Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1962

Vol. 193 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - C.I.E.: Survey of Problem Lines.

4.

asked the Minister for Transport and Power if Córas Iompair Éireann propose to undertake a survey of problem lines with a view to further economies in the system; if so, what lines have been earmarked for this survey; and what sections of the service are likely to be affected.

5.

asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether C.I.E. propose to close and dismantle any further section or sections of the railway.

6.

asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will state the details of the further major reorganisation of Córas Iompair Eireann referred to by him in his recent speech at Galway; whether the contemplated reorganisation envisages a further drastic reduction in rail mileage; and whether the Dáil will be given an opportunity to consider the proposals before any action is taken.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions 4, 5 and 6 together.

I am informed by C.I.E. that the entire system is to be re-examined to see what further economies can be effected. These economies are necessary to bridge the gap between the increased operating costs following the recent and prospective wage increases, and the total revenue which can be attained by increases in fares and rates and greater productivity.

This examination has only commenced and I am unable to forecast the results. It is, of course, a matter for C.I.E. to determine the means by which they will achieve the statutory obligation to pay their way by March 1964.

Will the Minister not agree that his Galway speech rather indicated that he had got some detailed information from the Board of C.I.E. as to what their intentions were in regard to further closures?

I have no detailed information with regard to the future.

The Minister was talking through his hat, then, when he was speaking about further major reorganisation about which he now admits he knew nothing?

I said a major reorganisation would take place, that the reorganisation would continue and, in fact, would speed up.

But the Minister had no indication from C.I.E.

I did not say I had in my speech.

The Minister did say that.

The Deputy is making a speech.

Will the Minister answer the last part of the question —what sections of the service are likely to be closed?

I have no idea what sections are likely to be affected.

Does the Minister know anything that is going on in his Department?

Oh, yes. In reply to the Deputy, we make a continual study of the whole effect of the 1958 Transport Act in every detail in order to ensure that its effects are not other than those that could be foreseen and in order to ensure that, if necesary, we could come to the House for amending legislation. That is part of the duty of the Minister for Transport and Power, to watch the operation of the Act and that is something we have done continually.

Did the Minister ever study the Taoiseach's promise that there would be consultation before there would be any lines taken up?

That does not arise.

All that matter was dealt with.

The Minister ran out on the Taoiseach's word.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that there is in existence a published undertaking that no further lines should be closed for a further five years after the full review has taken place. Has that undertaking now been withdrawn?

It certainly has.

What was the point in giving it then?

Having regard to the position then operating and having regard to the total cost of the operation of C.I.E. it then appeared possible to delay any further decision for some time. Now we are facing a new situation and C.I.E. in common with all other State and private companies must face the effects of cost inflation in the best way possible having regard to the interests of the community and having regard to the necessity to provide a reasonably economic public transport service by road and rail. That is all I am saying. Every company has to face these new conditions and if conditions arise, that were not anticipated with regard to cost inflation naturally a company must look again at the situation.

This is a State company. Is it reputable that immediately prior to a general election when the public are called upon to pass judgment upon Government policy, there should be published an undertaking that no further railway lines will be closed for a period of five years and that within four months of that general election having taken place the responsible Minister should get up in this House and say: "We have now changed our minds". Surely that reduces public life in this country to the lowest nadir it has ever reached?

I do not agree with the Deputy. The statement was made having regard to prevailing costs of operation——

That was not stated but it was said that after the review had taken place there would be no further closings for a period of five years.

The conditions have changed sufficiently to warrant the change in the decision.

You are going back on your word.

So far as the general election is concerned in relation to this matter I do not think the Deputy has any cause to suggest that the results of the general election showed any lack of appreciation of the results of C.I.E. policy.

I want to know have we introduced a new principle here that after a categoric undertaking, given presumably with the approval of the Government of the day, the Government may immediately after a general election if they so wish shrug their shoulders and say: "Circumstances have changed and our word is no longer valid."

C.I.E. had no official knowledge that there was an election on.

I suggest the Taoiseach should not draw me on that topic or I might have some revealing observations to make. All I remonstrate about is this: there was a categoric undertaking given that after the full survey had been made for five years C.I.E. would operate without closing further railway lines. That was generally accepted. Are we now to be told that circumstances have changed and that what we undertook not 12 months ago we now repudiate? I want to suggest that is a deplorable development and means that no Minister's word, no Government's word can be taken as worth the paper it is written on or the breath with which it is spoken.

The Deputy should seriously consider what he has said because we do not want to get into general controversy on the matter, but the Deputy will recall that on occasions, in accordance with his own line of thinking, he has made statements about future economic policy in relation to prices and costs which he himself was later compelled drastically to alter in view of the dramatic change in circumstances which took place, for instance, in 1956. Arguments that he made he certainly had to revise.

I certainly did not give an undertaking in public that I would not do something for five years and then do it within five months.

In 1956 the Minister was in the cattle trade.

Top
Share