asked the Minister for Transport and Power if in view of the widespread hardship and inconvenience which will be caused to many people by the proposed closure by Córas Iompair Éireann of substantial portions of the rail services he will reconsider his refusal to subsidise such services; and if he will make a statement in the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Closing of CIE Rail Services.
16.
Mr. Ryan
I do not accept the contention of the Deputy that the closure of branch lines results in hardship and inconvenience to many people. The experience of CIE in cases where road services have already been substituted for rail services is that such road services operate more efficiently and economically than the former rail services and provide a more convenient service for the public. As the Deputy is aware, CIE is already in receipt of an annual subsidy of £1,175,000 a year payable until March, 1964. Any increase in the present subsidy or its extension after that date for the purpose of enabling CIE to retain uneconomic rail services which could be substituted by road services would not be warranted.
Would the Minister say now if that information is incorrect?
Would the Minister say what proposals, if any, there are for the redundant workers?
The proposals indicated in the 1959 Act.
Would the Minister tell us now what they are?
That is a separate question.
The question relates to the hardship caused by the closing of these lines and the Minister has been talking only about railway lines so far.
That is all covered by legislation. The compensation is quite generous.
It may be generous, but it does not make up for the pay the men formerly received.
And the Deputy's Party accepted the provisions.
Is it not true that, in the case of several branch lines closed, the freight rates charged thereafter on the alternative service provided have gone up by anything from 100 to 200 per cent?
That is quite untrue. It was found that CIE were, under the rail service regulations, charging unduly low rates for exceptional traffic of a non-repetitive kind. In regard to the general over-all traffic position, satisfactory arrangements have been made with the vast majority of the people who formerly used the railways lines. To give an example of the sort of change that has taken place, under the former system carrying a horse exceptionally from one point to another, it not being a regular trade, was charged for at a totally uneconomic level. With the change from rail to road the charge for that particular service may be increased. In regard to the general changes, however, that have taken place, package deals have been entered into and I have had very few complaints, indeed, of increased charges.
The Minister has had one from me. The charge went from 1/9 to 2/6 after the Minister wrecked the railway line from Waterford to Tramore.
Is the Minister aware that many of the workers redundant on the closure of the last group of railway lines, even though they got pensions, were forced to emigrate because they could not find suitable alternative employment here?
In reply to the Deputy, I have had very few complaints in regard to the redundancy provisions. I told those who made submissions to me in the matter that it was one for the trade unions and the Board of CIE to discuss. There have been very few complaints indeed.
The Minister will appreciate that the trade unions were not consulted——
They were consulted.
——in regard to the actual closing down of the line. They did not express dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation or pension, but people did lose their jobs and the pensions did not make up for the wages they normally received for years before that.
Quite a considerable number of workers were transferred to other duties. A great many of those who were redundant were people of fairly advanced age who were satisfied with the compensation.
They were not satisfied. They got a few shillings.