Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Closing of Cork-Waterford Railway Lines. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 31 Oct 1962

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Closing of Cork-Waterford Railway Lines.

23.

Mr. Corry

asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware that the manager and board of Córas Iompair Éireann have refused to supply to representatives of the Cork and Waterford county councils and several urban bodies data essential in the preparation of their case against the proposed closing of the Newmarket, Kanturk, Mallow, Waterford and Cobh junction-Youghal railway lines; and what steps he intends to take to have this data made available to the committee appointed by these local authorities.

24.

Mr. Corry

asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he is aware that instructions have been issued by the board and manager of Córas Iompair Éireann to station masters in all stations in Cork and Waterford not to supply any figures or information on freight and passenger traffic at their various stations in Cork and Waterford counties to representatives of the committee formed by the local authorities to prepare a case against the closing of various railway lines; if he considers that action consistent with democratic procedure; and what action he intends to take in the matter.

25.

Mr. Corry

asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he has received a request from the committee appointed by the county councils of Cork and Waterford and the Midleton, Youghal, Mallow, Fermoy, Dungarvan and Lismore urban councils asking that he use his good offices with the board of Córas Iompair Éireann to have supplied to that committee data essential to the preparation of their case against the proposed closing of various railway lines; and, if so, if he has made representations to the board and with what results.

Mr. Childers

With the permission of an Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 24 and 25 together. The apportionment of income and expenditure to particular sections of the railway network is a highly technical and difficult problem. The Oireachtas has delegated to CIE under Section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, sole responsibility for determining whether particular railway services are economic and has vested in the Board full discretion and sole authority to discontinue services they deem to be uneconomic and likely to remain so. With a view to determining as accurately as possible the precise economic position of the various sectors and lines in the Board's rail system, the Board, with the assistance of a firm of industrial consultants, undertook during the past year an extensive study of the entire rail system. That study confirmed that the revenue earned on a number of lines was less than the direct cost of operating services over them apart from overheads and other expenditure not readily allocatable.

As regards the branch lines referred to by the Deputy, I understand that the Board have furnished to the local bodies figures showing the revenue and expenditure for the year ended 31st March, 1961 in respect of the various lines in Counties Cork and Waterford which the bodies in question requested from the Board and that the Board have invited the bodies concerned to send a deputation to discuss the matter further. I also understand that one of the bodies in question has agreed to send a deputation to the Board for this purpose.

The information sought by the local interests would not enable them to add anything to the very comprehensive study already carried out by CIE and their consultants.

As the statutory responsibility for determining whether any particular branch is economic or not rests solely on CIE, who have gone to considerable trouble to secure an objective assessment of the position for each line, I would suggest that the most appropriate way for the local bodies concerned to pursue this matter would be by discussion with the Board.

Mr. O'Sullivan

So that adequate consultation may take place at the meetings between the interested parties and the Board of CIE, would the Minister not think it desirable that all information necessary to these interested parties should be made available and would he explain the prohibition on officers of CIE giving information requested locally for these interested parties? Is the Minister further aware that in one particular case a figure of £700 in revenue was quoted to the interested parties and since receiving that quotation they received evidence, by way of receipts from traders in that area, of a figure paid in that year in excess of £7,000 and in view of the disparity in the figures, does the Minister not think that it would be more conducive to better understanding between CIE and the general public if they withdrew the prohibition on the giving by officers of information to the interested parties before they meet the Board of CIE?

Mr. Childers

It would simply create confusion if the figures given by officers of CIE in local areas where taken as being the actual figures representing the revenue attributable to a particular line. This is a firm of consultants of international repute who have prepared the figures and they have been examined by CIE. CIE are always anxious, if possible, to preserve branch lines to the extent that they may contribute revenue to the main line——

Mr. T. Lynch

Question.

Mr. Childers

——and there obviously comes the point where CIE decide that a line is uneconomic. To give a separate set of figures from different station masters and different areas and examine receipts of individual firms would simply create confusion. This is a highly technical matter and must be done in the most official way by CIE. All figures are examined by the Board and the company issue a general statement of revenue and expenditure to those people appealing to CIE in relation to the closing of a line which is accurate and quite sufficient for the purpose of any debate they would like to have.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The Minister has not answered the question I posed to him regarding the directive issued to station masters saying that under no circumstances were they to reveal to any interested party the volume of business transacted at railway stations. Why did he not permit this fuller consultation that might help to answer the questions in the minds of many people in relation to the figures supplied?

Mr. Childers

I have already done my best to explain to the Deputy that these figures would simply create confusion in the minds of the people concerned. When you examine the actual receipts and expenditure for a particular line, you have to eliminate a great part of the receipt value for goods despatched or received at any station because it does not apply to the line. This is a highly complex matter. It would be quite wrong to create a precedent whereby State companies were asked to give details of receipts and expenditure from the various branches of their operations. It would simply mean they would have no independence of action and it would be a most serious precedent. It is not necessary because I have full confidence in the Board and the manner in which these figures have been analysed.

Mr. T. Lynch

We have no confidence in the Board.

Mr. Dillon

Is it not a fantastic situation that in a business-like town such as Ardee, which has one station on a spur line from the main Dublin-Belfast line, when the local traders seek an interview with the Board of CIE to urge that the spur line should not be closed and they go to the stationmaster and ask him how much traffic originated there in the last 12 months, they should be told he will not tell them? All they want to do is to come with that information to the Board of CIE. Even if it is not in some particular relevant, is it not open to the Board to say: "It looks simple but is not as simple as it looks"? Is it not maddening that the local people should know the information is in the stationmaster's office and that yet he will not be allowed to tell them? Surely that is not good public relations?

Mr. Childers

The Ardee Town Commissioners can be received by CIE where they will be given the same figures as given to other public bodies in relation to the Ardee line.

Mr. Dillon

If we are to have decent public relations and an understanding of what is happening, and if the Ardee Town Commissioners want the figures available to the station-master, would it not be rational for CIE to say: "Here they are, but we annex herewith a report from the business consultants we employed which shows that these figures are not really relevant to your case and that the relevant figures are these figures"? Then the Ardee Town Commissioners can go to the Board of CIE and say : "You are listening to your consultants but we make the other case." That is argument. At the conclusion of the argument, the Board of CIE can act, but the present situation is that a body in the position of the Ardee Town Commissioners feel that unless they go round to every shopkeeper and every person who drove cattle in or out of Ardee station, there is no means available to them to get the information they want, although they know it is sitting in the stationmaster's office. Why not give it to them and say to them: "This is not as simple as it looks. There is another side to the story"? If the Board will do that, I think they will find people are much more reasonable than they appear to think they are. After all, the Ardee Town Commissioners represent the people. The Board of CIE represent nobody but the Executive.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy is being unreasonable. Perhaps I would be allowed to make a simple comparison. It would be exactly as if someone in the Dáil were allowed to ask the cost of the whole of the social services on the State in order to find out the cost of children's allowances for a particular group of children in a particular area. The comparison is literally as great as that. I think the Deputy is unreasonable in making the suggestion that CIE have poor public relations by not allowing information irrelevant to the issue to be given by station-masters.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Oct 1962