Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 1962

Vol. 198 No. 2

Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Transport and Power (Resumed).

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

When I reported progress, I was giving the House particulars of the production in Bord na Móna and I pointed out the progress being made in the sale of briquettes. The Board have informed me that in the next two or three years demand for briquettes from new industrial and institutional users is likely to represent sales of about 30,000 tons per annum. In the same period, new outlets for up to 16,000 tons of machine turf are in sight. The biggest of these is the new central boilerhouse at Dublin Airport, expected to be in operation next year, which will use up to 10,000 tons of machine turf per annum. Further in the future, the Board have quite firm prospects of more large consumers whose demand will be nearly 20,000 tons of briquettes per annum. All the time, of course, smaller establishments, using say less than 200 tons a year, are commencing to use turf.

Exports of milled peat for the upgrading of gas coke continued as in former years. The export of milled peat for foundry use has now ceased but the processing of this product, which was formely done in Britain, is now being carried out at Drogheda and the finished product is being exported. The export of peat moss continues to grow and in 1961-62, 216,000 bales, or 80,000 bales more than the previous year, were exported.

The Board's Research Station continued to do valuable work during the year particularly in the operation of the Fuel Advisory Service. At University College, Dublin, research studies of milled peat are continuing while further studies were made for the Board in the handling and packaging of briquettes and in the application and uses of the seed and potting compost produced at Kilberry, County Offaly.

Home production of semi-bituminous coal in the Arigna area in the year 1961 was about 51,000 tons. The investigation into the possibility of utilising deposits of low grade semi-bituminous coal at Arigna in an additional electricity generating unit is still in progress. It has been established that there are sufficient reserves of lower ash content coal but before any decision could be taken in this matter it must first be established that the coal can be extracted economically on a regular basis over the life of a new station. The necessary investigations are being carried out by an expert from the Netherlands who has been retained by my Department as consultant in the matter.

Anthracite production for 1961 at 135,000 tons showed a fall of about 30,000 tons on production in 1960 due to interruptions in production at one of the principal mines. Imports of anthracite did not increase, however, and at 55,000 tons, were approximately the same as in 1960. Exports of anthracite increased from 10,000 tons in 1960 to 17,000 in 1961. The bulk of the exports went to the Netherlands and the mine owners concerned are to be complimented on their enterprise in building up this export business.

I am glad to say that the anthracite mine owners and the coal trade are co-operating in an endeavour to further the sales of anthracite. This co-operation is directed towards the stimulation of the demand for the smaller sizes of anthracite. These small sizes of anthracite are automatically produced when anthracite is being crushed and screened at the mines for grading purposes. Hitherto, it had been rather difficult to dispose of such small coals but it is hoped that their use in suitable domestic central heating systems will increase the demand for them.

Coal imports for 1961 at 1,780,000 tons showed a slight rise on the imports for 1960, which amounted to 1,660,000 tons. Great Britain maintained her position as the largest supplier and exported 1,140,000 tons to the Irish market during 1961. Nevertheless, since the price of British domestic coal was increased in July, 1961, this country has been buying coal extensively from non-British sources. Imports of non-British coal rose from 474,000 tons in 1960 to 648,000 tons in 1961. The further increase in the price of British coal has added impetus to this trend and in the first six months of 1962, the proportion of our requirements of large and unscreened steam coal, including household coal, imported from Britain was only half what it was in 1961. Coal of non-British origin was supplied to this country in 1961 mainly by the United States, 200,000 tons; Poland, 191,000 tons; Belgium, 141,000 tons; and Germany, 111,000 tons.

I should also like to refer to my special interest in the efficient use of fuel particularly by industry. Fuel users in other countries are very much alive to the significance of the efficient use of fuel in reducing production costs and thereby rendering industrial products more competitive. The importance of this factor has not, however, been properly appreciated in this country except by some of our more progressive industries. To stimulate interest in the efficient use of fuels I have engaged the National Industrial Fuel Efficiency Service, a non-profit making organisation which specialises in fuel efficiency, to carry out a promotional drive. The drive consists of a free inspection of the heating and power plants of some 70 industrial firms, with a view to a rough appraisal of their efficiency.

I understand that there was quite a number of firms in which efficiency could be improved to a greater or lesser degree and that fully instrumented surveys would be justified in several cases. Firms which decide to have a survey of this kind carried out will be able to recoup one-third of the cost of the survey under a Technical Assistance Scheme operated by my Department. This scheme was recently extended to include fuel efficiency surveys for hotels. The implementation of the survey recommendations and the wider interest in fuel efficiency which the promotional drive should stimulate should benefit consulting engineering services in this country by whom most of the follow-up work would be carried out.

I am hopeful that these steps will lead to a lasting awareness of the importance of fuel efficiency and that industrial and commercial firms, hotels and institutions with large heating installations will, on a regular basis, avail of the expert consultancy services at their disposal in this State to ensure the maintenance of a high standard of fuel conversion efficiency.

I am glad to report that all the State companies within the ambit of the Department continue to develop Work Study through the employment of outside Consultants and staff Work Study Officers trained for continuous operation.

I have endeavoured to give Deputies as complete a picture as possible of the operations of my Department during the past year without going into such detail as would make my speech of an inordinate length. There is one aspect, however, which I have not covered and that is the operations of CIE. I feel sure that Deputies will agree with me that it is unnecessary to do so in view of the fact that the operations of CIE have been the subject of extensive debates in connection with the Private Members' Bill during the past four or five weeks. I shall, of course, deal in my reply with any matters affecting CIE which may arise on the debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Before I call on Deputy Declan Costello, I should like to inform the House that the Chair has now been informed that agreement has been reached to take Private Members' Motion No. 46, as well as Private Members' Motion No. 39, in conjunction with the two Estimates.

Mr. Kyne

Thank You.

Mr. D. Costello

Motion No. 39, which is being discussed with the Supplementary Estimate, reads:

That Dáil Éireann protests against the recent increase in bus fares and calls on the Government to introduce legislation so as to ensure that the poorer sections of the community are protected against the hardships which have resulted.

This motion was put down some time ago and because of the exigencies of the Order Paper, it has not been reached until to-day. All the same, I am glad that we have an opportunity of discussing a problem which, whilst not perhaps in the same rarefied atmosphere to which we have been brought by the Minister, is one of great practical interest and concern to the citizens of our cities, and particularly of Dublin. I want to say at the outset that the increases in bus fares which have occurred in the past few years have resulted in real suffering and hardship in this city and I feel that Dáil Éireann should protest against this hardship in the strongest possible terms.

Anybody connected with what has occurred in the city will know only too well that when I talk of the hardship which has resulted, it is not to talk in hyperbole or exaggeration in any way. There is not a Deputy or councillor in this city who does not know what happens, for example, to the old age pensioners living in the city of Dublin whose children are married and living in the suburbs. They are in fact not able to visit them as often as they would like because of the bus fares. Families are parted and they are unable to keep in contact because the old age pensioner, the mother or father, is unable to afford, out of his or her meagre allowance, the bus fares to Ballyfermot, Finglas, Crumlin or other such outlying areas. The problem of persons living in suburbs is one which should concern us and should be the object of immediate action by the Government. I am sure Deputies who are familiar with the circumstances in which many people live in the city of Dublin know of cases similar to the one I am now about to cite, of the widow who works in the city as a cleaner and whose bus fares amount to £1 a week. Anybody who knows of conditions in the suburbs, in the housing estates of Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council, where workers and pensioners live, and come into the city know that the burden of bus fares involved in coming into the city is very great indeed.

We have had a considerable number of figures here today from the Minister. May I give him certain figures also? Between 1953 and the present time, bus fares on the rural and city services have increased between 50 and 51 per cent. The increases which have occurred in recent years have been as follows: in 1949, a minimum fare was introduced and the distance of all fares reduced; in 1951, the distance for all fares was reduced; in 1953, there was the same thing, and again in 1955, 1958, 1960 and 1962. By this means, the bus traveller is required to pay larger fares for the distance he has to travel.

This motion is, in effect, in two parts. It asks the Dáil to protest against what has occurred and asks the Government to take action. I am aware of the type of reply which can be made to this motion, the type of reply which it is reasonable to anticipate may be given, namely, that this is a matter for CIE and that the Dáil has in fact told CIE what they have to do and if there are operating deficits in CIE, they have a statutory obligation to get rid of them and how that is done is a matter for CIE. I do not accept that.

I want to say here that we are a sovereign Parliament and that if we believe a thing is wrong, we are entitled to amend the legislation. That is what I am asking the House to suggest that the Government should do. I am asking the House not to accept the excuse that CIE has a statutory obligation but to say that if they have, it is time we changed it and changed it in the way suggested in this motion. I want to see at least as a way of assisting the weaker and poorer section of the community legislation introduced to permit special fares for recipients of social welfare payments and special workers' fares in the morning and in the evening.

What I am suggesting is what other countries have adopted. Undoubtedly there are administrative difficulties. Undoubtedly it will cost some money but the Dáil is entitled to express its opinion that the recipients of social welfare payments are entitled to get this benefit so that they can travel at reduced fares on our public transport. It is also reasonable that workers' fares should be introduced at the busy early hours of the morning and evening. This of course will cost money and it is a matter for the Dáil to consider whether this should be paid by the taxpayer or by the bus travellers mainly in the city of Dublin. I want to state categorically that the poorer and weaker sections in the city of Dublin are bearing too high a share of CIE deficits. In fact, as we all know, there is an operating surplus on buses, a surplus which helps to reduce the deficit.

It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that in respect of the weaker sections of the community, this should not be permitted. This is an opportunity for Deputies to express their views and, by their votes, to make clear their position on this matter because we have all from time to time attended meetings at which this matter has been raised. There is probably not a Deputy, from the city of Dublin at any rate, who has not within the past year or so been at tenants' associations meetings, or local residents' associations meetings at which the problem of bus fares has been raised and at which he has at least made sympathetic sounds. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. It is all very well to go to meetings throughout the city and to say it is too bad about the increase in bus fares but now is the time to give expression to that sentiment in a concrete way by asking the Government to bring in legislation so that the weaker sections of the community can get a reduction in bus fares.

Again I can anticipate the sort of argument that can be made: it is much better to increase pensions and we will consider this when the Budget comes around in conjunction with other claims; the wage earners have in fact got increases and we feel that in the ordinary way of negotiation through their unions that is the best manner in which they can compensate themselves for any rise in the cost of living. We all know the sort of arguments which are made and who in fact suffer from those types of arguments. It is the old age pensioners living in Fishamble Street in the city of Dublin who cannot take the bus to Ballyfermot or Finglas. It is the workers in the outlying areas whose wages are cut down by the great demands made on them and the people like the widow I have mentioned who has to pay £1 a week out of her small earnings to go to her work as a cleaner.

This Dáil, being a national assembly, has to debate matters of high policy and high finance and to discuss these matters in millions and hundreds of millions. I am talking about seven-pences, ninepences and shillings but I am talking about the things that matter to the poorer sections of the community, the people who cannot afford a ninepenny bus fare. This Dáil should take cognisance of that situation and remedy it.

I am not in a position to give details to this House as to the manner in which these schemes are operated elsewhere but I know there are such schemes. In France, for instance, there is a considerable reduction for persons in receipt of social welfare benefits, for people whose families are of considerable size and for other such people when they travel by State transport. It should not be beyond the power of the Minister and his Department to devise a system which would not be too difficult to operate by which the old age pensioners and the people on the unemployment register, the people in receipt of widows' pensions and tuberculosis allowances would be able to hand up a card identifying themselves and get a reduction in the fare. Nor would it be too difficult or too costly to devise a scheme by which, at certain periods of the day, when the workers are going to work, they would be given a concession because of the large amounts they now have to pay.

That is all I want to say about this motion. I feel that anybody conversant with conditions—I speak for the City of Dublin, but this must apply to other large cities and towns as well — will know that I am not exaggerating when I suggest that what has occurred in the transport industry in recent years is a very considerable hardship. We should consider the best way of assisting the people in most need of assistance. It is possible that there may be other means of doing it. I appreciate that the directors of CIE have considerable difficulty in carrying out their statutory duties. I know it is a comparatively simple matter to turn to bus fares and increase them when they are faced with a deficit as a result of increased wages. I know the argument will be made that because of increased wages bills, fares must go up but I do not think that is a valid argument.

If the Government have so mishandled the situation that prices continue to rise and if, as a result, the unions have to obtain increased wages and if the deficit of the State companies is increased because of that, the people to bear the burden should not be the weakest section of the community. I feel it would not be uncalled for for this Dáil to call on the Government to introduce legislation. Indeed, I feel that legislation is needed, that the answer to this debate will be that CIE have their statutory functions to carry out. If that is the answer, then we inform the Government that as a sovereign Parliament, we wish that position to be changed. I want to say a few brief words on the Estimate and to move to refer it back.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When the Deputy concludes, there is a motion to be moved by Deputy Kyne to refer back the Estimate.

Mr. D. Costello

I thought the motion was in Deputy McGilligan's name.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am sorry; I thought it was Deputy Kyne's motion.

Mr. D. Costello

Deputy Kyne and I will not fall out as to who moves the motion. Deputy Kyne can also do so if he wishes. I move:

That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration.

There is another simple matter to which I wish to draw the attention of the House with regard to CIE. We all have our problems in our constituencies but if one raises them in the Dáil one leaves oneself open to the allegation that we are looking for support in our own constituency. Even at the risk of that, may I mention this? There is not one single bus shelter in the whole suburb of Finglas. That may be a matter which the Minister may think should not be raised on this Estimate and which is a matter of CIE policy but I want to say this—this is symptomatic of our whole approach to the transport problem in Dublin and of the Government's whole approach to the transport policy as it relates to the citizens of this country.

I repeat, there is not a single bus shelter in the whole of Finglas. I am sure there is not a Deputy who could not say the same for many parts of his own constituency. We have here a large State organisation and if the Minister responsible for that organisation allows things to develop so that the needs of the people are neglected, we are entitled to draw the attention of the House to the matter. I charge the Government with failing to look after the real needs of the people.

I want to talk about Aerlínte. We have a luxurious transatlantic air service and we have not a bus shelter in Finglas. I think there is a connection between the two. We are concerned with prestige matters and with these magnificent planes but we forget the real needs of the people. I want so say categorically with regard to the transatlantic airline that it is a luxury this country cannot afford. I think it is a prestige symbol.

Mr. Childers

Is that the opinion of Fine Gael?

Mr. D. Costello

It is my opinion and I am entitled to give it. I am also entitled to make my speech here. We are too poor a country to afford this luxury. We talk about an operating surplus of approximately £200,000 in regard to Aerlínte. I want to express myself as reasonably as I can in this matter and not make any false charges. This talk about an operating surplus of £200,000 is a strange way of expressing our situation because it does not take into account the interest invested in Aerlínte. The phrase that is used, that sort of nice-sounding phrase, has a connection with all this. That phrase is that it is hoped that the capital being invested in these transatlantic aeroplanes will be redeemed at some time in the future. What does that mean? It means that the State has to borrow millions of pounds, invest in Aerlínte, pay interest at the rate of over 5 per cent. and get nothing in return for it. I want to say categorically that in fact the operations of the transatlantic airline cost us probably something over £400,000 a year, which is not included in these accounts.

I am not suggesting the people who have drawn up these accounts have done anything wrong because that is the statutory position, but we should tell the people and not be talking about this £200,000 operating surplus. There is an operating surplus because Aerlínte has not to pay interest on capital. If it had to pay interest, there would be no operating surplus. As I understand the position—here I am very much subject to correction and I am sure the Minister will correct me, if I am wrong—in other airlines, the interest on capital is included when arriving at the operating surplus. Quite recently, it was pointed out that a great loss had been suffered by one of the big British airlines and it was necessary to take drastic steps, but that loss arose because of the interest that had to be paid on the capital invested in it. If that interest had not been payable, then it would have had what we would call an operating surplus. When the Minister talks about the large operating deficits of the other airlines, are these operating deficits made up as our accounts are made up or do those figures include interest on the capital invested in them, because if they do and if in fact we are not comparing like with like, then we are certainly misleading the people.

My understanding of the position is that no airline on the North Atlantic route makes money. When I say "makes money", let me make it clear I do not think we should get involved in juggling with accounts. I am talking about making money as an ordinary commercial venture. In an ordinary commercial venture, you take into account depreciation and your capital and interest charges. As I understand the position, no airline on the North Atlantic route makes money and Aerlínte does not make money by that criterion. It would be as well if we and the people were told that. We have seen these headlines in the paper: "Aerlínte makes operating surplus of £200,000." People who read headlines and do not read very much besides will say: "The airline is not too bad anyway. It is not costing us any money." In fact it is. It is costing the taxpayer considerable amounts every year. I do not know what will happen in the future. I do not know what will happen when these planes have finished their useful life. How shall we replace them? The replacement cost of these planes will probably be enormous.

This whole matter is one of which the public should be given a very full account. I do not think it is a matter on which the public should be left under any illusion. I do not think there is much advantage to be gained by the Minister making debating points: "Is that the policy of your Party?" I think we are long past the time when the public are interested in debating points being made in this House. The public are interested in bus fares; they are interested in the price of butter; they are interested in proper housing. The Government have gone far away from the realities of present-day Ireland. One of the symptoms of that is the manner in which this Estimate is being approached. One of the symptoms of it is the Government's whole approach to our transport policy. The Dáil should indicate its view on that by supporting this motion and referring this Estimate back.

Mr. Kyne

The reason I and my colleagues, Deputy McAuliffe and Deputy Treacy, put down a motion to refer back the Estimate and in fact the reason for Motion No. 46 on the Order Paper is to give to those of us who are interested an opportunity of indicating to the House the serious position that faces a great number of counties throughout Ireland because of the proposal by CIE to close down the railways completely.

Not many weeks ago, indications appeared in the public press that CIE intended within the very near future, amongst many other things, to deprive county Waterford of all its railway lines. The railway line that links Tramore with Waterford, which runs right through the county of Waterford, was to be wiped out. I should like to avail of this debate to give to the Minister and to the House the reasons why the Act which gives to CIE power to take these decisions went through Dáil Éireann without a division on the relevant section of the Act. It went through because the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Taoiseach, gave it as a solemn undertaking on behalf of CIE that before the closure of any line came into operation, there would be full consultation with local representatives and local bodies, that all the facts would be fully investigated before any decision was taken. Unfortunately we have learnt a lesson.

We in county Waterford learned it the hard way. We learned it by the sudden statement that the railway line from Waterford city to Tramore was to be closed and by the brutal onslaught made on the railway bridge within minutes of zero hour so as to prevent action being taken by the corporation and county council of Waterford who at that time were endeavouring to by from CIE, if possible, the right to run the railway line in the interests of the people of the city and county of Waterford. No chance was given. It looked as if CIE were anxious to close the line, irrespective of any representations.

I remember taking part in a deputation which comprised the then Mayor of Waterford, a number of aldermen and councillors and the four Deputies who at that time represented the constituency. We met the secretary and various officials and we were warned that when we went into the conference room, we were not there to discuss whether or not the line should be closed but only to put forward suggestions for what alternative services we required. In other words, the decision to close the line was made. There was no consultation; we were being informed that it was closed, and all we were permitted to do was to make suggestions as to what alternative services we required.

I do not believe that is the proper way to deal with a problem such as this. I want to put the case for the Tramore line. Other people from West Cork and from Clare at the time had equally good and valid reasons why, in their opinion, the railway lines serving their constituencies or counties should not be closed. Tonight I speak mainly from the point of view of Waterford county and city. From Fermoy at the extreme end of the county to the city of Waterford, a distance of approximately 60 to 70 miles, the various small stations which are the nerve centres of the whole county will be deprived of a railway service. You may as well say you are cutting the main artery of the industrial life of Waterford by depriving the county of a railway. That is being done in the name of economy, without thought, consideration or even courtesy for the inquiries made by the local representatives of industry or anything else in the county.

The combined county council members of Cork, Waterford and other interested places have met on several occasions and endeavoured to get from CIE either agreement to receive deputations or information regarding losses on the lines. It is true that CIE gave to that combined group information as to losses, but when we sought to get either direct from CIE or from the various stationmasters throughout the affected areas information as to the actual receipts paid in at the various stations, we were met with a stone-wall refusal, by a blank refusal, under instructions from headquarters to give no information as to receipts. We got the suggested losses, but, when we endeavoured to put against what we were told were the losses, the actual receipts for individual stations, to build up a picture in our own minds and to satisfy ourselves that there was, in fact, an actual loss, or the amount of the actual loss, we were met with complete and utter refusal by CIE officials to give any information at all.

I suggest that that attitude of mind is completely wrong. No one denies that CIE have responsibility. No one denies that if there is an actual operating loss, and a continuous operating loss, CIE may in some circumstances be justified in proposing to close down, but before they do that, I suggest, to implement the promise made through the Minister here, there is an obligation on them to satisfy public representatives and local interests of the need for it, to co-operate with them in endeavouring in every way possible to give all the information they have available, and to listen to any suggestion that might improve the position.

I can think of many ways—and I am sure my colleague, Deputy Lynch, has already put them to the Minister— in which the Tramore line could have been made to pay. One very simple way was instead of scrapping the line, to increase the fares by a small amount. That would have overcome the deficiency which, I understand, was between £400 and £500. That was the maximum. A small increase in fares would have met that rather than the 300 per cent. increase we now have to suffer in bus fares for an inferior service which deprives the working class people of an amenity to which they are entitled.

That does not strike the moneyed classes; it does not strike the man with the motor car; it does not strike even the young single man who can cycle. It effects an economy at the expense of the working classes, the man, his wife and family, because the bus service provides no means of transporting that which is most essential if you have a young child, a pram, so that you can keep your youngest child by your side while keeping an eye on the other children running about the beach.

It was crazy of CIE to close the line, in the face of the fact that the corporation and the county council were actually considering offering a subsidy to run that service, or even to buy it out and run it as a private service. While that consideration was going on, there was this brutal assault on the railway bridge within a few minutes of zero hour. I suggest to the Minister that he has a responsibility to demand from CIE that they meet the local representatives of Cork, Waterford or any other area where there is a proposed close down.

We were informed by CIE that £21,655 was the loss on the Mallow-Waterford line. Would it not be possible for us to be permitted to find out how that figure was arrived at? I am aware that the Minister, in reply to a Parliamentary question dealing with the railways, indicated that, in his view, Deputies or the local representatives would be unable to assess that information if they got it, that it is a complicated business which only properly trained auditors could understand. That view of high finance is, to my mind, a bit haywire.

I believe that if you know what income is and if you know what outgoings are, a very simple sum in subtraction will give you an approximate idea of either the loss or the gain. It is true that to find out the overall picture of costings and overheads would be a complicated job, but a very rough picture would do to find out whether it was absolutely essential to close the Tramore line in face of the fact that the railway line from Waterford is a social amenity and is absolutely essential for the industries of the country and for tourism, in view of the fact that it is a vital link with London, through Munster, Rosslare, Dungarvan, Fermoy, Mallow and right up to Cork—and into Killarney, as Deputy Lynch says. It is a vital thing for tourism and for industry, both present and future. If my county is to be left without a railway line, can we hope to attract American firms, German firms or anyone else in our drive to keep our position in EEC conditions? This action of CIE, with the approval of the Minister apparently, is going to deprive us of that right.

The Minister has a responsibility to see that that does not happen without our being given an opportunity of endeavouring to show what improvements could be made. What will be the impact on the ratepayers of Waterford? Who will pay for the increased tearing up of the roads when all the traffic—there will be considerable traffic because I have figures to prove it—goes out from the station in the town of Dungarvan? Thousands of tons of beet are transported to Mallow by rail. The co-operative creamery, the slate factory and the apple factory have given me proof in relation to £8,000 and £10,000 paid out into Dungarvan station alone. Where is all that traffic to go but to the main roads? Who will be responsible for the upkeep of the main roads but the ratepayers of Waterford?

I can assure the Minister that it is being seriously considered by the ratepayers' representatives in both Waterford and Cork that if this is insisted upon, they, in turn, will endeavour to see that they are not compelled to provide a road service for CIE lorries to carry the produce that was formerly carried on the railways so that a saving can be made at the ratepayers' expense. I do not think it reasonable that they should be asked to do it. If such a proposal goes forward, even though I normally advocated that we should give full maintenance to our roads, I will now be forced to accept the fact that these representatives are within their rights.

I would suggest to the Minister that one of the reasons for this wholesale closing down is that section of the Act which insists that compensation for redundant employees will be paid only within a specified limited number of years, up to, I think, the end of 1964 and that should any other redundancy occur, as and from that on, this compensation will not be available from Government sources.

I think CIE are acting on the basis of discharging all they can now, giving them their compensation and then, if they want them, taking them back. I am quite well aware that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions are not a bit happy with the consultation or, rather, should I say, lack of consultation between the Congress and CIE headquarters. I am authorised to say that they are not at all happy that consultations at the level they believe was necessary have taken place. They believe that adequate consultation has very rarely taken place between them but rather that they met and were informed of a decision come to by CIE headquarters in much the same way as the local bodies and public representatives are being informed either by newspaper announcement or a speech made at some dinner of some society or elsewhere that it was proposed to close down or they were, in fact, closing down.

It was said to me that a number of highly skilled workers trained in CIE workshops, young men between 25 and 30 years of age, have been let go with a pension of so much per week, while at the same time, in the same industry and in the same particular trade in CIE, overtime is being worked and, further, while young men are being let go, finished coaches are being imported from other countries. Surely there is something wrong somewhere? The administration must be wrong.

We are quite satisfied that the Chairman of CIE has the responsibility put on him by this House to endeavour to make CIE as a whole pay, balancing one part with the other. I do not say he is doing wrong in what he is doing but I do say that it is hard to get the public to accept all these economies which inflict so much hardship on them.

During the period from 1st June to 1st October, we have rail hostesses. That period is very significant. The universities close in June and they open in October. Probably it is only a coincidence that the period covers the holidays but it has been suggested to me that our rail hostesses are paying their university fees from the £8 or £10 per week they get during that period. If that is so, good luck to them, but I suggest that there are very few countries in the world with rail hostesses. Here we have a country where the maximum distance between any two places is no more than 312 miles. If you travel in one State in America, you would travel twice as far as you would travel on a day's journey here. I never saw rail hostesses in the United States. I saw a negro porter who brought you a drink or cleaned your shoes if you wanted that service. I do not understand—and the public do not understand—this urgent drive for economy, in view of the fact that CIE can apparently afford the luxury of train hostesses to take care of the children, I am told, of elderly people travelling between Dublin and Cork.

I do know from my own experience of crossing from London that at Rosslare station and between there and Cork city, or, perhaps, Killarney, there are many mothers with tired children who, after a rough sea journey, need as much attention from the rail hostesses but, unfortunately, it is not thought necessary to put them on that particular line. Do all good things come from Dublin and go to Cork or vice versa?

I do not know what the Minister thinks of all this but I know what I think of his attitude. I asked the Minister a very simple question. I asked him whether he could inform me or get information for me as to the loss on the rail service between Fermoy and Waterford. It was my job as a Deputy to try to find that out. That is what I am elected to do. The answer the Minister gave me was that it was a function of CIE, that he had no function in the matter at all. When I went to CIE, they told me they would not give me the information either.

How does the Minister relate that to the fact that the Dáil is supposed to be the master of CIE and not the servant? The Minister represents us in his dealings with CIE and he is the servant of this House. We have to foot the bill if there are losses, we have to meet all accounts. We have as our watch dog the Minister, and when we ask our representative for an explanation on behalf of our people who will be vitally affected, his answer is that he has no responsibility. Does it mean that from now on CIE can decide the economic fate of any county without Dáil Éireann having a right to do anything about it?

Is it correct that the Cork-Youghal line is not now to be closed but that it will be continued for passenger services? Deputy Corry is announcing that throughout the length and breadth of the Cork constituency. He is holding it out as something he has won. If it is true, I welcome it. There is a vital necessity for the people of Cork to have this link with Youghal just the same as it is necessary for the people of Waterford to have a link with Tramore. Due to political pressure, perhaps, or second thoughts, CIE have now apparently changed their mind. If they have had second thoughts in regard to this, they may have second thoughts also in regard to Waterford.

Mr. Childers

They have not had the second thoughts yet. They have not made a decision.

Mr. Kyne

I do not know, but Deputy Corry is assuring everybody.

Mr. T. Lynch

Was some kind of announcement not made that they were not going to take up the Youghal line?

Mr. Childers

I was talking about the Waterford to Mallow line.

Mr. Kyne

Is it true the Cork-Youghal line is to be maintained?

Mr. Childers

There is a preliminary decision about it.

Mr. Kyne

I hope we will have a preliminary decision that the life blood of County Waterford will not be cut off.

Mr. Childers

There is another line, of course.

Mr. Kyne

Where is it?

Mr. Childers

From Waterford to Limerick.

Mr. Kyne

I am afraid the Minister is missing the point. I am talking about the line that serves the whole of County Waterford.

Mr. Childers

I am talking about the line from Waterford to the West.

Mr. Kyne

Where do you get a connection?

Mr. Childers

Limerick Junction.

Mr. T. Lynch

I do not think the Minister knows his geography at all.

Mr. Kyne

Limerick Junction is at least 40 miles from Dungarvan.

Mr. Childers

I am not talking about Dungarvan. However, I shall not interrupt the Deputy.

Mr. Kyne

I do not mind being interrupted.

Mr. Childers

There is a connection left between Waterford and the West, without any question of its closing.

Mr. Barron

He is talking about the line up to Carick-on-Suir and Clonmel.

Mr. McGilligan

He will get up to the moving bogs in Donegal one of these minutes.

Mr. Kyne

The Minister has a duty as our representative not only to see to it that we get fair play but to examine with CIE whether the loss of these lines is justified because of the danger of paralysing the entire industrial future of a district.

I notice that in his speech the Minister devoted scarcely more than a few words to Rosslare. He said there was provision for extended queuing space for passengers and that some of the toilets were to be enlarged. Did the Minister ever travel third class or second class from London to Rosslare, preferably with a couple of children accompanying him? Did he ever get on that boat and have to lie on the deck with people seasick all around him? Did he ever realise what a difference even 100 deck chairs would make to the people who have to travel on this boat? Does he realise that most of the people who once travel on this boat say they will never travel on it again? Is it not possible to provide not even a deck chair, but simply a box on which a tired mother can sit down with her child in her lap?

What is permitted on the boats between Rosslare and Fishguard is simply criminal. I said on this Estimate last year that there was severe overcrowding on these boats and that if a disaster should occur, the lifeboats or liferafts would not be able to take half or quarter of the people aboard. I have travelled that route a dozen times and I know what I am talking about. If there is ever a disaster on that boat, heads will roll. There is a lack of supervision. I have that from people who serve on these boats and who are nervous of the risks they are continually taking at peak periods. I would suggest there is a need for investigation and a need for precautionary measures before something tragic happens. I trust the Minister has listened to what I have said and will endeavour to discharge his responsibility to the people of my constituency.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister began his statement with some words on civil aviation and airports. It is obvious from the figures he has given that colossal expenditure is necessary to maintain our airports. This can be justified on either one of two grounds: by the demand for the services or by the necessity of providing for the future economic growth of our major cities. On the second ground, it is obvious that Dublin Airport is necessary and that if extra services are needed, we will have to extend the airport to meet the demand. The same applies to Cork. The decision to have an airport there was a good one. I observe there has been an operating deficiency of £99,000 to date. I have used the airport myself twice in the last month or so and it does not seem to be very busy. At the same time, if we are to develop Cork as the southern capital, it is necessary to have an airport there.

The question mark in regard to our airports is Shannon. That, however, cannot be laid at the Minister's door. The fact is that in the era of less efficient aircraft, Shannon was the logical port of call on the transatlantic route. It is extremely doubtful whether it will continue to be so. It is true that the Government have spent large sums—I shall deal with that later—in an effort to develop industries at Shannon and create a situation in which Shannon will prove an attraction. In doing so, they have, I think, pinned a great deal of their faith on air freight. In my opinion, air freight, considered from the point of view of a Government setting up such a service and from the point of view of an air company, is a ghastly and a costly failure.

If one wants to check whether or not air freight is a success, all one has to do is to look at the costings. If one wants to send something to New York at the moment, one finds that air freight costs roughly two and a half times as much. With regard to air car ferry, that will not compete successfully in the foreseeable future with water and ships will, on either long or short haul, defeat air freight always over the next couple of decades. It seems clear to me that the setting up of an air freight service is not of any consequence.

The figures we see here in the Minister's speech—13,000 tons for Dublin Airport and 337 tons for Cork Airport—are so relatively small in comparison with the port of Dublin or the port of Cork that my argument is proved; we must discount air freight as a means of revenue. From that point of view, it is possible that a great deal of the development brought about at Shannon may—I hope it may not—prove abortive because the building of houses and factories there is largely based on the assumption that one can make one's product, roll it out on the tarmac and put it on the plane. Most products would be more advantageously put in America or on the continent by rolling them out on to the tarmac, putting them on a truck and bringing them to either Limerick or Cork for shipment. That may be a revolutionary idea but, from what I know of air freights as a business man, that is how I see the situation.

From that point of view, I question the wisdom of the purchase, which the Minister has authorised, of two aircraft at a cost of £700,000 to provide a car ferry between Dublin, Liverpool, Bristol and, perhaps, Birmingham. The first comment on this project is that private enterprise has already abandoned it twice. That is the Minister's statement. The second comment is that we need at the moment a very much improved delivery service between Britain and here for agricultural goods, if it is our desire to provide those goods fresh in Britain. It is questionable whether or not a ship, or two, would not be a far better investment, remembering that they could bring the tourists' cars here at a much cheaper rate than they can be brought here by air. I know there are certain physical difficulties because the suggestion is that a tourist who drives a car to Speke wants to drive the same car away from Dublin Airport. That is a difficulty, but it is not an insurmountable one.

It is quite right that we should have a company such as Aer Lingus. We have to bring our tourists in and out on short hauls but I do not agree that it is necessary that we should walk into further colossal expenditure of this kind when we badly need a proper cross-Channel service. We have not got one at the moment. Aer Lingus was a sensible project and it is a pity that it cannot—the Minister expressed regret because of this situation—repay its interest on capital and, indeed, the capital itself. As the Minister pointed out, of course, that is a feature of all air companies all over the world. That feature has in fact been accentuated in the past 12 months by a reduction in fares. However, all of us have gone to a bad fair at times and all of us have had to take a bad price at times and we cannot, therefore, be hypercritical about that situation. But we can be hypercritical about policy and, while a small operating surplus was indicated by the Minister in regard to Aerlínte, an operating surplus is far from a profit because interest on capital has not been charged, though depreciation has been. The capital charge on these three jets is colossal, something in the order of 63 to 64 per cent. While we have charged in depreciation, it is questionable whether that depreciation will replace jet aircraft, which will be much more expensive, I am sure, when we come to buy them again.

It appears to me that this Aerlínte project is a highly-expensive excursion into transatlantic air ferry business, I wonder whether there was any need for it. I do not think there was. If we had made arrangements with the other transatlantic companies to provide a service giving a certain number of seats, I think we could have saved a great deal of money. We need a colossal amount of capital investment here in sensible things, things related to our industries and our agriculture, not to mention our social difficulties, such as lack of housing. Many young families find themselves short of housing at the moment.

We have, too, the decision to allow Aer Rianta, the third of the triumvirate, to build large luxury hotels in centres where they can be fed by potential customers from the airports. That is an ill-founded project, in my view. I shall be saying something about tourism later. Is it not true to say that we fail in our tourism because we have provided too many bedrooms with baths, too many luxury hotels, too many places where you pay too much for too little? I remember being on the continent last Easter staying in a first-class hotel, paying approximately 12/6 to 15/- a day less than I would be paying for the same accommodation here. I believe that what the people want is the small hotel with a reputation for excellent cooking and reasonable prices. The great majority of people coming here want clean accommodation and good food, well-cooked and well served.

The Minister has indicated a change of policy in this regard. To my way of thinking, the change comes too late. The Minister says:

Bord Fáilte's targets for top grade accommodation are now in sight of achievement but there is still a deficiency in the number of grade B and C rooms available, particularly in some parts of the country... I have asked Ostlanna Iompair Éireann to go into the possibility of building new grade B hotels in suitable places where there is and is likely to be a continuing inadequacy of such accommodation and where block booking for package tours is required by travel agents.

He also says:

I have directed Bord Fáilte to concentrate on the expansion and improvement of middle-grade accommodation and, with a view to giving extra encouragement to the small hotelier, the Board have reduced the lower limit on the cost of improvement works eligible for grant assistance from £2,000 to £500.

I can give the case of one hotelier who is operating a first-class hotel and who has refused to take any grant from Bord Fáilte, refused to have anything to do with them because he felt that the terms and conditions laid down were so stringent that he was far better off without any assistance of this kind.

I honestly believe, if you go to France or Italy, that the small hotel, if it is clean and the food is good, is streets ahead of, or certainly as good as, any of the first-class hotels that have been heavily subsidised in capital expenditure by the Minister and the Government. I think we were completely wrong and that over the last six months the criticisms we have heard about the fall in receipts from tourism, and the answers to questions asked by Deputy Sweetman, for instance, which made available to us the details of the grants given to hotels, indicate that the stringent conditions laid down by Bord Fáilte meant that the grants were given in all or almost all cases to luxury hotels. That is policy, something for which the Government have to answer and something in respect of which, in my opinion, they have been sadly lacking.

The question of all the money that has been spent on the Shannon Free Airport Development Company is something which has to be examined. It is a highly expensive experiment and I would not like to say that it is a failure. I hope it never will be but we had an industry for chinchillas and for bowling alleys and they are both gone. In my view, both those projects could be put in the same category as the Minister's previous excursion, in a previous Ministry, in the realm of fish ponds. We have to see whether this idea of an industrial town, sited in a free airport where air freight can be provided, will work. I think perhaps it will work if you can pay the freight you want to pay in the case, say, of a piano, one of the industries operating down there. While it may work, I will guarantee it will not work where you have to sell on the basis of paying £1 per ton less or more on a product in America or on the continent, or perhaps £5 per ton. I have not got the freight rates at my fingertips but I would almost say that the difference between sea and air freight at the moment, between here and the continent, is almost £5 per ton. If it is, then this experiment may or may not succeed.

The Minister's speech at page 20 indicates that we are now building a colossal number of houses and of flats for the workers who we hope will be there. I hope they will be but I reserve the right to be extremely critical if they are not there this day 12 months. I reserve the right to say that the unfortunate boys and girls in the towns of Drogheda and Dundalk, who have been waiting for five years for houses, will also have something to say if there are empty houses at Shannon. Remember all the stringent conditions laid down for the housing of people who need houses, have to be gone through before these people can get houses but we here are trying to build up something which is artificial. I hope the Minister will be successful but I do warn that it is an experiment. We have had cases of industries folding up and all that we can hope for is——

Mr. Childers

Shannon housing is not stopping the building of houses. It is an independent administration.

Mr. Donegan

An independent administration, but we were discussing, not this actual problem but something the Minister was thinking about not so very long ago, on the Estimate for Local Government. There is a cake and you can call that cake "housing" and that cake is divided into slices. Some people get a slice and some people do not. Therefore I reserve the right, whether or not the Minister says it is a different slice, that if those houses are empty this day 12 months, or this day two years, to come back and charge the Minister with making a mistake, but I hope that I will not have to do so.

Irish Shipping is in the position of all shipping. It has part of its fleet laid up and it is not making money. Again it is very easy to be wise after the event and very easy to be critical, but there is a line of thought which holds that the first thing we should have done after the war was to provide a really good cross-Channel and continental service for our agricultural goods, even if we lost money at the start. Remember we are losing a lot of money at the end. I do not think tramp steamers chartered for various freights all over the world, and in very few cases plying to our shores, are anything more than a status symbol. I do not think they do anything for us; they are losing money; they do not help our products to be sold anywhere in the world and they are plying perhaps from America to Australia, or from the Continent of Europe to America, but they are not doing anything for us. At the same time, we need capital to develop our resources and extend our production. That situation is wrong.

As I say, it is quite easy to be wise after the event but on page 20 of the Minister's speech he says:

...replacement of a number of the existing older vessels will, in the normal course, also be necessary before 1970.

I am quite certain that statement is true because older vessels will come to be replaced, but the Minister in his reply should tell us what the future policy of Irish Shipping is to be. Is it the intention to bend the policy to the view where it will do this country some good, or is it the intention to allow their policy to proceed on the basis of building ships, paying for them out of the Exchequer and leasing them out as tramp steamers carrying freight from one country to another and losing money or, alternatively, tying them up? I would prefer to see a boat leaving every day from Dublin to Liverpool, as it does, with perhaps refrigerated goods and I would prefer to see that boat losing money for a few years in an experiment to see if we could develop our fruit trade perhaps, or our vegetable trade, or, say, develop the fresh meat trade to a greater extent, than that we should have that ship plying from one country to another and losing money abroad.

I would far prefer to see it that way for some years because then at least at home we would be developing production and businessmen, and co-operative societies which process agricultural products, would know that that service was available to them. What use is a service from the Continent of Europe to America on which the Exchequer loses money at a time when we are paying our old age pensioners something like 32/6d. a week? It does not make sense to me.

I welcome the mention by the Minister of the Greenore-Preston container service. I think the reason why the dispute in relation to the handling of the containers came to an end was the Greenore-Preston container service. I am going to be quite blunt and say that I think the port of Greenore was used as a means of ending that dispute to the advantage of my constituents and I am glad of it. I want to say that I hope, now that the port has been got going, every effort will be made to keep it going and that if there is any need for a subvention, the same sort of approach will be made to that service as is obviously being made to the accounts of Irish Shipping Limited. The port of Drogheda is a good port. At low tide, without dredging, we can get in a boat of 3,000 tons and tie it up. There are not many ports on the east coast of which that can be said.

The Drogheda-Preston container service I welcome. Unhappily, the volume of trade in Drogheda port declined during the year. I think one of the principal reasons for that is the start of shipments of stone from Dundalk so that the twin ports are still paying. The grant given to Drogheda is not money badly spent. There is one thing about that port: any money spent on Drogheda is well spent because you have the river Boyne, a large fast-flowing river, running into it that will keep it scoured out, once it is dredged. Dredging of the port of Drogheda becomes more or less permanent, unlike cases where it has to be repeated in five or ten years' time.

I take the Minister to task for one statement in relation to harbours at the end of page 22 of his supplied statement in which he says that if proposed harbour works are to be of a productive nature, as they should be, it should be possible for the harbour authorities to raise the necessary funds by borrowing with the assistance, if possible, of the local authorities. We did a good bit of that in Drogheda but we could not do it all. If you take the cost of removing a cubic yard of mud or silt in relation to the income of a harbour, you will find that dredging is something that must become a charge on the Exchequer, whether the money is to be guaranteed in the banks by the Government or the local authority. There is very little relation between the income of most of our harbours and the cost of major dredging work. That is something that should be remembered.

The Minister is extremely enthusiastic about turf development. I think it is good that we have developed our turf resources, as it does give employment to a lot of people. The Minister has mentioned that as mechanisation progresses, he gets representations from various bodies and political persons who are accustomed to making such representations that the people disemployed by the machines should get their jobs back. The day of the fellow spading out the turf is going. At the stage when turf development was a source of good employment, employment was most needed and turf development in this country was largely along social lines. We must face it that if the theories of the hard Manchester school of economics had been applied, much of our turf development would never have been done. We are now going into machine-won turf and the number of men who will be engaged on the various jobs in connection with it will be relatively few.

Again, the sales of turf are almost entirely dependent on Government-sponsored bodies and the greatest purchaser is the ESB. In addition, there are the hospitals, institutions and the local authorities who, when they get the money from the Government, find a little tag on it which says that they must buy a turf-fired boiler and that they must use turf. The Minister said that to heat Dublin Airport would take 10,000 tons of machine-won turf per year. I look on that with horror because almost in the same page he gives the price at £6 per ton. I cannot believe that to heat Dublin Airport will cost £60,000 a year. It does not make sense to me and I would like the Minister to let me know how much it will cost to heat Dublin Airport. I am quite certain the figure he has given is ridiculous. If it is not, there is something wrong and very seriously wrong.

Let us face up to it now: turf development as mentioned by the Minister will not give the level of employment it once did. The electricity produced from it is produced in small generating stations such as the one at Screebe, or at Spanish Point near where the Minister for Education lives.

Dr. Hillery

At Miltown-Malbay.

Mr. Donegan

The electricity produced from these stations is costing three halfpence more per unit than any other electricity. I do not believe that situation can continue.

Dr. Hillery

I hope you are not going to move the one from Miltown-Malbay.

Mr. Donegan

No, but I feel that electricity at that price is something we cannot afford.

The Minister devoted about 40 pages of his speech to various matters and then said that as there was a Transport Bill before the House, he did not think it necessary to deal with CIE and he skated through that. I do not think the House will let him get away with that. CIE have failed to live up to the conditions imposed on them in 1958. Up to last year, it looked as if they were getting down their losses, but if you read the balance sheet for each year, you found that they were writing off liabilities to the Government in respect of money advanced.

When they reached the end of that, there was again a rising loss. Last year, it was £500,000. Now it is up to £1,700,000 and the reasons given are restrictive practices and the eighth round of wage increases. I do not believe that. I have seen the new lorries they have purchased and I know the operating economics of those lorries. They are much more efficient than those they had previously. Depreciation has been charged on them but it seems to me quite extraordinary, while I do not doubt the statements of the auditors for the previous year, that they did really cut down the loss to £250,000. I did not believe that at the time and many people in the country did not believe it. The chickens have now come home to roost and we have to admit that, in 1964, the transport system will not be paying for itself.

In this set of circumstances there has been a wholesale shutting down of lines, whether justified on economic grounds or not. I hear on the grapevine—and it is only on the grapevine —that the shutting down of the Drogheda-Ardee line is being reconsidered. If anybody had asked me about that line before or after the decision was made to close it, I would have told them it must pay. At the end of that railway property, there is one of the biggest wheat intake stations in the country where the Ardee Grain Company takes in 60,000 to 80,000 barrels of wheat. There is also the heavy production of beet of which Deputy Corry is so fond. There is heavy agricultural production for which the railway is used. Magee's Stores is there, one of the biggest purveyors of agricultural machinery in the country who also use the railway for the movement of their agricultural machines as far down as Deputy Corry's constituency and further. There is the Castleguard Textile Company who use the railway for the movement of their goods in and out. There is only one train a day and the line is only nine miles long.

I believe there have been second thoughts about that line. I want to give my support to keeping it open only on the basis that I think that if you look at the figures—I have not got them—you will find it is paying. If anyone can produce figures that will convince me that there were large losses there, I will certainly not support keeping the line open. However, I think the second thoughts which rumour has it are being had about that line should result in its being kept open.

This Vote is rather like the Vote for the Department of Local Government in that we vote a figure of £5,000,000 but taking the operations of CIE, the Airports and aircraft companies, the Industrial Credit Company, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, and so on, we are really talking of expenditure which would take a considerable amount of time to work out but which is certainly not less than £20,000,000. Taking one year with another, we do not know how such capital expenditure and losses go. You have to take the operations of commercial banks and all these funding organisations which are used to further the intentions of the Minister for Transport and Power. It is a very important Ministry. When I look down the line at those sections of it referred to in the Minister's speech which require subsidisation and some of which might appear not to require it, I find that civil aviation, Shannon Airport, Dublin Airport, Cork Airport, Aer Lingus, Aerlínte, Aer Rianta and Irish Shipping, all have substantial losses. A lot of good work could be done to retrieve these losses or to reduce them. At the same time, there is the Shannon Free Airport Company, the Potez factory and turf development, where quite a lot of Government investment is involved. That makes this Vote a very serious one indeed.

This is one of the places where the Government are slipping. I have tried not to be too critical but the Minister for Transport and Power is expert at glossing over the facts, at giving us the good side and forgetting about the bad side. I have indicated certain places where all does not seem to be right. I accuse the Government of bad housekeeping. One of the wors things a Government can be accused of is bad housekeeping because it means wasting not their own money but the people's money. The Minister should reply not only to points that came from this side of the House but to those that came from the Deputies on his own side and also from Independents and Labour Deputies, so that we shall have more detailed information on the losses that have been mentioned and the expenditures that have not been justified.

Mr. Sherwin

Deputy Costello opened the debate and spoke largely on the motion in the names of a number of Fine Gael Deputies. I notice that the motion is in the name of Fine Gael Deputies from Dublin city or Dublin county. There are no country Deputies' names there. While those who signed the motion are Dublin Deputies and obviously only interested in Dublin and the increase in Dublin bus fares, it is strange they should have put down such a loose motion which makes it rather difficult for me to support it.

The motion says:

That Dáil Éireann protests against the recent increase in bus fares——

It does not say in Dublin. It goes on to say:

——and calls on the Government to introduce legislation so as to ensure that the poorer sections of the community are protected. ...

Again I am rather mystified. They do not say what they mean by "the poorer sections". Do they mean the unemployed, the old age pensioner or do they mean some of the employed workers? They do not give any indication of what ought to be done. If the motion is intended to come to the assistance only of the poorer sections, how could CIE know whether the person who boards the bus is a poor person or a well-to-do person? The motion is not specific. It does not say what it would appear to want to say, in the light of the fact that these are all Dublin Deputies.

If CIE have to meet almost £1,000,000 of an increase, mostly due to the last general increase in wages, it stands to reason they must put up bus fares. Everyone else increased the costs of production because they had to give increases in wages. To suggest that CIE should not increase bus fares when they have to shell out another million pounds is ludicrous. It is all very fine for Deputy Costello to say —and he was rubbing at me—that he hoped Deputies who attended meetings on the outskirts of the city would support him. He was thinking of a meeting which he and I attended in Finglas a short while ago.

It is my opinion that Deputies are not honest with the people. I am not suggesting that particularly in relation to Deputy Costello but I remember at this meeting the crowd wanted all sorts of things and they were being promised all sorts of things by the representatives who were present. One Deputy said something that did not please them and he was nearly "lit on." Another Deputy said: "Do not say those things; say what they want to hear." Quoting what people say or are alleged to have said at gatherings in, say, housing estates is all nonsense. I have long since learned all about politics.

I was impressed by something I read in President Kennedy's book which was published some time ago. He said that public representatives are frightened people and that they must go with the crowd. That is true. I have no faith in half the things that are said outside the House or in it. I have no one to protect. The one thing about being an Independent Deputy is that you have no one to protect. If you are a member of a Party, you must protect the Party. One man cannot say what he thinks, unless he is certain that he will not hurt another member of the Party. He has to back down. I do not have to back down. I speak for myself and I can give as good as I take. Parties have to protect their colleagues and I have to protect no one. That is the difference between an Independent and a Party Member.

Mr. Treacy

The Deputy will protect himself.

Mr. Sherwin

If this motion were honest, as it is signed by Dublin Deputies, it should protest against the increase in bus fares in Dublin, and it should be specific. It should make reference to the poor sections in Dublin and provide against increased fares for the old age pensioners and the unemployed. That would be specific. We had a deputation to CIE and the point we made was specific. We said that certain people should have weekly tickets—that is specific—that whereas people who pay 1/- and upwards can have weekly tickets, we thought people who pay 8d. and upwards should have them. That would cover the workers in Finglas and Ballyfermot, the people with whom we were largely concerned. They might save 1/- a week. We also asked for a concession for the old age pensioners and disabled people. We made a specific request that they should be allowed to travel at half fare. These were specific requests but this motion does not say anything specific at all. It protests against the increase in bus fares and refers to the poorer sections of the community all over the country.

It stands to reason that if CIE have to pay an extra £1,000,000 as a result of a general increase in wages, the fares must increase, but specific concessions can be asked for. I do not care so much about the country because the country Deputies can speak for themselves. I am concerned about Dublin because we are keeping up the whole country by paying for all the "bum" railways we hear all the talk about. Because the railways are losing money, we have to shell out in Dublin.

Recently, I read in the Press that in the past nine months there was an increase in income of about £75,000 and it was stated that two-thirds of that increase came from Dublin, which means that we are actually paying twice as much as the rest of the country put together on those figures. Therefore we should have some grounds for asking for some concessions for the goose that lays the golden egg. We ask simply that the workers should get a worker's ticket on which they would save 1/-. That would be the same concession as the people who live in Portmarnock have who now pay 1/- and upwards. I ask the Minister at least to consider the point that the people in Dublin who pay 8d. and upwards and who live in Ballyfermot and Finglas should get a worker's ticket.

I will go further and say that the people who have an income of only 32/6d. a week should not be asked to pay the same fares and the same increases as a worker earning £10 a week—and I am not saying he is earning a fortune. The old age pensioner or the disabled man who has an income of only 32/6 or £2 a week should not have to pay the same fares as an unmarried man earning £10 a week. That is not fair. I am asking for these concessions which are already granted in some of the cities in England. I am being specific. I am not generalising like this motion, which means nothing, like the speakers at those meetings to which I referred.

Be specific and say what you want. Let people know what it will cost. Do not make ludicrous generalisations which will read well in the newspapers but will not get anywhere. I believe in a policy of getting somewhere. I have had experience for ten years of the organised Parties demanding big reductions in differential rents. I have never put down such a motion in my life because I know the local authority has no power to make such reductions, and such motions are only put down to cod the people. I asked that the increase in social benefits should not be taken into account and the city manager agreed. I have got four concessions in the past ten years for the worst off sections of the community and all the Parties never get anywhere because they just talk big to make an impression. I agree in principle with the proposal in this motion but I do not agree with the motion because it is not specific. It does not say what it wants.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy should not repeat himself.

Mr. Sherwin

It certainly does not say what the Dublin Deputies appear to want which is a reduction for the citizens of Dublin. The motion is cleverly worded in order that it will not offend anyone in the country.

The other motion by the members of the Labour Party—I notice that it is the country Deputies who have signed it. I know there is only one Dublin Labour Deputy and I do not see his name to the motion. This motion conflicts with the other motion and does not make sense.

Mr. Coughlan

It is in the Deputy's mind.

Mr. Sherwin

There are the names. I do not see the Dublin Labour Deputy's name on it.

Mr. Coughlan

The conflict is in the Deputy's mind.

Mr. Sherwin

The motion simply refers to railways in particular. There may be grounds in some cases why a particular railway should be saved but I accept the policy that where they do not pay, they should be closed. Railways are becoming obsolete, just as horse traffic has become obsolete. In my opinion, in 30 years from now, there will be no railways at all.

Mr. Coughlan

If the present Minister is there, there will not be.

Mr. Sherwin

We will probably be talking about taking up the tracks and paving the area for autobahns for heavy traffic. All that will come. To suggest that we should continue to maintain them because a handful of people want them is ludicrous. If they are not paying, as a Dublin Deputy who speaks on behalf of the people to whom I have referred, I will not object to their being closed, unless there is some very good reason why a particular railway should be subsidised. Generally speaking, they should be closed because they are obsolete. I can understand that certain Deputies who represent certain areas have to shout, as the Dublin fellows have to shout. They all shout, depending on who is shoving them. The rest of us have to see things in an overall way and make up our minds, if the company can economise and even make a small profit by providing a different service, such as a road service, whether it is better that it should be done in that way.

Mr. Barron

Who will pay for the roads?

Mr. Sherwin

That is all nonsense. The roads will pay for themselves.

The only other point I want to raise is in relation to the ESB. The Minister made a claim here that he cannot interfere with the day-to-day affairs of the company. I can understand that but we expect him to have some influence and if we make a good point, that he will go along and use his good offices to get the ESB to give serious thought to what we suggest.

I made the case before that it is a disgrace that the ESB should make a charge of 11/- every two months on an electricity meter. I believe the gas company make no charge for the meter. I understand that the gas company meter costs twice as much as the ESB meter. While the cost of the meter, included in the cost of consumption, may not in round figures be a lot for people who have money, it means an awful lot to the poorer sections and by the poorer sections I mean the people on social benefits. Not all workers are poor and there is no use in saying they are. The people in receipt of social benefits are certainly poor.

It is a shame that people should be asked to pay 11/- every two months for something they may not use. In the summer, they certainly will not use any electricity. The old people go to bed early. It is possible that with a view to economy, they would use very little light at any time. All the time they are burdened with this 11/-, even if they only use a bob's worth of light in the two months. Something should be done about the matter. I raised this matter before and I shall continue to raise it.

Where a person is using a lot of electricity, it does not matter, but where it is known that a person is just living on his own, and especially where it is shown that he is not using any light worth talking about, something should be done. Would it not be possible for the ESB to instal a pay-as-you-use meter? Whenever a person wants gas, all he has to do is put in a bob and he is finished with it. There are no meter charges. I do not know why the ESB cannot do that. I do not know why they expect 11/-, even if only a bob's worth of light is used. I can understand it where electricity is being used but not where it is not being used or where it is little used.

Mr. Corry

I should like to deal first with the position regarding Cork Airport and I should like to have some explanation from the Minister in regard to the reason for the big disparity in charges as between Dublin and London and Cork and London. As a matter of fact, I think the Cork-London charge is practically double. We in Cork are a go-ahead people and we believe in capturing all the markets we can. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a very wise thing if he would arrange a proper freight service by air from Cork. My friend, Deputy Meaney, can tell you that we are a sporting people and we keep a lot of greyhounds.

Mr. Coughlan

Slow ones?

Mr. Corry

We are not interested in the type of dog in which Deputy Dr. Browne or the Minister for Justice are interested. We are interested in greyhounds. A friend of mine who had to send a greyhound to London recently found that the greyhound had first to go to Dublin. He had first to come by air to Dublin and then go to London. The sooner that condition of affairs is rectified the better. Greyhounds are not always valuable animals. In some cases people are likely to get rid of them sometimes. When you find that it costs more to send an old dog to London than it costs to send a human being, I suggest there is something wrong and I ask the Minister to rectify it.

Last year, some of our people succeeded in getting a fairly considerable market for mutton and lamb on the continent, particularly in Switzerland. They encountered enormous difficulty, even if there is an airport in Cork, in getting any air transport to take the mutton and lamb to Switzerland, or even to France. Here is an opportunity for air transport which, to my mind, should be developed and very greatly developed.

You have the same position practically in regard to early potatoes and fruit and vegetables. A neighbour of mine, a small farmer with 22 acres of land, goes in fairly considerably for this kind of product. He got £107 a ton for his potatoes last May in London but he lost £13 a ton because there was no freight transport by which they could be conveyed from Cork Airport to London. That market took close upon 20,000 tons of early potatoes. If there were proper freight facilities from Cork Airport, we would catch the market. It is the same thing in regard to fruit and vegetables. I would urge the Minister to speed up the freight services of Cork Airport. If he does that, I think that, when we come here next year, we will not have this great loss.

I regret and deplore the Minister's attitude in regard to figures he was asked for in this House. He told us point-blank that he would not even ask CIE to give them. I cannot understand why another State body can supply us with figures. I have here CIE figures in relation to the Mallow-Waterford line. Here we have, for example, in relation to Castletownroche, 7,601 tons of beet with £1,710 4s. 6d. paid for it in Mallow. You have the same thing right down along. You have listed every station with the tonnage of beet loaded and the amount paid for it. We have what amounts to deliberate sabotage—I cannot call it anything else. I have here one item which concerns 11,000 tons of beet signed for at Fermoy and Clondulane to go by rail. CIE sent out their lorries and conveyed that beet by road, thus creating a loss of £5,000. There is £5,000 out of the £21,000 loss. Those people wanted to convey their beet by rail and signed a contract to have it conveyed by rail, but CIE conveyed it by road. That is unjust.

As the elected representatives of the people, we are entitled to get the figures. It is no use for the Minister or CIE to tell us we are invited up for consultation. We are prepared to consult, but we want to know what case we have to meet. We want to know the figures. The Irish Sugar Company can give us the total figure for their share of the transport on that line—39,228 tons of beet at £22,229 10s. 3d. That line stops in Mallow, so the figures in this case cannot be said to be financing any other line. The revenue from the Kanturk-Newmarket line as given by CIE amounted to £1,300. The Kanturk merchants alone brought in net receipts for £7,046. What is wrong with those figures?

We discussed most of these figures before and I do not want to keep at this matter here. However, I honestly think the Minister's attitude should be different. The Minister said he was ashamed of me. I can honestly tell him that he brings the blush of shame to my cheeks more often than I bring it to his.

Mr. J. Brennan

It is something to shame the Deputy.

Mr. Corry

I would remind the Minister of a statement made by the former Taoiseach, now the President, which should remain in the mind of every Deputy: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." When the Minister is put in the position by any board of standing up here and saying there was an excellent bus service from Cork to Cobh, a place where no CIE bus service has existed for 25 years, he should not be fooled a second time. My only regret is that he is so gullible.

Mr. T. Lynch

I find myself in the unusual position of reiterating what Deputy Corry has said, only I am tempted to do so in stronger language. However, I shall refrain from using the language I should use to the Minister. The Minister's conduct in regard to this House, in regard to Deputies and in regard to me in particular has not been the conduct appropriate to a Minister of State. I have been asking the Minister for a simple figure. I have listened to a Government Deputy saying he has been refused the figure. The Minister said he had no function and referred Deputy Corry to CIE, but CIE refused to give him the figure.

Deputies have a right to ask the Minister for the figure. If the Minister could say that he was embarrassed by the question because he had not got the figure, there would be something in that, but here we have the famous statement in page 5, paragraph 3, of the 12th annual report of CIE for the year ended 31st March, 1962. I said in the House previously and I reiterate now that this is a dishonest figure. The statement says road services were substituted for rail services on the West Cork section as from the 1st of April, 1961, and goes on: "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 and Tramore railway lines last year was approximately £90,000." The Minister has the figures but he has boxed them all up together.

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, Sir, I should like to ask for a direction. I realise that the debate on the Transport Bill and the debate on the Estimate are separate, but I should like to know, for the sake of my reply, whether I may take it for granted that everything said on the Transport Bill can at least in theory, and therefore in practice, be restated in so many words on this Estimate. If that is to be the case, we will be sitting here in the week of Christmas, two days before Christmas and two days afterwards. There must be some reason in it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

In reply to the Minister, if the Dáil were debating only the Estimate, then the Chair could attempt to limit the debate but we are taking with the Estimate two Private Members' motions. One of the motions reads: "... in order to mark the disapproval of the House for the Minister's transport policy and, in particular, his failure to safeguard the railways."

Mr. Childers

Therefore, everything can be included?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The decision to take that motion opens the debate very wide.

Mr. Childers

As you say, Sir, that is very wide.

Mr. T. Lynch

Democracy still lives. Thank you, Sir. This would not arise at all if the Minister would do me the courtesy of answering my question. I asked the Minister, as I was entitled to ask him, whether the bus service to Tramore is showing a profit. I asked him that question on three separate occasions at Question Time, but on each occasion I was shelved off. I asked him that question when the Transport Bill was before the House and he said he had given a reply last July. I do not want any replies for last July. I want the figure to the nearest available date. I want the Waterford and Tramore figures separated from the West Clare and Cork figures. I want the Minister to come in here and say we are losing money on the Waterford-Tramore bus service.

Mr. Childers

I have replied to the Deputy.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister never told me whether or not the service was making a profit. I am so anxious for the Minister to answer me that I will give way to him. I ask the Minister if he will tell me whether the Waterford-Tramore bus service is paying. The Minister has not yet answered that question.

We were told before the wreckers went into operation that the Waterford-Tramore railway was losing £3,000. We were then told it was losing £11,000. We were lulled into a false security by the fact that the Taoiseach in 1958—he was then Minister for Industry and Commerce— guaranteed to the House when the 1958 Bill was under discussion here that there was no use in Deputies coming in and putting in small provisos, and so on; no railway would be closed down without full consultation with the people concerned. That is what he said. I heard him myself and it is on the record.

For the benefit of those whose railways are now due for execution, I want to explain what that consultation was in case they may be going for consultation with the connoisseurs at Kingbridge, believing that the consultation will be free, and they will be able to discuss the railway system. In the consultation we had at Kingsbridge, we were not allowed to mention the word "railway". The railway was still in operation, but we were not allowed to mention it.

I happened to mention the Chairman of CIE the last time I addressed this House and, before I got any further, the Minister jumped up and said he would not allow me to attack the Chairman of CIE. I rather wondered why the Minister should have thought I was going to attack the Chairman of CIE. All I was going to do was read a statement he made. On that occasion, I gave way to the Minister and I said I would not mention his name any more. But I will mention it now. He is a public servant and we are paying him £5,500 a year. I do not see why we should not mention his name. We come here as Deputies and we are vulnerable to the slings and arrows of anyone who wants to attack us. We stand up to it. If we want to criticise a public servant, I do not see why we should not criticise him.

Mr. Childers

Sir, I want your direction on this matter. I received from the Ceann Comhairle a very explicit direction that public servants should not be attacked in their persons. I invite people to attack me. I am responsible, collectively with the Government, for the Board of CIE. I ask you, Sir, to repeat and fortify the direction already given by the Ceann Comhairle that members of public boards may not be attacked here and, if there is to be any attack, then it is the Minister who should be attacked for retaining them.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will point out to the House, as the Chair has already pointed out on more than one occasion, that public servants should not be attacked when it is the Minister who is responsible for the policy of the Board.

Mr. T. Lynch

With respect, I was not going to attack Dr. Andrews but I was going to mention his name. I will bow to your ruling, Sir, and if I am attacking Dr. Andrews, I will certainly stop. I want to explain to the House what happened. I want to explain to Deputies who are living on railways that are up for the block——

Mr. Corish

On a point of order, or a point of explanation. I think we all appreciate what is meant by "an attack on public servants" when one is debating or discussing an Estimate. I do not think it would be right to attack, or appear to attack, civil servants. But the Minister has admitted that, whilst he is responsible for the appointment of the Chairman of the board of Directors, they in fact are responsible for policy——

Mr. Mullen

And we do not count.

Mr. Corish

—— and, therefore, I think it is in order to criticise the policy of the Chairman and the board of directors for the policy which they pursue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister is responsible for the policy of CIE.

Mr. Childers

At any time by refusing capital to CIE for any project, I could probably stop the operation of the company. I have made it perfectly clear to the House on at least four occasions that I am responsible for seeing that the 1958 Act remains on the Statute Book, for observing its effect on the economy, for observing its effect on the transport services, and I take personal responsibility for the fact that the 1958 Act remains on the Statute Book, with all it implies, and, therefore, criticism can be directed to me in regard to that.

Mr. Corish

I accept what the Minister has said, but surely the Minister is not——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this a point of order, because Deputy Lynch is in possession?

Mr. T. Lynch

I will give way to the Leader of the Labour Party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has clearly stated what the position is.

Mr. Corish

I should like to get clear whether or not the Minister for Transport and Power is responsible for the policy pursued by CIE. He is responsible for ensuring that the 1958 Act is implemented but, within that, there is the policy of CIE.

Mr. T. Lynch

Is the Minister going to answer that question?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister has already answered it.

Mr. Childers

There is nothing to prevent my going to the Government and saying that I recommend emergency legislation being passed suspending the 1958 Act. There is nothing to prevent my making a recommendation to the Government that the very excellent and magnificent Chairman of CIE be removed from office on whatever grounds—God knows what grounds there could be—are in the Act. There is nothing to prevent my recommending the removal of the board, or nothing to prevent my stopping the board operating its present policy. Is that sufficient to stop people attacking Dr. Andrews?

Mr. Corish

Nobody questions the ability of Dr. Andrews, or wants to attack him in any personal way, but surely it is not unreasonable for his policy to be criticised?

Mr. Childers

I have gone as far as I can in this. I leave it to your direction, Sir.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has made the position clear.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister has said he is responsible for the policy of CIE and the Minister now comes along and says, in his typically destructive way, that there is nothing to stop him preventing the moneys necessary to keep CIE going from being sent up to CIE. We do not want him to do that at all. We want to keep CIE going.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy knows I did not mean that literally.

Mr. T. Lynch

I heard what the Minister said. There are 14,000 people working on the railway. The Minister said I was a railway fanatic. I want to repeat here that there was a small railway between Waterford and Tramore ; it was supposed to be losing £3,000. In a speech made here by the Minister last week on the Transport Bill, he said he did not want trains going up and down the country with nobody in them. But look at the railway the Minister picked on. The Minister says he has the responsibility. He picked on this small railway. There are only two stations on it—Waterford and Tramore. I have the figures here; 550,000 people travelled on that railway in the last year of its operation. It was alleged to be losing £3,000.

Deputies might think that I am overdoing it coming in here and speaking on this matter but I will never get over the injustice of this. I see from the Minister's brief that he thinks nothing of spending half a million pounds on Shannon Airport which was used by only a comparatively few of our own people in the year. We can lose anything we like on Irish Shipping. I have nothing to say about that. We have to keep all these prestige companies attached to the Minister's Department for which he says he has responsibility but for which he will not stand up here and take responsibility when he is asked a Parliamentary Question about them. If he says that he had to close down the Tramore Railway because it was losing a miserable £3,000, he should be ashamed of himself. Since this session opened, I have asked the Minister consistently if the bus service he substituted for the Waterford-Tramore railway service has shown a profit. He has the figures and I know that if he could turn up and proudly say the service had shown a profit, he would throw it at us but it has shown a loss.

The Minister says he has responsibility but he has put up the fares by 1/-a head. Deputy Kyne said, and practically all Deputies know, that this small railway line was a great amenity for the mothers of young families who could bring their children to Tramore by train in safety. The Minister said that the bus service was bringing the people nearer to the beach. That is in the Official Reports. I said at the time that he did not know what he was talking about, and he did not know what he was talking about because the bus service does not bring the people nearer the beach.

The Minister last year made wisecracks about the Tramore Workers' Association who chartered a bus for themselves and who, thank God, skimmed some of the cream off his bus service. That bus service travels to and from Tramore and members of the association are able to travel four journeys a day for 10/- a day. The Minister says he has a better and more adequate service but he is charging 18/-. I hope Deputies in Cork will remember this and that if they take up the lines between Youghal and Cork, the beet growers, who have a good association, will form themselves into a group and hire their own lorries to carry the beet.

The Minister might say that I have gone to war with CIE. I have not done so but I have gone to war with the man who said here tonight that he is responsible for the policy of CIE. I have here the Waterford edition of the Evening Herald published on last Monday night which contains an extract from a speech made by the Mayor of Waterford, Councillor John Griffin, at a meeting in Youghal on Saturday last, presided over by Deputy Corry. This is interesting and I would like the Minister to hear it. The Mayor said:

It is clear now that an autocratic decision of a transport official or officials can spell the social or economic degradation of a selected region.

The Mayor went on to refer to Dr. Wade of Cambridge, who was invited here by the Minister for Local Government and whom many Deputies may have heard lecturing on town planning. Recently he went to various centres and I attended a lecture given by him illustrated with plans and slides. He showed the great problems of the roads and traffic and the actual planning of housing schemes and factories and so on. This is the important extract from the report:

Dr. Wade, the eminent planner of Cambridge, has publicly stated, as editorially commented upon in the Irish Independent, that Dr. Beeching who is busily closing the railways of Britain—

he is the counterpart of the Minister here——

Mr. Coughlan

He has no counterpart.

Mr. T. Lynch

I would say that Dr. Beeching would answer Parliamentary Questions about British Railways, if he were asked them. He would not do what the Minister is doing to this House. But Dr. Wade went on to say that this policy is injuring Britain very seriously and said that a halt should be called to the closing of railways and the taking up of railway lines.

Many Deputies have said, as I myself have said, that the Minister should channel more of the heavy traffic on to the railways, even by means of legislation and he would be serving the country well. He should consult the Minister for Local Government to see what could be done in this regard. I came up today from Waterford and joined the usual funeral procession behind a CIE lorry which was belching fumes and poisoning everybody on the road. It was pulling an enormous trailer and it was an enormous lorry. We are told that many of our bridges can carry only 20 tons but CIE, for which the Minister is responsible, is putting 40 tons on some of these lorries. That traffic should be channelled back on to the railways and so make the roads safer.

We can get these nice balance sheets from the gentleman I am not allowed attack but I will mention his name, Dr. Andrews, and we can come into this House and protest when the Minister says that a rail line is to be torn up. Somebody tonight said you would then have to call on the ratepayers. It does not matter whether you call on the ratepayers or the taxpayers because they are all the same. The taxpayers have already been stabbed. For the past four years, there has been a new subvention from the Department of Local Government which was forced out of that Department by the Minister we are allowed to attack. I remember the Minister for Local Government being brought in to this House by Deputy Kyne and myself and we warned that if the Minister for Transport and Power tore up the Tramore-Waterford line, a substantial amount of money would have to be spent on the road from Waterford to Tramore. Both the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Transport and Power said there never would be any such thing but a sum of £22,000 has already gone on taking one bend from one bridge.

That is not a big amount of money in terms of the Road Fund. It is not a big amount of money compared with what Shannon Airport is losing but he could not lose £3,000 on the Tramore railway. In the past four years, the action of the Minister in tearing up railway lines has compelled the Minister for Local Government, according to the figures he has given me—we can get figures from some Ministers—to spend £1,300,000 which has been taken out of the Road Fund for what his officials call special road-railway grants. That money would be better spent doing the secondary roads and the boreens up to the farmers' houses.

Mr. Coughlan

Or on old age pensions.

Mr. T. Lynch

Yes, to be sure. I have been told by reliable authorities, by people who have spent their lives at this business, that it is recognised now by the great experts at Kingsbridge that they made a blunder when they took up the Tramore railway but the Minister is still unconverted. He will come in here and try to justify the brutal tearing up of that line and I will keep on saying what I am saying, as long as the Minister holds the position he is in, that the disruption of this line was an insult to the public service.

It was done in an insolent and vicious way, in an arrogant way. Local representatives were not allowed to say a word about it, even though we had the Taoiseach's word that there would be prior consultation. The Taoiseach's word was broken by this Minister because there was no prior consultation. Waterford County Council and Waterford Corporation bravely said that they would pass an estimate to cover the alleged loss, in order to allow it to stand for one year. But the decision to close it had been made by the Minister; he had his mind made up and would not reprieve the line. In case any pressure might be brought to bear on him from his own side of the House or from this side, the railway was closed at 2.30 p.m. on a Saturday in December and, in the teeming rain on Monday morning, the ganger was sent out with his full gang and they were paid a bonus and overtime to tear down the railway bridge.

Mr. Childers

That is the third time you have told me this.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was the most disgraceful thing the Minister could do.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has repeated that statement several times.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy will keep on repeating it. I have been sent here by the people of Waterford to do so. The Minister went to Waterford to a chamber of commerce dinner and when he came back, he said he had not heard any complaints there about the tearing up of the railway. He must have a very good public relations officer in Waterford because none of the people he met there travelled on the railway or know the people who travelled on it. The railway was able to do for some what the bus service is not able to do. The ordinary working man's wife was able to pack four or five children into what was called a Tramore pram—it was not the best pram in the house—wheel the pram to the station, throw it into the van and bring the children into the carriage with her. She was able to do this at a fraction of what she has to pay now. She will be charged 3/6 to bring the pram out in the bus. Needless to say, the bus is like any other bus but they have built on a kind of a boot which will take about four of these prams.

The Minister has said that more people use the bus service. I asked him how many more people and he gave me a kind of a figure of 40,000. One might think that strange but he included in that figure the people who travel by the workmen's bus. He has nothing to do with them at all.

Mr. Coughlan

Why do you not consult Deputy Corry for reliable figures?

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister will not give the figures to anybody. Deputy Corry was able to consult the merchants using the railway line to Cork but the merchants did not use the line to Tramore. It was a purely passenger railway. The kind of passengers for whom the Tramore railway was a great public amenity are no longer able to travel. I know what the people on the Rialto in Waterford are saying but, when the Minister went to Waterford, he went to the Doge's palace and would not know what was happening on the Rialto.

Mr. Coughlan

In Ballybricken.

Mr. T. Lynch

Exactly, where the most representative people in Waterford are. I have great respect for the district where I was reared. There are many people there who did not see. Tramore this year, not because of the weather because there were a few good days, but because of what the Minister's adequate bus service would have charged them.

I want to warn Deputies from Cork and Deputies from Wexford because there are people going around hammering the iron bridges to see how much they will make for scrap. The first I heard that there might be a danger of the Waterford-Mallow line closing was on the Rialto. I was told there was a man breaking up engines on the railway and he had gone to the big railway bridge in Waterford to do some hammering. He was heard to say that it would take boats to take it down. If they were going to take that down, it would be a great opportunity to bring the boats down to where the three noble rivers meet and take down the great Barrow bridge also. There would be many ships under flags of convenience sailing back to southern European ports loaded up with this material for Czechoslovakia where they sold the rails before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Transport and Power is not responsible for the selling of scrap.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister himself said he is. I thought it was Dr. Andrews who was responsible but the Minister said here tonight that he took full responsibility. At the time the Farranfore railway in Kerry was torn up, these rails were dragged into Cork. Many Irish firms wanted to buy them but they did not get them.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy said that before.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Deputy will keep on saying it because the Minister's sins should be told to him.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Repetition is not in order.

Mr. Corish

He did not say that before in the same speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Corish should cease interrupting. Deputy Lynch is in possession.

Mr. Corish

I am not interrupting.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Leader of the Labour Party should behave in the House.

Mr. Corish

I resent that. I am raising points of order. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has said that Deputy Lynch was repeating himself. I pointed out that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is the duty of the Chair, to admonish Deputies when the Chair feels they are out of order.

Mr. Corish

When I feel an injustice has been done, it is my duty to stand up and say so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Not if the Deputy is out of order.

Mr. Corish

Deputy Lynch has not said that in this speech.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Lynch can speak for himself.

Mr. T. Lynch

And will.

Mr. Corish

I am talking for the Deputies of the House, not Deputy Lynch in particular.

Mr. T. Lynch

I did not mention the Farranfore railway before. On this Vote we are entitled to bring the Minister to task for his sins.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy was referring to the export of rails, something for which the Minister has no responsibility. It is the responsibility of another Department.

Mr. T. Lynch

Would Dr. Andrews be in charge of that Department?

Mr. Corish

If they were not taken up, they could not be exported.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am referring to Ministers.

Mr. T. Lynch

Somebody must be responsible. CIE are responsible or else he must be pinching the rails from CIE. We are entitled to talk about this because with the big programme of railway wrecking that is before us, we would not want to have this happen again. All these rails were sold to some Czechoslovakian; they were not sold by public tender and on the Rialto I was told there were many Irish firms that would like to have tendered for them. When the Tramore railway was destroyed, I brought this matter before the Minister who has admitted he was responsible. The Tramore rails were sold by tender and an Irish firm got them. It is very important that if the wrecking goes on and if an Irish firm wants these rails and can use them in some manufacturing process, whether for rolling mild steel or for uprights for cow houses, the Irish firm should get a chance of tendering for them. When the famous deal came off with the Czechoslovakians, it would appear our rails were being smuggled out of the country the way the job was being done.

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy is not accusing the Minister of smuggling?

Mr. T. Lynch

It was a very doubtful proposition. Some kind of Czechoslovakian ship came into Cork, flying a Puerto Rican flag or, as they say, a flag of convenience. These goods were put on this boat and irate Deputies from Kerry, Deputy Palmer and Deputy Spring, drew attention to it in the House. They put down Questions to the Minister as to where this boat was going with the rails and, true to form, he would not tell them. If the Minister thinks we have anything in for him, he is right. I am looking at some of his colleagues there with whom I have had many a hard clash, but to give them their due, when I put down Questions asking for figures I got them. This Minister comes in here and brazenly tells the House he is the man responsible. If he is responsible, why does he not give us the figures?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has asked that question at least five times.

Mr. T. Lynch

And the Deputy will continue to ask it because he is entitled to an answer. The Minister is the only person who will stop me by answering the question. I am asking the Minister to tell us before the House rises tonight or when he is replying to this debate whether the Tramore-Waterford service is a paying proposition.

Mr. Coughlan

Deputy Corry will give the Deputy the figures.

Mr. T. Lynch

Deputy Corry seems to be a better accountant of the CIE figures than the Minister for Transport and Power and seems to know a great deal more about their ramifications. I am thinking the wrong man was appointed Minister for Transport and Power. I heard a Dublin Deputy stating here tonight that he was sorry that nobody but the Dublin Deputies had put down a Question about bus fares, that nobody down the country bothered about it. I did not see the Dublin Deputies coming into the House and supporting my colleagues and me when we were making a fight for our small railway. I was interested in the way this Deputy was defending the Minister and conveying to the Minister that he need not bother about us fellows, that he would vote with the Minister on this. He said we should always propose something specific and concluded by saying that something should be done. I do not intend to say something should be done.

I shall have a lot more to say tomorrow about these railways but I shall say this much to the Minister. He said tonight that he is the man responsible but at Question Time he says he has no responsibility. I invite him to introduce some measure into the Oireachtas to give the Oireachtas the supreme responsibility of the genuine ultimate control of the national transport system.

The Mayor of Waterford said last Saturday that the Government should set up a small commission served by experts but not dominated by them to report on the changes necessary in our transport system in the light of rural, social and economic conditions. Pending the commission's report, CIE should be required by an emergency Act of the Oireachtas to see that no further dismantling of the existing transport installations takes place.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.