Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Nov 1962

Vol. 197 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Transport Bill, 1962—Second Stage.

Mr. McQuillan

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. I should like to clear up any misunderstanding that might exist in connection with this Bill. Irrespective of any change in Standing Orders that may have taken place recently, Private Members' Bills still get preference over motions and this Bill would be taken tomorrow evening one way or another, even if there were no change in Standing Orders.

The Bill itself is a very simple measure. It seeks to change the vital section in the 1958 Transport Act. The subsection it seeks to change deals with the general powers and duties of the Board of CIE and it reads as follows:

It shall be the duty of the Board to conduct its undertakings so that, as soon as may be, and in any case not later than 31st day of March, 1964, its operating expenditure, including all charges properly chargeable to revenue, shall not be greater than the revenue of the Board.

In plain, blunt English, that simply means that there is a duty on the Board of CIE to make CIE a paying proposition by 1964, irrespective of what may happen in bringing about that situation.

It is crystal clear to me and to Deputy Dr. Browne that Dáil Éireann in 1958 gave its consent to the policy which is now being so ruthlessly operated by the Board of CIE. Undoubtedly it was Government policy in 1958, the policy of the then Tánaiste, Deputy Lemass, and his colleague, Deputy Childers, to give preference to road transport over the rail and canal system. That was well known to all members of this House and in order to achieve their purpose of eliminating the railways, the then Government, with the assistance and co-operation of the House, passed a measure that would enable a hand-picked Board chosen by the Government to discharge that responsibility, to get rid of the railways and get back to a private enterprise system which in time would leave the road services at the mercy of private enterprise.

There was never any doubt in the mind of any Deputy that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport and Power favoured road instead of rail transport and in order to carry out their policy, they selected for the Board of CIE men who thought likewise. It is interesting to note that the then Opposition, when the 1958 Transport Act was being discussed, did not object to that subsection which conferred those very drastic powers on the Board of CIE. The particular section, Section 7, was dealt with on the Committee Stage in less than half a column of the Dáil Debates, as far as discussion is concerned. I checked carefully and on the Committee Stage, there was not a peep or a murmur out of any member of the major Opposition Party against the subsection which we believe will be deleted from the records of the House by the time this Bill is completed.

Seeing there was no division in the House and no critical opposition on the part of the Opposition, it appears they also must have then favoured the Government policy of reducing the railways to make them so uneconomic and unattractive that it would be only a matter of time before they disappeared from the countryside. Deputy Browne and I all along have been opposed to the idea of closing our railway lines——

Mr. Cunningham

Any railway?

Mr. McQuillan

No; I shall deal with that point in the course of my speech. We have been opposed to this closing spree embarked upon by CIE for various reasons. I want to get clear if the major Opposition group clearly understood the implications of the decision they supported in 1958 conferring these powers on CIE. The Opposition knew the mind of the then Tánaiste and of the present Minister for Transport and Power, that they were prejudiced against rail transport. If it should be suggested that it was through ignorance on the part of the major Opposition groups that this section was allowed to pass, all I can say, when such a serious matter was involved, is that the people who allowed this section to go through without a protest or a division were not fit to hold their responsible position in Opposition. If they did realise the implications of the powers being conferred on CIE to eliminate railways, it is hard to understand why they failed to oppose this section, unless they saw an opportunity at a later stage to play politics when the actual unpopular moves and decisions were made to close branch lines.

It would appear from the evidence available to us that that assumption of mine is correct because on the Order Paper there are two motions dealing with the situation in CIE, one from the Fine Gael benches, signed by no fewer than 11 responsible Deputies, and the other signed by the Labour Party. It is well known that motions in this House in that connection cannot be implemented. If the motion which Fine Gael have on the Order Paper in regard to the prices of bus fares in Dublin were to be implemented, it would mean that this House was trying to direct the Board, contrary to the powers conferred on the Board by the House in 1958.

The case has been made here by a number of Opposition speakers that the West Cork railway should not have been abandoned. There have been yelps and howls from Opposition Deputies about the proposed closing of certain midland lines. These Deputies are representing themselves to the innocent public outside as the defenders of the rail system and as being anxious to prevent the Government from closing them whereas they themselves walked into the division lobbies here to confer on CIE the power to take the steps which it considered necessary in the interests of economy.

That is the position. If these people in Opposition are serious about reversing the decisions which have been made by CIE and about preventing the closure of rail lines, it is not by motions in this House that they will tackle the problem ; it is by getting at the root of the problem, which is the Act itself. The Act to which I refer is the 1958 Act. This Bill gives an opportunity to all Deputies who are interested in the preservation and the proper utilisation of our transport system, in particular the railway system. If Deputies are so interested at this stage, before any further damage is done, they can support this measure to ensure that the powers and the directions given to CIE will no longer be available to it and that its hands will be tied as far as the closing of further lines is concerned.

The Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, at a meeting of Roscrea Muintir na Tíre Guild had this to say, that the substitution of road services for the railway on 396 route miles of branch lines during the past three years had been justified on the grounds of satisfactory services at an economic cost. When we examine the accounts of CIE over the past 12 months, and listen to the public protests in the areas where lines have been closed, I do not think we can take the Minister seriously as far as that suggestion is concerned, but it is worth noting that he has admitted that over 396 route miles of branch lines have been closed in the last three years. He went on to state that CIE is considering the substitution of road services for rail services on 23 additional branch lines. That statement was made only last September, that there are 23 additional branch lines for the knife as far as the Board of CIE is concerned.

The closing of those branch lines will impose serious hardship on the people in the areas involved. I shall deal with that matter at a later stage, but I should just like to quote further from the statement made by the Minister for Transport and Power in Roscrea. I can only describe him as gloating at what had happened to the railways. He referred to the "truly remarkable achievement of CIE in the brief period of four years" and then attributed the deficit of £1.6 million for the year ended March, 1962, to the eighth round wages increase. It is apparent from that that this Minister — and I presume he speaks for his Government — is in complete agreement with the policy of CIE as operated up to the present, namely, the closing down of what can be described as absolutely economic lifelines to the rural community for transport purposes.

The Minister's answer to my charge is that we are going to provide a proper road transport system instead. I do not think any Deputy who gives serious consideration to the implications involved in leaving the country almost dependent on road services for transport will agree that, nationally, that is a safe or a sound decision to make. I do not think it is. I do not think that many members of the Minister's Party would agree with his outlook in that regard

The annual report, to which I have referred in connection with the Minister's speech, shows a bias against rail transport and the rail system. It shows that bias very clearly. It shows the extent to which the board of directors favours the road services over the rail system. Let us take the figures given for the passenger service on the railway. In the 12 months ended March, 1962, over 900,000 fewer passengers travelled on the railway than in 1961. In round figures one might say that 1,000,000 fewer passengers travelled on the trains in 1962 than in 1961. Despite the fact that there were almost 1,000,000 fewer travellers, CIE showed a loss of only £21,000 on this service. That was due solely to the increase in rail fares that they were able to secure. CIE were able almost to balance the takings evenly between 1961 and 1962 despite the fact that there were almost 1,000,000 fewer passengers carried on the railway.

In my opinion, that showed a deliberate attempt on the part of CIE to make the rail system unattractive in the eyes of the travelling public. My view on that issue is that there is no justification for suggesting that if the rail fares were left as they were, those one million passengers would have gone away from the railways and would have travelled by other means. It was a signal to me at any rate that these people were most anxious to get away from the rail system.

Let us take now the goods train traffic. In the financial year ending in 1962, CIE carried 138,000 tons less than in 1961. In spite of that, their takings increased by £60,000. Again there we have a situation in which an increase of £60,000 came about as a result of very steep increases in the charges for carrying goods by rail. Was there any justification for that increase in charges? Is it not fair to assume that there would not be this falling off of 138,000 tons of freightage on the railways had there been no change in freight rates? But the freight rates were changed in the hope that the volume of traffic would go down considerably, thereby prejudicing the public against the railways and in favour of road transport.

In the annual report, they go on then to deal with the revenue from road freight and road passenger services. The revenue from road passengers increased by £478,000. This is the most interesting aspect, to my mind; the number of passengers carried was over 303,000,000, the greatest number carried so far in the history of the undertaking. As I pointed out, we had almost 1,000,000 fewer passengers carried on the rail system last year. I am sure the major proportion of those passengers have now gone over to the road and are being carried by the road system. The incentive to travel by train was no longer there. The suggestion is now made that these people prefer to travel by road. If one system is made more attractive in the eyes of the public, naturally that is the system people will adopt. People are not fools; they will opt for what is more attractive. If certain people think it is desirable to get rid of railways, the best way to do that is by turning the public against them, by shoving up the charges and making road services appear more attractive.

Mr. Cuningham

Those charges went up, too, of course.

Mr. McQuillan

It is suggested in the annual report that as far as the closing of railway lines is concerned everything in the garden is lovely. We are told that the system in West Cork, where the railway was closed in the not too distant past, is working in a most satisfactory manner. I should like to hear the views of the Deputies from the south on that. I should like to hear the views of the public in the area which has been deprived of its rail system.

A similar claim has been made by the Board of CIE in connection with the closing of the West Clare railway. A similar claim is made in connection with the Waterford-Tramore line. The claim is there in black and white in the report. It is suggested that the present service is a better service and that the public—traders and everybody else—in these areas are perfectly satisfied and prefer the road system to the rail system. That is the statement made in the report. I do not profess to speak for the south. I am sure there are many Deputies here who will speak for it. I should like, however, to comment on the most recent pronouncement made by CIE. I refer to the decision to close four branch lines in the Midlands. It is proposed to close the Clara to Banagher line and save £8,510; it is proposed to close the Birr-Roscrea line and save £8,881; it is proposed to close the Portlaoise-Mountmellick line and save the huge sum of £1,152.

Mr. T. Lynch

How lovely!

Mr. McQuillan

It is proposed to close the Portlaoise-Kilkenny line and save this vast sum—vast in the mind of the Minister for Transport and Power, moryah!—of £6,625. These four lines provide an essential service. They are the links from the west to the south, and to Dublin. They are being closed to save CIE a sum of some £44,000 a year. There has been no indication from CIE as to how travellers in the west of Ireland will be facilitated, if they want to visit Deputy Lynch's constituency of Waterford after 1st January next. Up to now people from Athlone, and the west generally, could get connections at Portarlington and Portlaoise for Waterford. As far as I can find out, there is no provision for these people after 1st January, no facility to enable them to go down south.

I regard this decision to close these four lines as a retrograde decision. It is an arrogant decision on the part of those who have been given these powers. The same mentality has been displayed by CIE in relation to our canals. Personal experience over the past eight or nine years has convinced me that the Minister for Transport and Power hates the sight of a canal. In their annual report, the Board of CIE show the same attitude towards canals as they have displayed towards the railways. In the past 12 months, a decision was taken to close a number of our canal branches. The branch lines between Naas, Kilbeggan and Ballinasloe were closed by CIE. What is their condition to-day? They are derelict sites. Legislation was passed here within the past 12 months empowering local authorities to take action against private individuals for failing to clear derelict sites and put them into decent condition. Here we have a State body, with the consent and approval of the Minister, changing the face of the countryside and making it anything but attractive to tourists or to our own citizens.

We had a decision to close the Royal Canal. That decision has been implemented as to portion of the canal. I admit, and I make no secret of the fact, that, for navigational purposes, this particular canal was not used very much in recent years. That is understandable when we remember the attractive propositions made by CIE and private hauliers to encourage road transport. It was inevitable the transport on the canal system would fall. As soon as it did fall, that was the excuse to decide to close it. They closed down about 30 miles of it, I think, in the Minister's former constituency from Ballinacargy over to the Shannon at Tarmonbarry. When that stretch of the canal was closed, it was assumed that the water would be left there but even that amenity was removed. This 30 mile section was drained, although many people believed that the level of the water at that time would be maintained.

What has been the position along there? First of all, the farmers in the locality were deprived of water which was at their disposal for the past 100 years for their livestock. Secondly, the canal bed has become a death trap for animals, having regard to the mud that is there now. The local anglers who use the canal for fishing purposes have no longer the opportunity to do so. The small guest houses which were attracting foreign tourists and anglers to come there and fish were placed in jeopardy. It is a well-known fact that in England there is no end to the number of ordinary citizens who are very keen coarse fishermen.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is travelling a bit from the railways.

Mr. McQuillan

Subsection (2) of Section 7 deals with the powers of CIE over roads, canals and railways.

An Ceann Comhairle

I know, but not in respect of the development of tourism and such things.

Mr. McQuillan

I am dealing with tourism purely as an incidental. Tourism is one of the major industries of this country. It is being affected in the midlands by an arrogant and dictatorial decision to close the canals. The livelihood of the people concerned is involved, apart altogether from the transport line which was provided by the canal. It is the implementation of a decision to close a railway line or a canal. Surely that embraces all the people whose livelihood is involved?

An Ceann Comhairle

Only in so far as that decision affects the railway paying its way.

Mr. McQuillan

I do not want to argue with the Chair. I am not starting from the supposition at all that the railway must pay their way. I say it is wrong to suggest that the railways must pay their way.

An Ceann Comhairle

I know. I am giving the Deputy a good deal of latitude. I do not want to widen the scope of the discussion, so as to embrace almost everything.

Mr. Childers

There is a still further complication. Even if we were to take the hypothetical case that this Bill passed dall stages, CIE would still have the powers under another section of the Act to close branch lines.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only one I am concerned with is the Bill before the House in regard to decisions by CIE in connection with paying its way within a certain time. All things relevant to that may be discussed on this Bill. The wider scope of development—how it affects the farmers, the tourist industry and the fishing industry —does not arise on this.

Mr. McQuillan

Surely the whole basis of discussion is to show the effect it has on the community. A discussion on the West Cork line took place here——

An Ceann Comhairle

To show its effect on how the railway must pay its way within a certain time.

Mr. McQuillan

As far as the railways are concerned, we maintain that it is not in the national interest to put that in legislation. The Bill is designed to change that.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not the subject matter of the Bill.

Mr. McQuillan

What is it? I understood it was to change the present Act which makes it mandatory on CIE to be a paying proposition by 1964.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is going outside that.

Mr. McQuillan

I am giving reasons why the policy pursued in closing those lines and canals for the purpose of not showing a loss resulted in tremendous damage to the farming community, the tourist industry and the fishing industry.

An Ceann Comhairle

How it affects the fishing industry, the tourist industry and the farming industry does not affect the matter of making CIE pay its way within a certain time.

Mr. McQuillan

I am not interested in CIE paying its way at this moment.

Dr. Browne

Surely the Deputy is allowed to discuss the social implications of a particular aspect of transport policy as laid down by the Government?

An Ceann Comhairle

No; it is purely the amendment of the Bill which is the subject of discussion.

Mr. T. Lynch

Perhaps this is what the Deputy had in mind? If CIE developed fishing in the canals, they could get an income from it.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy would think of anything.

Mr. McQuillan

Can I not give the reason to the House why CIE should not be allowed to retain these powers? I have tried to suggest that damage is being done in the areas where the Royal Canal has been closed; that damage is being done to the farming community and to tourism. In addition to that, the canals themselves are, in my opinion, a public nuisance at present.

Let me get back to the section itself and to what Deputy Cunningham wanted to know. He wanted to know what were our views on the closing of branch lines. Let me make it quite clear. We do not stand for, advocate, or want to see inefficiency or waste operating in the transport system. We have plenty of examples of incompetency at the top in the running of CIE. We do not propose to deal with those during the course of this debate but we do say that it is not in the national interest to insist by law that CIE shall operate without financial loss. We cannot put it simpler than that. We maintain that the road system is completely inadequate to carry the present—and I emphasise that—heavy commercial traffic which uses the road system, to say nothing at all of the ever-increasing number of vehicles coming on the road from now on. In my opinion, the roads as they are are not good enough in many areas to carry the light cars that run on them. Under the 1958 Act, the Board of CIE would have responsibility for the safety of operation of vehicles. I think they are forgetting about it, in their mad rush to get rid of railways.

No good, sound evidence has been adduced to this House or to the public that the capital cost involved in the purchase of lorries, heavy machinery, spare engines, tyres and spare parts is less than the capital cost of replacing or improving the rail system. It is beyond denial that our roads today are a death trap. What do the Minister and CIE propose to do? They propose to divert more and more of the heavy merchandise from the rail and to have it carried by these big CIE trucks on roads that are inadequate to carry them. It would be a simple thing, in a few years' time, for CIE to suggest that they are a paying proposition, having got rid of the railways and got on to road transport, but who is paying for the roads?

Who is paying the capital cost of making the roads? Is it not the taxpayer? It may be suggested that CIE are paying portion of it. They are paying only a limited portion. However, for the damage they are doing, they are not paying anything like what they should.

In the matter of the maintenance of roads, we have a still heavier charge. Anybody who knows anything about roads knows that the upkeep of steamrolled roads is a very heavy cost on the Exchequer and on the rates. County and link roads are now being used by heavy CIE lorries although these roads are not fit to carry that type of traffic.

Where is the money to come from to put these roads in a condition to enable them, over the next ten or 15 years, to carry those heavy trucks? The cost of making these roads per mile is fantastic. We hear nothing from the Minister about these costs. They must be borne in mind.

Without again referring to the canals in any detail, I suggest that many heavy and bulky goods could be carried by rail and canal. It should be mandatory that such goods—I shall not specify them now—be carried by rail and canal.

There is no justification for allowing certain types of goods which are transported by road at present to be carried by CIE or indeed by private hauliers. I mention petrol as one of them. We have the fantastic position that every day of the week a stream of monstrous petrol lorries move out from this city on all the trunk roads and move from the trunk roads to the county roads. They go down as far as Galway, and to the South and up to Sligo. Is there any reason why that petrol, in bulk, could not be transported by rail to key centres—say, in Sligo, Carrick-on-Shannon, Galway and others—and then the deliveries made by light petrol wagon?

Consider the saving to the rates and to the central Exchequer in respect of money that is now being expended on roads to facilitate foreign combines to make profits at the expense of the Irish people.

It is a crime on the part of the Minister to allow a vested interest the use of the roads to destroy them, as is happening at present. There is every justification for legislation which will make it mandatory on a group such as the petrol retailers to carry their goods by canal or by rail. There is no justification for suggesting that a few thousand gallons must be delivered in a hurry from Dublin to Athlone.

If an example were made there, if the decision were made so far as petrol is concerned, it could be followed up in many other spheres in respect of many other types of goods which are at present being carried on the roads. I believe that this will have to be carried out. Somebody has said that there are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with butter. If they are not prevented by law from doing it then motor taxation of a very heavy nature could be imposed in respect of these weighty vehicles. That would be one way of dealing with it. Get them off the roads by making it so expensive for them that they will carry their goods by rail. If the Minister were serious about keeping our railways and about preventing them from being disused, that is the action he would take. However, we know that his interest lies in the road system, for a start, and finally in getting back to the private haulier.

Deputies have mentioned the responsibility on the Board of CIE to look after the interests of the workers. We know the position well. There is no co-operation at the moment. There is no understanding between management and men. There is a feeling of complete mistrust brought about by the actions of a dictatorial board, backed by a dictatorial Minister.

The livelihood and the future of men does not seem to count with the Government or with the Board of CIE. They are the Government who talk about the steps they propose to take when we enter the Common Market to look after the welfare of our workers. If their attitude is anything like their attitude towards the workers of CIE, who will be redundant in the next three to four years, it is a poor outlook for our workers who are not in State or semi-State employment. What will happen to those who are depending on private employers?

A long-term view should be taken of the question of transport. The fact that hurried decisions were taken in other countries that railways are a thing of the past, are old-fashioned and are out of date—a view held on parts of the Continent and in parts of America—is no reason why we should ape these people in every respect. A decision has now been taken in a number of continental cities, in particular, and even in America, to restore rail services in heavily-populated areas because the situation had been arrived at that the huge volume of traffic on the roads had led to chaos and the police and the authorities cannot cope with the traffic problems. Coming into certain cities it was a frightening position to find traffic jams brought about because people were no longer using rails and they have decided in many places, as far as I can gather, to restore the rail system, especially leading to industrial centres.

Is it not common sense to use the railway as often and as much as we can and keep as many people off the roads as possible while, at the same time, giving them a good, constant, ordered, efficient and punctual service? Apart from any other consideration, it would probably save lives because we know what has happened in this country in the past twelve months— the accident rate is something frightening. The Minister and the Government should take a long term view of this.

I have nothing more to add, except that this is an opportunity being given on this very important measure to Deputies on all sides to express their disapproval of the policy of the Board of CIE in getting rid of railways and canals and leaving this country, as may well happen at some stage in the future, dependent on its transport on countries abroad. We know what happened in Suez. We do not want the position that this country would be dependent on petrol supplies and other forms of liquid fuel from abroad, if any serious international situation arose. We would be a nice sight in such a situation. That is what this Government are bringing about, unless we are accepting completely defence commitments in a new European bloc. Undoubtedly in those circumstances, we would get plenty of petrol but we might get a hell of a lot of other things as well.

Mr. Seán Dunne

As I understand this Bill, it seeks to bring about a change of policy and a change of attitude on the part of the Government, on the part of the majority of members of the Dáil, in so far as the running of CIE is concerned. I agree with Deputy McQuillan that the policy which is being pursued by the Minister for Transport and Power, and by any of his predecessors who thought like him, has brought about a disastrous condition of things in so far as transport in this country is concerned. That policy has put into office an individual, a politically appointed civil servant, as I might describe him, who has shown nothing but contempt for the ordinary people of this city and particularly for the ordinary people of my constituency, the working people of Ballyfermot.

The policy which he has been implementing has been one dictated by the Government, based on the proposition which could only have emerged from the morbid brain of a political pachyderm, that this nationalised system should be placed on the same basis as a commercial business, that it should be made to pay a profit. That has not been mentioned but the assumption is that it should in time be made to pay a profit; that, in other words, the vital needs of the nation and the vital needs of the people for transport must surely fall into the same category, in terms of necessity, as provisions for the health of the people. It must surely fall into the same category as provisions which we make for the social welfare of the people. The proposition is that the transport of the nation be placed on the same basis as one would place a huckster's business in some small town. The test that is being applied to it is whether or not it will pay. Of course, in the implementation of this policy of trying to make it pay, the question must arise as to who is in fact being asked to pay the maximum part of the Bill.

Herein enters the political twist. One might think a Government which firmly believe this policy would say: "Let the more well-to-do sections of the community bear the heaviest end of the load; let the wealthier farmers who ship cattle for export or to the Dublin market bear the heavier end of the load." But they do not say that. They take the most vulnerable section of the people, and a very big proportion of that section live in Ballyfermot, and they exact from them the last possible halfpenny in increased bus fares for two purposes: to ensure that the wealthier farmers will not be hurt politically, that they can be kept in the voting train of the Government Party, and to justify this eighteenth century concept of how a public service should be run, this Dickensian idea that it must be made to pay and that that is all that counts. It does not matter if you leave whole rural areas without branch lines or, in fact, transport of any kind; it does not matter if a man with six in family, living in Ballyfermot and being robbed by a differential rent system of anything up to 36/- a week, who has to work, say, in Blackrock in County Dublin, must pay 17/- a week in bus fares out of a wage of perhaps £9 or £10 a week.

That does not concern Iron-man Andrews or the Minister for Transport and Power. The thing they, and with which we in this House, are concerned in our lofty eminence, is to get a balance sheet in which the figures will even out, will balance out nicely, and this artistically-produced annual report, with its multi-coloured design, which must incidentally have cost a queer penny, will show that we are living in the true tradition of capitalist economy, without any regard whatsoever for anything except the need to make CIE pay.

Let us have a look at one of the internal activities in this institution. They have a thing there called time and motion study and I invite the attention of the House to this exercise. An individual standing with a stopwatch in his hand watches men working, times them and gets £50 per week for it. This is part of the economy being practised by the people who run CIE at the present time.

Now, whenever we try to raise matters such as this, such as the matter of the pistol-to-the-head policy in so far as bus fares are concerned, we invariably find the Minister ducking behind this pretence of having no official responsibility. Surely we are the authority here which provides the funds which make it possible for these civil servants and clerks, whom I have observed not using buses or trains but driving in luxurious cars to their headquarters at Kingsbridge, to make the running of this operation possible, and surely we must have a responsibility, and we must have an inherent right, to get this information when we ask for it. I have had at least a half a dozen questions relating to CIE disallowed by the Chair— unavoidably, I know, because of the Chair's position—on the ground that the Minister pleaded no official responsibility.

This is the first opportunity I have had, at any rate, of airing the grievance I feel, and which the public seldom or ever get a chance of hearing about, in connection with this matter. This Bill provides us with an opportunity of examining the activities of this company and the manner in which its activities are being cloaked and hidden by the Minister for Transport and Power. Not on one occasion but on very many occasions has the Minister defended the actions of this Board.

What is the attitude of the Board towards the members of this House? As recently as six months ago, it was announced that it was proposed to inflict a still further increase in bus fares upon the people of this city. Quite a representative meeting of members of Dáil Éireann from city and county constituencies was held in this House with the object of inviting the Chairman of CIE to come here to the Parliament of the country to meet us—not myself or any one Party but a group of members representative of a group of Parties—and hear our views as to why the people of the city should no longer be mulcted in the manner and fashion which has been pursued for a number of years.

Do you think that Iron-man Andrews saw fit even to answer us? We did not get even a reply from him. We got a reply from one of his staff—the secretary, I think—but certainly not from the great oracle himself, not from the great man who brings to my mind memories of Bord na Móna, the turf camps and the workers without food or water.

I support what Deputy McQuillan has said in this matter. This is, if you like, a device whereby we can raise these issues. It is high time the Government decided to scrap this ill-conceived policy of making this vital industry the plaything of interests which do not seem to have at heart the real welfare of this country. As I mentioned before, the notion that an amenity which is a social need, such as railways, buses, canals and so on, should be operated purely for the purpose of becoming an economically, viable capitalist venture, is immoral. It is wrong; it is against all modern economic thinking; and it is in complete conflict with the welfare of the people of the country.

I avail of this opportunity once more on behalf of the people I represent, especially, the people living in the suburbs of Ballyfermot, Walkinstown and County Dublin, to denounce the policy of the Board. This policy which we are trying to change by means of this Bill has resulted in increasing the cost of living very considerably for them. It has resulted, to my personal knowledge, in hardship for families in the Ballyfermot area particularly. I am certain, of course, that our appeal and our effort will prove fruitless, but at least with the help of the Fourth Estate, we will have shown that at least some people in this House care about the real needs of the people.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am glad this Bill gives me an opportunity of saying something to the Minister because it is impossible to get an answer from him as you, Sir, are well aware. When I look at our new decorations here, I feel sure we would have decorated the whole place if the rest of the Deputies in Opposition got together the letters they have received from you, Sir. I am sure you must have got this printed as a circular:

I regret that I have had to disallow the Question addressed by you to the Minister for Transport and Power regarding the dismantling of the railway line where a branch railway has been closed . . . .

It is good to get an opportunity of facing the Minister and asking him questions, but whether he will answer them is another matter.

I have read the Report of CIE and I say that it is produced in a dishonest way. On page 5 of that report for the year ended 31st March, 1962, in paragraph 3, we read:

Road services were substituted for the railway on the West Cork Section as from 1st April, 1961. Operating results during the year showed that the financial betterment from this substitution and from the substitution of road services for the West Clare and Waterford/Tramore railway lines last year was approximately £90,000. The substitute services have worked efficiently and have met with general approval from the traders in the area.

The reason I say that is dishonest is that I have here an opus by Dr. C.S. Andrews, Chairman of CIE, an address delivered to the Institute of Public Administration at the Custom House, Dublin, on Wednesday, 27th June, 1962, on "The Future of CIE". At page 12, at the end of Paragraph 3 he said:

. . . I emphasise that substituting a road service for rail does not mean giving a worse service.

That is No. 1. He also said that the most expensive monument that was ever erected to a poet was the West Clare railway. He boxes the Waterford-Tramore railway with the West Clare railway for the purpose of bringing out a dishonest figure.

Mr. Mullen

That is not poetic.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is a three card trick, and a mean one, too. I should like the Minister if he has the power— and I am sure he must have, but if he has not, this House will stand behind him if he seeks it—to ask Dr. Andrews to give us a report stating how the West Clare railway did and how the services are doing on their own in West Cork and Waterford-Tramore.

I asked the Minister a Parliamentary Question today about the Waterford-Tramore service. He referred me to the reply given by him on 28th February, 1962, to a Question about the number of passengers carried, to which he said he had nothing to add. I asked him to say what were the latest returns from the CIE Waterford-Tramore service over the past 12 months in passengers carried and in gross revenue taken; and whether the service was showing a profit or a loss. I am entitled to ask that question and I am entitled to get an answer from the Minister. I will not have the Minister stand up here and tell me to write to CIE for that information. I will not write to CIE for it. It is the Minister's duty to reply here to Deputies.

Mr. Kyne

Even if you did, you would not get an answer.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am grateful to my colleague for that.

Mr. Coughlan

It is not the iron road at all; it is the iron curtain.

Mr. T. Lynch

Here we are told it is a better service. I shall speak for my own constituency. When the Tramore railway service was running, it brought people into and out of Tramore for 1/9 return. This service of the Minister brings them out for 2/8d. and that is supposed to be a wonderful service. The women with the big families, the women with the children were not in Tramore last summer, regardless of the weather. They could not and did not travel on the Minister's buses because the Minister priced them out of it.

When the Minister and CIE came along with their ultimatum about taking up the Tramore railway, my colleagues and I came into this House and reminded the Minister for Transport and Power that the Taoiseach, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce, when the CIE Bill was going through the House, gave a solemn undertaking that no railway line would be taken up without full consultation with the people concerned, local authorities, local people or local groups of people. A deputation led by the Mayor of Waterford representing the Corporation of Waterford and including the chairman of the Waterford County Council and the Deputies from Waterford were invited to Kingsbridge to meet representatives of CIE. We were informed we were not allowed to discuss the closing or the removal of the old railway line, the railway line which was then in existence and running. This was the fair and open consultation that was promised here by the Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce. Who ran out on whom, I do not know, but I would say the Minister for Transport and Power and Dr. Andrews, the Chairman of CIE, are responsible for what happened.

We had to adopt many subterfuges. We put down motions; we put down Parliamentary Questions but we were shelved off by the Minister. However, I remember speaking on an Adjournment Debate with my colleagues and we pointed out to the Minister for Transport and Power and we also pointed out on another occasion to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that if this small railway, seven miles long, was closed down, it would cost the Exchequer, the Waterford County Council and the Waterford Corporation a colossal amount of money to put the road in order for these buses. We were pooh-poohed by the Minister for Local Government and by the great pooh-pooher himself, the Minister for Transport and Power: there was no such thing.

Waterford Corporation never received any more than £5,000 out of the Road Fund, out of the Exchequer, from the proceeds of motor taxation. It is no harm to say that we paid out £550,000 over a period of ten years and we got back £40,000. This year, there is an increase of £22,000 on that allocation and that is to take down Sheepsbridge on the Tramore railway. The first figure we were told Tramore railway was losing was £3,000 a year. Then there was some elastic accountancy brought into operation and we were told it was £9,000. I am still convinced that none of those figures was right. If CIE were doing their business in a proper manner and in a manner which was open and aboveboard and if they had not been prejudiced in wanting to close down the railways, that small railway line could be made to pay because there were no stationhouses on it. However, two Ministers of State said there would be no such thing and now there is this colossal amount of money being spent outside Waterford city within the borough boundary and the county council will have to pay for it; they will be next when operations extend to the Metal Bridge.

The only time I saw real efficiency in CIE was at the time of the destruction of the Tramore railway. The order to close it came into operation at 2 o'clock on a Saturday and in the teeming rain, in the most malicious, vindictive and devilish manner, men were paid extra money to pound down this Metal Bridge and make sure this railway line was broken up so that there could be no agitation by local people, by the Waterford County Council, the Waterford City Council or by the Fianna Fáil cumann. They tore it up and would have shipped the rails to Czechoslovakia, were it not for the fact that we protested very strongly in this House that these rails be sold by tender, because they had been giving them away without tenders before that, and an Irish firm was able to tender and get these rails.

That is the sorry story of CIE, with the result I have already mentioned, that we have the Chairman of CIE in a fenced-in place, the right place for him to go, the Institute of Public Administration at the Custom House, Dublin — I would nearly say he had to make this under guard——

Mr. Childers

Some references have been made to the Chairman of CIE I would ask Deputies if they would attack me instead of Dr. Andrews who is responsible to the Board. The Board is responsible to me and Dr. Andrews is unable to defend himself in this House.

Mr. Corish

The Minister has no responsibility.

Mr. T. Lynch

We have to attack Dr. Andrews every time we come into this House——

Dr. Browne

He refused to meet us; otherwise, we could attack him to his face.

Mr. Childers

Under the Acts of the Dáil, the Board is responsible to me. I should be glad if Deputies would attack me instead of attacking an individual who is unable to defend himself here.

Dr. Browne

He would not meet us.

Mr. T. Lynch

We are not afraid to attack the Minister.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for transport policy and individuals——

Mr. Corish

He is not; he has no function.

Mr. T. Lynch

We must attack the Chairman of CIE because he refused to meet us.

Mr. Childers

There is a very good tradition in this House that officials are not attacked personally when they are unable to answer for themselves in this House. I have asked that the attack be directed against me.

Mr. T. Lynch

We can give Dr. Andrews a chance to reply to us, if he will only meet us. I sent him a telegram in the name of Deputy Kyne and myself asking him to meet us.

Dr. Browne

If he is responsible, why will he not answer questions?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for transport policy in the country.

Mr. Corish

That is cod.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope this is going down on the record, that the Minister is responsible for policy, and that in future he will not be telling us to write to Dr. Andrews in CIE.

Mr. Childers

I was not getting into a controversy; I was merely referring to a tradition in this House——

Mr. McQuillan

The Minister is backing down.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am referring to a tradition that for the sake of the people who send Deputies here, when we put down a Parliamentary Question to the Minister for Transport and Power, he will not tell us in regard to CIE that he has no functions and that they are matters for Dr. Andrews and his Board.

Mr. Childers

There is nothing the Deputy says that takes away from my suggestion. If he directs his attack against me, that surely is all right for him.

Dr. Browne

That you are responsible for the affairs of CIE?

Mr. T. Lynch

I am quite satisfied if the Minister admits he is responsible for the affairs of CIE and if the Minister will answer Parliamentary Questions concerning CIE in this House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for general transport policy but the day-to-day administration of CIE is a matter for the officials.

Mr. T. Lynch

Therefore, if the day-to-day administration of C.I.E. is a matter for the officials and we find fault with the day-to-day administration, we are entitled to comment on it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There should, however, be no offensive references to those officials who are unable to reply.

Mr. T. Lynch

With respect, Sir, I do not think I made any offensive reference to Dr. Andrews. I was looking up his correct title, Dr. C.S. Andrews, Chairman, CIE, and that is the only thing I said when the Minister intervened. It annoyed him.

Mr. O'Sullivan

You should hear the things Deputy Corry is saying about him.

Mr. T. Lynch

The trouble is that Deputy Corry will not come into the House and say them here and then turn to the right at the top of the stairs.

Mr. Childers

I am not holding a brief for Deputy Corry.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I am sure you are not. I wonder who would?

Mr. Childers

I am not trying to make any political point at all. The Deputy knows I am not trying to prevent him from making his arguments. I spoke in an ordinary human way about this. I am not trying to cover up anything or trying to cloak anything, as the Deputy understands perfectly well.

Mr. T. Lynch

I hope the Minister is not going to cover up the position regarding the boxing together of the Tramore-Waterford railway and the West Cork and West Clare lines and that he will separate them for us. I want to remind the Minister that he has an appointment with me later on in regard to my Parliamentary Question. It was said here by the Minister and by the Minister for Local Government, when it was pointed out that all was not well when we were tearing up these railway lines and doing away with them, that it was all right for the people who must not be spoken about in CIE to make the decision, or for the Minister to make the decision, and tear up the railway lines, but we claim, and many Deputies claimed, that we would have to pay through the nose again for this.

There was a famous occasion when we were pooh-poohed by two Ministers in connection with a line about which you know something, Sir, in Donegal, a line which was taken up. For the benefit of the House, might I say that for the past two years, the Exchequer has paid, and for the next three years it will pay, £75,000 each year. That is fantastic—a total of £375,000 paid by this Dáil for the roads in Donegal. Of course the people whose names we are not to mention will be able to say: "All is well; we will be able to make this pay; we are reducing the deficit." That is what is happening. Deputies in the Opposition were told it would not happen.

Another matter which was mentioned by Deputy Dunne is the way the roads are being pounded to pieces by these monsters which are supposed to carry 20 tons but actually carry 40 tons or 45 tons. The Minister himself is the greatest culprit. We are now sending out loads of petrol and oil on the roads. On one of the rare occasions on which I go to the cinema, I saw recently in a Pathe Gazette film a tremendous fire caused by one of these containers which exploded. It blew a whole factory to pieces as well as half the council houses in the area.

Many people were injured. Yet we allow such containers to go through our streets in hundreds and on CIE lorries. These monsters are ploughing up the roads and they are not paying the amount of road tax they should be paying for the damage they are doing to country roads. I saw a very good job done on what we call a secondary road, a job which would have lasted for many years with tractors and ordinary traffic, cars and lorries, passing over it, but a couple of these monsters so damaged the road that it was practically ruined.

The policy of CIE seems to be to go on to the roads all the time but the difference is that the railways maintained their permanent way, their own stationhouses, and their own offices. Now they come to the Waterford Harbour Commissioners to ask that a piece of the quay be given to them free of charge for a bus stop. That is the kind of thing CIE are trying to do. We have these fine railway lines and if there were consultations between the Minister and the people whose names we are not allowed to mention, and people in industry in general, and a great deal of heavy traffic on the roads diverted to the railways, there would not be such "ochoning" in Kingsbridge.

There are many things I could say about the people whose names we are not allowed to mention. There is a certain amount of disquiet about the manner in which CIE do their business, especially when it comes to the big money. Recently, tenders for locomotives were sought but it has been stated that the tender accepted was not the lowest and that the difference between the price of the locomotives bought by CIE and the price of the locomotives in the lowest tender was nearly £6,000.

Debate adjourned.