could understand a certain amount of liberality, if one could use the word in relation to the public purse, if we found it in relation to fixed charges for rural electrification; and I could understand if this special service charge were not so strictly adhered to in regard to unfortunate people who live in remote parts away from the main service line. Looking at the amounts spent on jet aeroplanes and the stringency with which these people in remote parts are being treated in this matter, I think the whole thing is socially lopsided.

I have some experience of the acquisition of land by the Land Commission and the E.S.B. and the machinery of fixing prices. From my own ordinary everyday experience in relation also to the acquisition of lands by local authorities in certain places I know what price land goes for. Hearing a certain rumour in my own county of Mayo as to the price the E.S.B. was paying for land I said: "Nonsense. It could not be. I know what they pay for land for power stations and other purposes." I put down a question to the Minister for Transport and Power who tells us he has a particular function in relation to finance as well as in matters of general policy.

I asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he could give me the average price paid for land per acre in County Mayo for the purpose of erecting transformers thereon. I take it that the ordinary practice is that when Questions are handed in at the General Office in this House a copy is immediately dispatched to the office of the Minister for Transport and Power. Therefore he knows perfectly well what the question is. On his own admission he has a function in regard to finance, but I did not get any reply. Instead I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle saying he regrets that; "I have to disallow the question addressed by you to the Minister for Transport and Power regarding the price paid by the E.S.B. for land on which transformers are erected, as the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter." If the Minister says he has a function in relation to finance vis-á-vis public bodies and the Ceann Comhairle says he has not, who is right? Surely the Minister should have asserted his right when he had a copy of that question, and said: “The Ceann Comhairle may feel differently but I think I have this function and I will answer the question.” I think he was free to do so, but it might not have been so easy to answer this question.

In the city of Dublin, extending to the city boundary, £500 per acre is or at least used to be the highest price paid by local authorities for housing. I think about £100 per acre is the top price the Land Commission would pay for land either for the relief of congestion or other such purpose. However, when you find that in respect of not so excellent land—we do not claim we have it in County Mayo—a mile and a half outside the town of Castlebar the E.S.B., for one acre two roods and ten perches — an acre and-a-half — paid £1,250, £800 an acre, you begin to wonder is land as valuable as we are led to believe it is and are the Germans really paying enough for land in the West of Ireland at all.

A gold mine.

It is not a gold mine exactly but I must confess to some surprise when I heard of a responsible body like the E.S.B. paying this price when there were at least three other suitable sites at a lesser price than this one. But I am sure that to the Minister for Transport and Power a great debt of gratitude will forever exist from the Minister for Lands, Deputy Moran, because he, with his power of financial control over this corporation, paid £1,250 to Deputy Moran's brother for an acre and-a-half of land in County Mayo.

I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."

I am asking the House not to grant the money which is required to meet the estimated expenditure of this Department.

May I point out to the Deputy that the motion to refer back should have been moved immediately the Minister had concluded his opening statement, and in allowing Deputy McGilligan to move the motion at this late stage I want to make it clear that I am establishing no precedent.

All right. I presume we could vote on it whether the motion to refer back was moved or not.

It does not matter. It is a formality. Anyway I am asking the House to refuse to grant the money which is stated to be the estimated expenditure for this Department. This Department was established two years ago and certainly I did not wish the Minister any happy returns of the day of its establishment. It is an unwanted Department which does not fill any useful purpose. Although under more liberal control it could have done something by way of satisfying Deputies' curiosity in regard to some of the functions of the Department itself, such a narrow outlook has been adopted as to prevent any investigation of the Department's functions.

Two years ago I described the Department as being the Department of jets and other debts. I agree with Deputy Lindsay who has just spoken that the debts seem to be on the increase. Going through the notes that have been supplied with the Minister's speech, one does not find any appreciation of the fact that when these debts are weighed against the service that has been provided, there is a great public disquiet over the whole matter.

I want to ask the House to refuse to grant this money on two grounds. First of all, I do not think the services are as admirable as the Minister thinks they are. Certainly some of them are open to criticism. I also object to the Vote on the ground that it is not possible to examine these various sections of the Department on the information that has been supplied. I read in the first page of the notes that were sent around at the weekend:

The Department was established in July, 1959, to take over the functions previously exercised by the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to transport, fuel and power.

The statement continues:

The new Department deals with land, sea and air transport and with the development of the country's fuel and power resources. It is staffed by a total of some 1,000 officers, comprising about 200 general service staff and about 800 professional and technical staff.

There is then mention of the headquarters being shared with the Department of Industry and Commerce. A thousand officers, 800 of whom are professional and technical staff, could have produced the sort of memorandum that would have elucidated the finances of the various sections of the Department over which the Minister says he presides. I say that was clearly within the capacity of the technical and professional staff that the Minister has gathered around him. There is only one explanation why that capacity has not been exercised to produce a lucid statement with regard to this Department and that is that it is not thought proper to disclose to the country what the situation is.

Progress reported ; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13th July, 1961.
Top
Share