Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 1966

Vol. 225 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41—Transport and Power (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy P. O'Donnell.)

Mr. T. O'Donnell

Before Private Members' Business was taken, I was referring to the various parts of the Minister's speech in which he enumerated and underlined the activities which could be followed. I was about to deal with the use of schools for student accommodation in some areas. I have no doubt whatsoever that this type of student holiday is very backward. Certain progress has been made to date but much more remains to be done.

The fourth point in the Minister's speech is, perhaps, one of the most important aspects of a good tourist industry, that is, the extension of the season. I am pleased to learn that a scheme was initiated this year by Aer Lingus, Aerlínte and CIE, with the co-operation of Bord Fáilte, for a low cost package holiday scheme under which tourists get unlimited travel on our national transport system over a certain period. I understand that the initial experiment has been very successful and I hope this type of scheme will be developed with much greater intensity in the coming season.

The question of saturation at peak point and then an off-season is a very difficult problem. There are a number of lines of tourist development which offer possibilities for extending the tourist season, particularly angling and hunting holidays, and perhaps shooting holidays. Hunting holidays are proving very popular. There are certain problems involved in the development of this holiday—the availability of suitable horses and so forth—but a number of people have gone into this business and farmers, in particular, have developed a nice sideline in this for the winter by hiring out horses for the hunting season. There are other possibilities too.

The Minister dealt with the question of indoor entertainment and beach facilities for young people at many seaside resorts. I will not go into that; these are obvious things.

He tells us of the further development of sea angling facilities, a local committee, plus provision of boats. I am disappointed that he did not refer to inland angling. I appreciate the importance of sea angling which, I realise, offers very great scope. The survey carried out in Limerick two years ago included not merely a survey of the facilities on the rivers and lakes in the Limerick area but also sea angling facilities on the west Clare coast. It would be much better if the overall thing were taken, and not merely single out one aspect of it, that is, sea angling. There is colossal interest in Britain in angling. One thing that is very striking is the number of people in Britain who are interested in coarse fishing. We have many lakes and rivers and centres which could, if developed, provide the requisite accommodation. I hope the Minister's statement does not mean that further angling development will be confined solely to sea angling. I hope that the work of the Inland Fisheries Trust will continue. I referred in previous debates to the need for co-ordination between the Trust and the Fisheries Section of Bord Fáilte. This co-ordination and close co-operation have not existed in the past. I hope that there will be some co-ordinated effort in the matter of development, stocking and marketing.

It is reckoned that there are well over one million registered anglers in Britain. A big advantage in developing our tourist trade on this line is that a high percentage of these English fishermen are interested merely in coarse angling. As far as I am aware, 70 per cent of British anglers are interested in coarse fishing, about 20 per cent in game fishing and ten per cent in sea fishing. If my memory serves me aright, those are the figures. There is a market across the water. I believe that we have the facilities here. The centres catering for this type of tourist have proved conclusively that this is a particular line of development we can pursue. I am not satisfied with the progress made. Much greater progress could be made.

I am glad to note that, despite the difficulty in the earlier half of this year brought about by the shipping strike, the overall loss will not be as great as many people expected. I think the Minister mentioned that there will be a reduction of about five per cent in the number of visitors this year. Possibly the extra effort put into attracting tourists here in September and October has paid dividends. Perhaps with the concentration of effort on the latter half of the tourist season, certain guide lines may now emerge which will help to develop in the next season what we call late holidays.

On the question of airports and our national airline, the position is that Aer Lingus did not seem to fare too well financially, at any rate, whereas Aerlínte had a very successful year. The international organisation catering for the financial returns of the various airlines in a recent report states that the average operating surplus of the various international airlines for 1965 was 9.5 per cent. On that basis Aerlínte certainly acquitted itself very well indeed. On the question of Aer Lingus, there is something which the Minister has not referred to in his speech. It may be that at the time it was being compiled this had not been finalised, but I want to express my pleasure at learning that Aer Lingus has successfully concluded with the various unions catering for the workers a very satisfactory arrangement. I compliment Aer Lingus on this new development in the field of industrial relations, one which could perhaps set a headline for various other State companies.

Future aviation development will create very serious problems for our national airline, with the emergence of the larger jets, subsonic and, ultimately, supersonic aircraft. The problem of a small country and a comparatively small airline in meeting the financial commitment involved in equipping itself with the latest type of aircraft is a very big one. However, I have confidence in the management of Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta and that these hurdles will be tackled as they come, and tackled successfully.

There remains under the heading of transport our national transport system, CIE. Up to now in my speech I have not been critical but I regret very much that the Minister has been weeping and moaning in his speech about the question of staff relations. He stated that the problems of CIE did not arise at management or executive level. He goes on then to make suggestions, bemoaning the fact that certain strikes took place and so on. The Minister may not realise it but I am convinced that all this moaning the Minister has been doing in recent times about staff relations in CIE and about the attitude of the ordinary transport worker has been responsible more than anything else for the bad morale which exists. The Minister should refrain in future from criticising—perhaps not directly but certainly by implication— the workers of CIE because there is no finer body of workers in this country. Our transport workers are as good as and compare very favourably with transport workers in any country in the world.

The Minister referred to the Fine Gael call during the Recess for a sworn inquiry into the affairs of CIE. During the past year, since the last Estimate was discussed, we had a motion here in Private Members' Time calling for an investigation into the affairs of CIE. There is more codology and uninformed talk about CIE than there is about any other single company or any other single matter in this country. Unfortunately, partly as a result of the way the Minister has approached the matter, people tend to take a very narrow view on this question of the annual subsidy to our national transport system. There are grounds for stating that this subsidy of £2 million can be justified. Apart from the economic argument, we must remember, for democratic reasons and the fact that many parts of this country are sparsely populated, that the national transport system is providing a service for the people and, in particular, a service which enables children in rural areas to avail of post-primary educational facilities in the towns and cities. It would be a very interesting exercise to ascertain what proportion of the total number of passengers carried by CIE, particularly on the buses in provincial areas, are schoolchildren travelling on what we call school fares. This proposal by Fine Gael for a sworn inquiry into the affairs of CIE would, if implemented, clear the air, would inform public opinion as to what are the exact problems and I think there would be less criticism levelled at CIE as a result.

In passing, I regret also the attitude of the Minister when he spoke in the debate on the motion just concluded regarding the CIE pensioners. Before I conclude, I want to make one final appeal for those men—and there is no great problem in giving them some increase. The Minister said they got an increase in 1964, and various other increases. They did; they got an increase from 12/- to £1 and, in another category, from £1 to £1 2s 6d. Surely this is very meagre and it should be possible to give these men a reasonable increase? I think I have covered most of the points in this Estimate in which I am interested.

Mr. James Tully

No matter whether or not we agree with the Minister's statement, we must admit it is a very comprehensive one, covering practically every aspect of the Department for which he is responsible. On that I compliment him. It is a pity, during Question Time in the House over the year, that we were not able to get some of the information given so freely in this document. Had it been available, perhaps the Minister and we might have got on a lot better—it might be an example of good public relations. The Minister has gone into great detail, giving facts and figures to prove the attitude he has on various matters, and has covered practically every aspect of his Department. Deputy T. O'Donnell went through the Minister's speech sentence by sentence and word by word: I do not propose to do that. What I propose to do is to touch on the matters about which I know a considerable amount and to ask some questions of the Minister. I can assure the House I will not be two and a half hours doing so.

I shall start off with the ESB and the present policy of the Minister's Department with regard to the connection of ESB services throughout the country. Again and again the Minister has referred to the fact that the percentage of houses connected in the country is very high. Though he did not say it today in reply to a question, he did, on several occasions, make the statement that practically all houses, except those in outlying areas—and I assumed he meant islands and mountains — were now getting ESB current. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not saying the Minister is trying deliberately to mislead the House but what I am saying is that the full facts of the ESB situation are not brought before the Minister. I know he is a great man for statistics and statistics can prove anything you want them to prove, providing you use them in the way you want to use them. Statistics or no statistics, the facts are that we could show the Minister dozens of houses beside towns and villages in the midlands, where there are no mountains or islands, which have not yet got the ESB service.

I referred before to the system which the ESB adopted when starting rural electrification. They took a central point and serviced a circle around that point, with the result that when four such circles had been drawn, there were pockets left without electrification. Some of those pockets have never been connected. It appears rather stupid than an area in close proximity to a town, within a few hundred yards of a developed area, should not be provided with current. Not alone do dwellinghouses require connection but modern farms need current. These pockets are not connected simply because they were left out at the initial stage.

There are quite a number of houses where old people lived when rural electrification was being started. They refused to take the current. Now those old people have passed on and their children or others having got possession of the houses, the ESB are still making a song and a dance about giving them the connection, even though the line from which they could be serviced may be on the same side of the road. That does not make sense. The matter is getting very much worse now. I am aware of an area in which two years ago the owners of 19 houses applied for connection and were promised it on payment of a small extra charge and on condition that they would have the forms completed and in the ESB office on 14th October. For some reason, while some of the forms were sent direct to the head office in Dundalk, others were sent to the local office in Navan, and the ESB subsequently said that because they were not all in Dundalk on 14th October, they would not give the connection.

On my advice, those people went to considerable expense in wiring their houses. Since then on numerous occasions, I have had to try to explain why even now two years later the ESB still find excuses not to connect them. The ESB recently thought up the corny story that it was because of the fact that money was so scarce that they could not do everything they wanted to do. Before that, they referred to the fact that they were going to develop the Tara area and could not do this area until the development of the whole area was taking place, and until they had canvassed the whole area. In reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister said it would cost too much to do it any other way and that this was the most economical way.

I have no objection to the ESB doing their work in the most economical way, but I have a grave objection to the ESB telling me or anyone else that they cannot connect houses they promised in writing two years ago they would connect, on the ground that someone else four or five miles away is not in a position to take the current. In two instances in Meath, the houses were wired after a promise by the ESB, but they are still left without current. I was glad to hear the Minister say at Question Time that all the houses which were wired would be connected before the end of the financial year. I hope I am not misquoting him, but I think that is what he said. If that is so, it is good news for all the people who went to such expense and trouble to have their houses wired in time.

A new element has now entered into it, that is, the advances of money which the ESB are asking for before they will give a connection. The story was trotted out that it was not possible to give these connections on the ground that the money was not available to do so. I want to quote a letter I have. It is dated 18th October and reads:

Re: Supply to house at Colliers-land, Dunboyne. Re: above the cost of the extension to your new house is £36. In order to gain almost immediate connection you are required to pay this amount to the ESB. A refund of the full amount would be considered when the capital assets allow it.

That is only one of a number of letters I have, with figures ranging from around £30 to several hundreds of pounds. I heard Deputy Fitzpatrick alleging that there was a suggestion that £1,000 should be paid before the connection would be made.

If the ESB want to borrow money, I suggest they borrow it in the normal way. If they want people to pay for connection, they should give a firm promise that on a certain date the money will be refunded. If anyone could tell me any more vague phrase than the one used in this letter that "a refund of the full amount would be considered when the capital assets allow it", I should like to hear it. Apparently they want to be so cagey that no one can say they promised to refund the money because according to this phraseology they would consider it "when the capital assets allow it".

That brings me to another point. In answer to a question in the House, it was revealed that of the £6 million loan obtained by the ESB last year—and it was oversubscribed—the Government borrowed £5 million. Subsequently half of that was paid back to the ESB, but, according to the reply given in the House, the Government appear to have £2½ million which belongs to the ESB. While the ESB were saying they had not got the money to do the work they are supposed to do, they could still lend the Government £2½ million. That seems to me to be the most extraordinary system of accountancy I ever heard of in my life, and I should like to know what is the justification for it.

More recently still we had the situation in which the ESB decided to increase their charges. We had a song and dance last year when we were discussing a Bill to prevent prices from rising. There was a suggestion that if there were a proposal to increase prices, a prices inquiry board could be set up to investigate the proposal. In this case the ESB apparently asked the Minister for permission to increase their charges by seven per cent. The Minister agreed and said: "This is only temporary. I will set up a board to investigate it, and if it should find that you were not entitled to the increased charge, it will be cancelled"— or is one to assume that a refund will be made?

Could the Minister not say if there is any justification whatever for the seven per cent increase the Board are seeking? Does he appreciate that if he allows this and if a recommendation comes from the inquiring body for an increase of seven per cent, it will substantially increase not alone living costs but production costs in practically every field? Surely, before any application to increase charges was approved by the Minister, he should have insisted on an investigation being carried out?

I should like to ask the Minister what were the facts put before him by the ESB in order to justify an increase in charges. We know it is not this Minister who is responsible for giving sanction but surely he could find out from his colleague why the increase was allowed? He is the person who deals with the ESB and therefore he is the person from whom we must ask these questions. The Labour Party have a motion which will be discussed in due course covering these points. I am quite sure that the decision to allow the charges to domestic consumers to be increased by seven per cent was not a right one and I am equally sure that will be proved when the report of the inquiring body is brought in here, if that body do their duty properly.

This brings us back to the powers of the Minister and to his function. Apparently it has now become the popular thing for the Government, when trouble arises, to blame some sort of labour disputes. The fact that there was a labour dispute this year has been blamed for certain things but the Minister must remember that the labour dispute was caused by the failure of the ESB to do their duty. No matter how they try to wriggle out of it, I do not think the Board can get out of that one. There was the scandalous situation here when the current was cut off on the Monday morning because, it was said, there was a danger of power running down.

The extraordinary thing was that in certain areas in the city the power was cut off ten minutes before certain workers refused to pass the pickets. It is obvious that there was a serious mishandling of the situation and if ever there was necessity for a sworn inquiry, it is into what happened that morning. I am satisfied from discussions I have had with people who know all about these matters that the Board had no justification, good, bad or indifferent, for taking the action they took. They may have had one—to be able to put the screw on the workers, to be able to blame them for the thousands who were thrown out of work throughout the country and the millions of pounds lost and the danger to life created in hospitals and other institutions. It was a scandalous situation which should not be passed over lightly. If this matter is fully investigated by an impartial tribunal, it will be settled once and for all that the Board were at fault, that the Board blackmailed the people responsible by taking the action they took. I do not think any State or semi-State body should be able to get away with it.

I referred earlier to service charges, to the circumstances in which the ESB will provide current only on condition that the potential consumer will pay abnormal service charges. I do not know if the present system is to continue, under which consumers must pay meter rents in respect of meters owned by the ESB on top of charges for the current used by people living in awkward places. I can instance the case of a man living 100 yards outside Gormanston Camp in County Meath. Because his house was near the military airport, the only way he could get a connection, he was told, was by underground cable. The Board agreed to give it to him on condition that he paid a special service charge of £12 per two months in addition to meter rent and current charges. Naturally that man, a builder's labourer, was not in a position to pay that charge.

There was a lot of correspondence between the Minister and me. The military authorities stated that there was a danger in the extension of supply to that man by overhead cable because there were overhead wires around the camp and the wires supplying that man would be erected at the same level. Eventually it was agreed that overhead wires could be used and the ESB said he could have current at the reduced service charge of £4 per two months. I think the thing is plain stupidity. There was not a reason in the world why that man should not be supplied with electricity in the normal way, except that the military authorities and the ESB decided there should be a very high service charge and those petty people do not want to climb down from that stupid decision. I ask the Minister, a reasonable man, to try to teach the Board some sense, to persuade them how darn stupid they are to require £4 per two month period for the erection of one pole so that a man, his wife and young children, can have electric light in the normal way.

We have had quite a lot of discussion, and shall have before the debate ends, on CIE. It is a subject on which one could talk for three solid hours and still not exhaust it. I intend to make only a few short remarks on it. The Minister referred to the number of cars it takes to bring people into the city and the congestion that would be avoided if those people used the bus services. Is it not time that those responsible for the expensive advertisements being used by Telefís Éireann plugging that line of thought grew up? If I am to go from my constituency to Dublin and I have two or three places to call at, perhaps outside Dublin, is it suggested I should leave my car in Drumcondra, wait half an hour for a bus and see five or six buses passing which are not going in my direction? Is it suggested that everybody who uses a car would find it convenient to use the bus services? The Minister, I am sure, is one person who would not agree he should leave his State car behind at one side of the city and use buses from one place to another.

The second point in relation to CIE to which I should like to refer is the recent change in the destination scrolls on the front of buses. They have been changed from English to Irish. I can speak Irish; I have as good a knowledge of it as most people in the House, but I find it impossible to understand or decipher the destination names on some buses, and I suggest to the Minister that if he were standing waiting for a bus to come along, many of them would pass him by and he would not be able to recognise where they were going. He would miss a good many buses.

Mr. S. Dunne

He would miss them all.

Mr. James Tully

I do not know to whom CIE were playing up. The whole arrangement is ridiculous, and the fact that the scrolls were printed in England makes the whole thing ludicrous. As well, the cost must have been substantial. Even so, if there were any way in which the scrolls could be identified, one could see the point of it. It makes the whole thing look foolish when you put on the front of a bus the name of a destination in Irish and nobody knows the exact destination to which the bus is going. It is quite possible that the people using buses every day may, because they know the number of the bus, look at the destination scroll and recognise where it is going. If the idea of putting the destination scroll in Irish on buses is to continue, something will have to be done about this. The English destination will have to be put alongside it so that people will know exactly where the bus is going.

Recently I came across a constituent of mine who was waiting for a bus outside Dublin Airport. The bus passed by because he did not know Irish and did not know the destination of the bus. He said when he left the primary school he had to go to England for work. Recently he got a job at home close to the main road. His bus passed by because the destination scroll was in Irish and he did not know where it was going. Luckily for him, I picked him up and gave him a lift home. If it were not for that, that man would have to stand much longer in the rain, just because some crackpot decided that the scrolls on the buses should be in Irish.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

That is what is killing the language.

Mr. James Tully

The Minister, in quite substantial detail, earlier to-night, commented on the CIE pension scheme. I do not propose to travel that line, except to say it is just too bad in this year of Our Lord, 1966, that we find poor old people who have been employed all their lives by CIE, or by the GNR, which transferred subsequently to CIE, who are expected to try to live on the miserable pittance given to them.

It is all right to say that CIE are not paying their way and more money cannot be given. I would like to say this and I believe eventually that it will be the solution: the sooner CIE workers, who are at present working with this body, realise that the workers of today are the pensioners of tomorrow and that the pensioners of today were working a very short time ago and that they must ensure, while they are working, that decent arrangements are made for their pensions, the sooner we will have an end to this parsimonious treatment which is doled out to people who have worked in State or semi-State bodies. People who have worked in CIE for a great number of years are entitled to a pension suitable in amount to compensate them for the number of years they worked in CIE. They often find that people with less service get the same pensions as they get.

With regard to fares, we have had the question raised as to whether or not CIE were charging the correct amount in fares. It is true to say that in some of the country districts fares seem to be going up higher and higher. I live in Laytown, County Meath, six miles from Drogheda. The single fare on the bus from Laytown to Drogheda is 2/10d. That is fairly expensive travelling for somebody who wants to go in to do the week's shopping. That person has to pay that fare into Drogheda and also on the return journey. I suggest it would not do any harm at all when CIE are fixing charges, if they took into consideration the fact that six miles there are no longer than six miles across Dublin. I know the number of passengers using that service may be far less, but at the same time, there must be some sort of comparison between the two services. It would not do any harm at all if this were taken into consideration when fares are being fixed.

Train services have also been mentioned. I am told that on the main line train service between Dublin and Drogheda, the heating arrangements are still very primitive on the early morning and late evening services. If you are lucky enough to get the carriage behind the engine, you may have some heat but if you are unfortunate enough to be in a carriage down the train, the heating does not reach it at all. This may seem a small matter to raise in this debate but it is something that should be dealt with.

There should be some arrangement whereby bus and train services are synchronised. The station at Laytown services passengers who travel, not alone to Laytown village, but to Bettystown, Mornington and many other areas around there. A bus travels from Laytown station to Drogheda—this is not a question of hearsay—and time and again the bus at the station waited until the train pulled into the station and then travelled on. Sometimes nobody at all was in the bus and at other times maybe a few passengers were in it. The half-dozen passengers who got off the train had to walk a half-mile or more because the bus had left. The driver did not want to move off but because the timetable said the bus must leave at a certain time, he had to leave.

I am not raising this here without first putting the matter to the local officials. I pointed out on one occasion the case of a train which usually pulled in at 8.30, the bus being due to leave at 8.30. It takes only a few minutes for the changeover from train to bus. The official had the departure time of the bus changed to 8.25 so that when the train arrived, the bus had actually left. This satisfied the official and his superiors but it was very little satisfaction to the people who had to walk. It is not too much to ask that an effort should be made to synchronise these services.

I understand that what happens in Laytown happens all over the country. It happens because some people who are paid to do a certain job will not take the trouble to ensure that there is a connection. If a train is five minutes late from time to time, the bus can afford to wait and make that five minutes up on a long run. It may be said that this is a trivial matter but I want to say it is not a trivial matter for some of those people who have to walk. I am not blaming the drivers or conductors. They are not at fault. They have their timetables and are given their instructions. They are not to wait for the train passengers unless the train has arrived before they leave. I do not want to go any further on that.

The Minister has made some comment on the B & I Company. I raised Questions on this matter earlier this year. On one occasion the Minister made a different statement from that which I thought he made. I understood with regard to the two B & I boats laid off that the people working on them were to be given alternative employment within the service. The Minister today, in answer to a question, said that some of them were found alternative employment, that most of them were casual and were not taken on by the company, that some of them were non-nationals and in fact some of them were people who signed on from one trip to the next and therefore could be called very casual workers. There are two points I would like to make in regard to this. In view of the fact that the Government find it necessary to sell two B & I boats very shortly after buying them, would the Minister like to explain why they were purchased in the first place? Was it known when they were purchased that they were unsuitable? If it was known, what way were they dealt with with regard to actual cash dealing when they were bought?

I believe nine boats were purchased. It seems as if somebody made a very bad deal when you find that two boats have to be sold within a very short time. In addition to that, two other boats have been chartered. I would like to know what they are costing to run? Are they paying their way or are they an added expense on the B & I Company? Reference was made to the fact that the position is improving but I would like a reply to those questions. I know two foreign boats were bought and that the people manning the boats were also foreigners. I do not like to see Irish sailors laid off work for any reason and their jobs taken by the nationals of another country. That is, in fact, what has happened as a result of the dealing by the Minister and the B & I Company in this particular case.

Deputy Donegan had a question the other day about the development of Drogheda harbour and, as Deputy Donegan was not here, I asked a couple of supplementaries. I got a few rather interesting replies. Now I should like to get some more information. It is many years now since Drogheda Harbour Commissioners were preparing a scheme for the dredging of the harbour and doing necessary work there. Somebody was employed to draw up a scheme— experts who cost what experts usually cost to do this kind of job, and they have been almost continuously employed there since. Would the Minister care to say how many plans have been submitted? How many times have the plans been changed? How much money was actually spent on mapping? How much money was paid to a small group of people who did nothing concrete, good, bad, or indifferent, with regard to that harbour? Does the Minister know, when he says it is proposed to sink a bar of five feet, that it does not matter what he does unless he builds the retaining walls which all who live in the area know are necessary to keep the bar secure? It is a waste of time lowering the level of the bar because within two tides, 24 hours, it will be back again where it was. Has the Minister any information whatever about what it is proposed to do with regard to these walls? Is the Minister aware that the money to which he recently referred as having being spent on the quays was spent, first of all, on packing piles with sand and tarmacadam? This was not allowed to settle, with the result that the job has to be partially redone now. Is the Minister aware that this is the sort of nonsense that is going on? All this time not pounds, or hundreds of pounds, but thousands of pounds are spent every year and there is still very little to show for the expenditure.

Drogheda was one of the best harbours in the country. At one time the turnover for boats was twice as fast in Drogheda as it was in any other port in the country. The position now is that they have got one fairly usable crane. They have another second-hand crane, disposed of by another harbour commission because it was dangerous. It fell into the river, being top heavy. This is what is given to the workmen in Drogheda. And they are asked to compete.

Is the Minister aware that an old dredger there for many years, which was barely kept afloat, was doing far better work than the new boat bought in Holland, which can be used only in a limited way, and which is hired out to other harbours because it can do good work in a certain type of bottom, but cannot do it in Drogheda where the bottom is different from that in very many other areas? Would the Minister consider having an investigation by one of his senior officials into what is happening?

The Minister must be aware that the harbour master is no longer there. He was promoted and has gone elsewhere. Does he consider a harbour master necessary? There is a very efficient secretary there. Would a berthing master be better? Would the Minister consider appointing someone who knows the area because, if he does not do something pretty quickly, Drogheda as a seaport will disappear off the map? Is the Minister aware that very many people who should bring their goods through Drogheda do not do so? They bring them in through Dublin and then by lorry to Drogheda and the surrounding district. There must be some reason why that is done. Fertilisers, which could be brought straight into Drogheda, are being brought by road. Apart from adding to the congestion on the roads, this also adds to the cost of the fertiliser. Why cannot this be channelled through Drogheda? Why cannot some depot be erected to allow this to be done? I am not blaming the Minister personally for this, but I assure him the situation is anything but healthy. Something must be done about it. There are harbour commissioners there and I am sure they are doing their best.

Mr. Childers

As the Deputy knows, they are the people who are mainly responsible.

Mr. James Tully

I am not prepared to agree because, if there is someone directly under a Minister who is not doing his job, then it is the Minister's business to see to it that the job is done. So long as they are allowed to carry on and not do their job, either because they do not know it or because they do not want to—it is one of two reasons—it is the Minister who must do something about it.

It must be ten years, possibly 11, since there was a £256,000 job proposed there. Meath County Council were asked to guarantee a loan of £20,000. Louth County Council were to give some more and Drogheda Corporation some more. The Minister told me, I think, that £83,000 had been spent. All there is to show is a quay wall on which piles were erected, with some packing put at the back. That has not been effective because it was not allowed to settle and it has now to be repaired once more.

There is just one other matter in relation to Drogheda Harbour Commissioners which might interest the Minister. In 1948 a local government superannuation scheme was introduced. Practically every local authority is operating that scheme. Drogheda Harbour Commissioners are not. I suggest they should be asked why not because there are a great number of people, some of them getting on in years, who have no pension rights, not because they cannot be given a pension but because they will not be given one.

There is a dump belonging to Drogheda Corporation beside the river. The Corporation have been making a fair attempt to keep that dump in good order. When a high tide comes, all sort of bottles, cans and boxes are carried down the river and out along the beaches on both sides. Someone should tell the commissioners they should erect a suitable fence to prevent this happening. Two or three years ago they put a little bit of wire netting across and the first high tide took wire netting, bottles, boxes and all away. It seems to me to be a simple matter to remedy this situation. It is one that could be dealt with easily.

The Minister dealt in detail with tourism. It is a very big industry. Down through the years there have been various complaints about hotel charges and charges for meals in cafes. The good name of the country was affected. Indifferent meals were also a matter of complaint. The situation does not seem to have improved very much. It is not necessary to have a foreign accent going into some of these hotels and cafes to be charged a little extra; if you have an accent which is not of the district, that is considered good reason by some people to charge you much more than what is normally charged, and certainly a greal deal more than it is worth. Hotel charges are pretty high. It has been said that they compare fairly well with continental charges. That may be, but, if we take the cost of living in other countries and compare it with the cost of living here, then our hotel charges are, I think, one of the dearest items. This is something on which Bord Fáilte should keep a very close eye; otherwise, people will stop coming here because they will not pay exorbitant charges for indifferent food.

I am a pioneer and this does not affect me very much but I know that if one goes into an hotel, even a bottle of Seven-Up costs more than in a publichouse and the same applies to beers and spirits, just because the hotels have a carpet. The sky appears to be the limit in relation to some of their prices and they seem to think that they must get back the cost of the extra fittings every night. This is something that requires attention.

In recent months attention has been paid to the finding of accommodation throughout the villages and small towns in regard to what are called farmhouse holidays, where bed and breakfast are available and which most people travelling around the country require. I notice that in the West this seems to be a big thing and it is to be welcomed because bed and breakfast can be obtained at a modest price in most of these places. The Minister might consider giving some assistance to those who are attempting to put their houses in order in this regard, particularly in the seaside resorts, so that they may be able to accommodate visitors during the summer. At present, certain qualifications are laid down before an hotel can be called such, and to be recognised as a guesthouse a place must have nine bedrooms, but there are quite a number of people in seaside districts who have one or two bedrooms available and who are prepared to provide accommodation for visitors. Many people would prefer to stay in these places if they could and if some encouragement were given to owners of such premises it would be a step in the right direction.

The great trouble about tourism is the way in which the grants are made available. This morning on the radio I heard a report to the effect that Salthill would soon have the biggest promenade in the country. We are all glad that Salthill has done so well but somebody should point out to the people in authority that there are more tourist resorts than Salthill. I would make a particular plea for the small resorts which seem to be completely neglected. I live in a seaside resort where we claim, and nobody can contradict this, to have seven miles of the finest beach in the country. We get very little from the Tourist Board. We have a very good development association and we had a visit from one of the officials of the Tourist Board towards the end of the season. He promised to help us and before he left us he gave us some brochures. When we looked at the brochures we found that while certain places on the east coast were shown, such as Drogheda, Balbriggan and Skerries, the people who had produced the map had never heard of Gormanston, Laytown, Bettystown or Mornington. They just did not appear. Yet we offer very safe bathing and a very safe beach. Bettystown has one of the finest golf links in the country. Unfortunately, the clubhouse there was burned down a few years ago and they set about rebuilding it. They applied for a grant for the new one and they received a query to know if it would encourage tourists in the area. In reply it was pointed out that many tourists used the golf links but apparently the powers that be decided that that was not enough and they received no grant. I am sure that if this had been in Lahinch or Salthill a substantial grant would have been made available. The whole thing would probably have been built for them.

The Minister in his speech referred to the local authorities and the amount they provide for tourism from the rates. I should like to remind the Minister that in Meath—and the same happens elsewhere—we had to spend £15,000 from the rates to build a park and a road to it and two tennis courts. We could only get something in the region of £600 from Bord Fáilte. When the Minister talks about the amount of money spent on tourism from the rates, he might remember that what is paid to the Tourist Board is not all that is spent on tourism. Good money is being spent by the local authorities in the same way as if they gave it to Bord Fáilte. There is no use saying that the local authorities are mean and that they do not give enough.

I am sure that if the Minister were to visit any of the areas about which I have been talking he would agree with me that money could be usefully spent there. He would also agree with me that in view of the fact that places like Salthill are packed to capacity, that they have as many as they can take, it would be a good idea if some effort were made to popularise some of the areas which do not get as many tourists. He might be persuaded to do something about areas which are adjacent to big towns. Laytown, Bettystown and Mornington are beside Drogheda, which has a population of about 20,000, and covers a hinterland of nearly 100,000 people who must use that area. However, apart from the beach, the golf club and now the tennis courts we have very little to offer tourists. If the Minister would consider spreading the money around it might be one way of attracting tourists rather than putting all the eggs in one basket.

I have been talking about seaside resorts but in my constituency there are quite a number of tourist attractions which might possibly get more attention from the Minister's boards. One of them, of course, is Tara. We have been blowing hot and cold about Tara for as long as I can remember. The last official report I heard about it was that the Board of Works proposed to purchase the Hill and make it a national monument. There was a proposal that Bord Fáilte would erect some kind of museum there and do other things. This has been talked about for 12 or 15 years in my memory, and probably for another 30 or more years outside my memory, but we do not seem to be getting any further with it. As far as I know, the decision announced by the Minister for Education, when he was in the Board of Works, and that was quite some time ago, that it was proposed to take over Tara, does not seem to have been followed up. It is still in private ownership and perhaps some day we will wake up to find that a German or somebody else has purchased it and will erect a plastic palace on it and start collecting dollars from people visiting it.

Tara is a national monument and Bord Fáilte or the Government do not have to declare it to be such to protect it. It is a national monument and it should be preserved for and by the nation. Would the Minister try to do something about it because everybody is tired of hearing about this rush to do something about it and then hearing nothing further until somebody tries to raise the matter once more? We have more than our share of ruins in my constituency, all of them of great historical interest, and it was suggested that one of the old castles might be used in much the same way as Bunratty is used. If it were in Clare or in Galway, that would be done, but as it is, the suggestion seems to have died very quickly.

In Kells and Navan, we have many old monuments which are well worthwhile visiting. We do not seem to get very much publicity. The monthly issue of the periodical by Bord Fáilte is quite a good effort with good pictures but again it appears as if County Meath is included only very rarely. I ask the Minister to do something to have County Meath publicised. We also have the Boyne Valley. When the regional tourist boards were being set up there was great blowing of trumpets about the wonderful things they would do. I am sure those appointed to run the boards and the members are doing what they think best in the interests of tourism but I suggest that, as far as I can see, they do not seem to have been very successful. I also suggest that it requires something out of the ordinary to get some use out of the boards and this is something to which the Minister might give a little attention.

The number of people coming to the country is increasing; the number spending money here is increasing but it is not increasing fast enough mainly because the Minister is too conservative and the boards under him are sticking too much to conventional ways of doing things. I believe he could do a lot for tourism if he got those responsible to give more attention to the matters to which I have referred.

I also wonder whether or not the Minister has ever considered trying to publicise winter holidays here. Despite what people say about very severe winters we do not get them here and those who live in countries where winters are really severe might be tempted to come here if our attractions were publicised. Near where I live there is a holiday camp that for 16 or 17 weeks takes up to 4,500 people a week, many from Ireland but very many also from across the water, from various parts of Europe and America. I have noticed that people who come from abroad are not the wealthy people—they are very few —but are usually ordinary, working people. I suggest these people are the people we should cater for.

That brings me to my final point. We have been building hotels for millionaires and either they have not heard about them or are not too anxious to try them out. The Minister could very well see to it that if money is to be spent providing hotel accommodation it should be spent on middle class hotels as that is the type the ordinary tourists want to use whether they are our people coming home on holidays or some of the thousands who left here for good, mainly for economic reasons, but who like to come back occasionally. They do not go to super hotels but to middle class hotels. I sincerely believe that we have not enough of that type of accommodation and that the business of expecting people to stay in hotels which would probably cost them as much for one night as they would earn in a week, is not working out. I know that some people who come here, for status reasons, particularly if they are on expense accounts, like to stay in a top-class hotel. That will continue but so many come who have just whatever they save for their holidays and they should be entitled to comfortable accommodation and good food. That can be provided in abundance, but if we are going to do it we must make far more arrangements than we have at present to cater for that type of tourist.

Dr. Gibbons

It is obvious that there is money in tourism for the areas with a tradition in this respect and partcularly for the areas that got in early. Unfortunately, places that started later, mainly the inland areas, do not see the benefits of tourism to the same extent. I live in an inland area that suffers in this respect and I feel that Bord Fáilte should turn their attention still further to such areas. The establishment of regional councils and the appointment of officers to them were very definite steps in that direction and even at this stage have benefited these areas to some extent and I think will continue to benefit them further.

Our main tourist attraction is the River Shannon. This, we hope, will continue to become an even greater attraction as time goes on. Bord Fáilte have taken an interest in the river and the result of their work is to be seen at Rooskey and Carrick-on-Shannon. It is to be hoped that other smaller places on the river will, in the near future, receive the necessary attention which will establish them as landing places from the river for the villages along the Shannon. We are anxious that the part of the area which is marked out for the Rockingham Estate should be developed soon and I should like to know from the Minister what stage of development has now been reached and when it is likely that work will begin on it because it is felt in the area that until this part of it is fully developed the area will not be able to exert its full attraction for visitors around the lake.

Before leaving the Shannon I should mention the Grand Canal. This, it appears, will be a source of controversy for a long time to come unless something definite is done about it. The views put forward to me are that, as I understand it, until people cease to use the canal it cannot be closed. My informants say this is a national problem and an Act of Parliament may change that at any time if we so desire. They want, if at all possible, to have it decided that the canal will not be closed. If that were done it would mean that those interested in having both the canal and the Shannon would be prepared to spend more money on developing both. In this way the amenities of the area would be extended still further.

Ours is an inland area not very well known to tourists and to date it has to depend more or less on passing traffic moving from one point to another in the country. Until such time as it is brought to the notice of tourists, it cannot get the full value of tourism. To get it established, it must have signposts and signposts seem to be a difficult problem. Naturally, many people are seeking signposts in their own areas throughout the country and it seems that we have been left to the last. Bord Fáilte state that they have not the necessary money. This is understandable but I also understand that the county council is mixed up with the allocations of signposts and, all in all, it seems to be a cumbersome procedure to get even one or two signposts. Signposts are vital to areas that have no tradition of tourism behind them and until those signposts are put up, passing tourists will be unaware of the attractions of the area. I would ask the Minister to direct the attention of Bord Fáilte to this and to request them to look into these areas that seem to have been left behind.

There is another aspect of tourism to which I should like to refer. In the West, the small farmers or the middle sized farmers must, in some way, supplement their income and tourism is one way of doing it. The two counties which I represent can be helped to further development by means of tourism. The further development I would suggest is the development of coarse fishing. We have numerous lakes in Leitrim and Roscommon and if these were more intensely developed, it could mean more visitors and the people in those areas could go on developing the guesthouses and farmhouses for this purpose.

Deputy T. O'Donnell this evening covered the question of guesthouses and farmhouses adequately and I do not intend to repeat what he has said. However, as regards five-roomed guesthouses, I would say that in virgin areas where there is no experience of tourism, five rooms is too much for a start. These people may never have seen tourists around them and in these virgin areas, as I call them, there should be a different approach.

In regard to the coal mining situation in Arigna, once more we have heard it has been decided that no further development of the coal in Arigna can be done by the ESB. That is disappointing. The figures shown to us certainly suggest that no further development is possible, but I hope this is not a final answer to our question down there. I hope the situation changes and that there will be a change of outlook in this matter. It was one of the industries which meant a lot to north Roscommon and part of Leitrim. If it could be further developed, it would be one way of helping us in an area of falling population.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The annual Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power gives this House an opportunity of covering a very wide field. If there is any Minister who could present this House with what could be a great record of achievements and advancements, it is the Minister for Transport and Power. This Department covers the entire field in relation to CIE, harbours, shipping, the air companies, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, Bord Fáilte, the ESB and Bord na Móna. The Minister who is responsible for the activities of these Boards can, by taking a keener interest and by asking these Boards to conform with the wishes expressed in this House by public representatives, do a very valuable job of work. The Minister is seemingly content to leave as day to day matters of the boards matters which we in this House consider to be of very great importance. In order to cultivate a greater spirit of friendship between Members of this House and these boards, the Minister should endeavour to give the House more information in reply to Parliamentary Questions than he has given in the past.

I wish to make reference, and I do so with very great pride, to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company. I have spoken on the activities of this company in this House on numerous occasions. On every possible occasion, I have expressed the opinion that here we have clear and ample evidence of a company making great strides and showing progress. If I am asked what is meant by progress, I have to say I measure progress by what I see. As a result of the activities of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, I have seen buildings; I have seen factories; I have seen workers working; and I have seen good pay packets. To me that is progress.

I am also impressed by the fact that in 1960 there were fewer than 500 people employed at Shannon in these industries; in 1961, there were close on 500; in 1962, over 1,000; in 1963, 1,500; in 1964, slightly over 2,000; in 1965, just 3,000; in 1966, almost 3,500. This company are responsible for giving employment in the industrial estate and the warehouse area to a total of 4,000 people. They have a very fine record in relation to industrial development. Córas Tráchtála has estimated exports from the Shannon Industrial Estate at over £22 million for the year ending 31st January, 1965, and that figure of £22 million has, I understand, every prospect of increasing substantially. That figure of £22¼ million for the year ended 31st January, 1965, is equivalent to 28 per cent of the total of Irish manufactured exports.

It is no harm to mention that the Shannon industrial area has been the subject of criticism from time to time. It is unreasonable for any section of the community to offer unwarranted criticism of the activities at Shannon Airport. We have witnessed here real advancement and real progress and I want to pay tribute to the members of the Board. It is no harm to give a clap on the back to those responsible for the progress at Shannon. That progress is something of which we can be proud. We can be proud of the extensive, progressive, well-designed, beautifully laid-out factories and all the facilities that go with them. When I see clear and ample evidence of progress, I want to praise it. So far as I am concerned, any encouragement or help I can give towards the further development of Shannon as an industrial area I will gladly and readily give. That industrial estate is one of our showpieces. There we have something practical to show; there we have workers at work.

People may say that the names of the industrialists cannot be described as being all too Irish. I do not mind what name goes up over a factory, so long as it is employing Irish workers at home in their own country. I would much prefer to see foreign industrialists coming to this country and setting up at Shannon, where facilities are available and where they will receive help and co-operation, and to see Irish boys and girls being employed there than to see our people emigrating and working in factories elsewhere.

I trust that the Department of Transport and Power will give every support and every assistance to the Board who, in my opinion, have produced a fine record. I am sure that the Board are actively engaged in making new contacts with industrialists. I do not know what effect the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement will have on Shannon, whether beneficial or otherwise. I hope the Minister has been in touch with his colleagues in regard to this matter to ensure that the Agreement will be beneficial to Shannon.

Competition for the establishment of industries is becoming increasingly keener. At present, Northern Ireland is offering a far greater degree of encouragement for the establishment of industries in the north of Ireland than we in the Republic are offering. Therefore, I hope that the Government will put the Shannon Development Company in a position to be able to compete with Northern Ireland or any other competitor in attracting foreign industrialists. I hope that promotional efforts are increasing, that the good record at Shannon will continue and that the company will have an even greater degree of sucess.

The Minister is probably more aware than any of us of the valuable and useful national work that has been undertaken by the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited. I venture to say that no company set up under any State Department can show the same record of success and achievement as that company. I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that. When Deputies see progress of that kind, they should pay the tribute that is so well deserved.

I would appeal to the Minister, if it were necessary, to take a very special interest in the activities of this development company. If the Board make recommendations to him, I trust they will be considered favourably and sympathetically. I cannot say what plans the company may have for increasing the number employed at Shannon but, as a member of the Opposition, I may say that what I saw there impressed me. The achievements of the company impressed me as being greater than those of any other body set up since the State was founded. I hope their efforts will continue to be crowned with success.

I am not too happy about the activities of the ESB in relation to rural electrification. Deputy James Tully referred to this matter tonight. There are many pockets in rural Ireland where the people are anxious to avail of light and power but cannot do so because the cost is prohibitive. The ESB was originally designed to provide a full service. There is no use saying it is doing so when the people cannot afford to meet what are considered excessive charges. There are many parts of my own constituency, as well as places the length and breadth of the country, where there is no hope of light and power reaching the poor people there who are not in a position to pay these excessive charges. I would ask the Minister to enter into consultation with the ESB to take steps to solve this problem. The demand is there. All that is preventing these people getting supply is the fact that they cannot pay excessive charges. This problem must be tackled, even if the State has to provide a very substantial subsidy.

I should like to know from the Minister what has happened to the additional briquette factory that was to be established near Shannonbridge in Offaly. Some time ago arrangements were made for the erection of another briquette factory. The technical people from the Department, the ESB and Bord na Móna carried out a thorough investigation of the area and a suitable site was decided on for the erection of the new factory. I tabled a number of questions to the Minister from time to time. I have refrained from asking any questions of late on this matter. I was presuming it might have been the credit squeeze or other reasons which were preventing the Government going ahead with the briquette factory. I would ask the Minister in all seriousness to proceed with the erection of the new factory. There is a growing demand for briquettes. They are a cheap fuel and the percentage of heat they give cannot be equalled. The demand for briquettes is far greater than the present supply. I would ask the Minister to make arrangements during the coming financial year for the placing of the contract and the commencement of the construction of the new briquette factory on the site selected at Shannonbridge.

Reference was made to harbours. I think the Department could do much more than they are doing in regard to harbours. I could not agree more with any Deputy than I agree with Deputy James Tully in his remarks concerning Drogheda harbour. It is one of the finest harbours in this country. I could never understand why people from parts of County Louth, particularly Dundalk, and parts of Monaghan, bring in their goods to the North Wall in Dublin and transport them by road from Dublin to various parts of Louth, Cavan and Monaghan. Because of the high volume of traffic on the roads, an effort should be made to divert as much of this traffic as possible to Drogheda. I believe it would be possible to divert a good deal of the traffic coming to Dublin to Drogheda port. The harbour in Drogheda is, without doubt, one of the finest harbours on the east coast. It is a pity the equipment there is not better and that the port is not developed as one of the most modern in the country. The only other harbour I have knowledge about is Waterford harbour. Waterford harbour has the appearance of business and development. Yet I feel more business from the south of Ireland and parts of the south-east could be directed to it.

There was also a reference to the activities of Bord Fáilte. Everybody seems to ask that some area in their constituency be singled out for special attention by Bord Fáilte. I want to refer again to Clonmacnoise, probably the most historic and most ancient national monument we have. It is the resting place of saints and bishops, of kings and princes. Yet, if one goes to the offices of Bord Fáilte, and asks for photographs of Clonmacnoise, I do not believe they are available. In the brochures published by Bord Fáilte Clonmacnoise is mentioned just as another place and no more. It simply gets a mention on the signposts as convenient to Moate. Every tourist coming to Ireland should get an opportunity of visiting Clonmacnoise. There is real history there. There the tourist has something to see and something to learn. No national monument in this country today has the historic background of Clonmacnoise; yet Bord Fáilte have never given it the publicity it deserves. I make a genuine appeal to the Minister to direct the attention of Bord Fáilte to the need for further publicity for Clonmacnoise.

Reference has been made to hotel charges and to other complaints which have been registered by tourists in this country from time to time. I cannot speak of these complaints as I have no personal knowledge of them. When I have no personal knowledge of them, I make no reference to them. I feel that the Minister would be well advised, if he has large sums of money to spend on seaside resorts, not to put all his eggs in one basket but to spend sums on smaller seaside resorts. I could never understand, with the money spent on Tramore from time to time, how Tramore has not developed to a greater extent. I cannot say whether or not the Minister visits Tramore but I wonder if he is satisfied, because of the amount of money that has been spent on Tramore, that sufficient development has taken place there. There is room for considerable development and expansion, and for considerably greater expenditure, in Tramore.

It is all the same to the people who live in the midlands of Ireland whether they go to Salthill, Tramore, Laytown or Bettystown; they are the same distance away. I really feel the time has come when the Minister should ask Bord Fáilte to present him with proposals for the development, on a long term basis, of the smaller seaside resorts along our coasts. In selecting an area for holidays, people are now commencing to select the less overcrowded districts. That is why the smaller areas by the seaside which have not been developed to any great extent should now be developed.

Bord Fáilte should present the Minister with a five-year or a ten-year plan for the development of smaller seaside resorts. There are many areas now in which holidaymakers do not seem to enjoy their stay because of overcrowding. For that reason, I think the development of the smaller areas might ease the pressure on the more highly developed areas.

I was glad to hear Deputy James Tully make reference here tonight to the holiday camp in his constituency. It might be wise if the Bord Fáilte people took a leaf out of the book of the very excellent service rendered to this country by Butlin's Holiday Camp. Here we have a holiday camp on the east coast, under strict supervision, of the highest possible standards, with excellent organisation, well known for courtesy, kindliness, welcome and hospitality. If there is any reason why the holiday camp at Mosney has been such a success, it is good supervision, courtesy, kindliness, good service, good value and welcome to those who frequent it. If the same hospitality, courtesy, kindliness and welcome were extended in other areas, there would be less criticism. One thing is that, no matter whom you meet who has had the privilege of a holiday at Butlin's, there is the assurance of having received value for money. I never had a holiday there, lest people might think I had any experience of it. I have been there as a visitor from time to time. I have met people of all ages who say that they enjoyed their holiday in the holiday camp. On an occasion such as this, I think that we here in Parliament ought to express our appreciation to Sir William Butlin and to those responsible for the administration of such a fine holiday camp that gives enjoyment and pleasure, good value and good service to those seeking that type of holiday in this country.

I should like to ask the Minister what plans Bord na Móna have for future development. My constituency is primarily concerned with the activities of Bord na Móna. There seems to be a falling-off of employment in Bord na Móna. The general opinion amongst those who have been associated with Bord na Móna in employment over the years is that things are tightening up there and that the same amount of employment in the future will not be given as is given now and as has been given in the past. It would be most regrettable if we did not continue, as far as possible, to develop our bogs to the fullest extent. Again, as in the case of the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, I should be wrong if I did not pay a tribute to the manner in which Bord na Móna have developed the bogs in my constituency. It is something of which we are very proud. The development of the bogs in County Offaly has transformed the appearance of the county. Where there was once the appearance of poverty, it is now a hive of activity. We are glad to be associated with that and we want that degree of activity to continue and, in so far as it is possible, we desire that all the workers employed by Bord na Móna will be retained.

I often wondered if the Minister ever arranged with the Forestry Branch to have some scheme whereby the Forestry Branch would prepare and plant cutaway bogs in the season when Bord na Móna workers are slack. In that way, Bord na Móna workers could be transferred without delay to the Forestry Branch for the preparation and planting of cutaway bogs for forestry purposes. I suggested some years ago to the Minister that he should get into consultation in this connection with the Forestry Branch. I recall raising the matter on the Estimate for the Department of Lands. I do not know if anything was ever done about it but I think it is quite possible that there could be a dovetailing of activities between the Forestry Branch and Bord na Móna in relation to the preparation and planting of cutaway bogs by Bord na Móna workers during their slack period of the year.

The Department of Transport and Power should also consider the possibility of the erection of coal-burning power stations, if such a thing is possible. We have in my constituency a number of turf-burning stations at Rhode, Shannonbridge and Portarlington. I think Deputy Gibbons made a slightly similar reference. I would like to see in the Doonane, Crettyard, Wolfhill area, which is my area, a power station erected to utilise the coke and anthracite produced in the Doonane area. In this district of Doonane in Laois, which is not too far away from Castlecomer, there are a large number of unemployed people, with no prospect of employment. The development of the local coalmines does not look too good. Nobody wants to invest large sums of private money in the development of coalmines today. The amount of money required is too great. When speaking of developing coalmines, one must speak in millions, not thousands. I think, just as Bord na Móna stepped in in the case of the development of our native fuel, and may I say, with credit and success, Bord na Móna would be well advised to take whatever steps either they or the ESB could take in an area where we have prospects of developing the use of anthracite or coal.

Deputy Gibbons referred to the Arigna, County Leitrim, area of his constituency. I make similar reference in regard to the Wolfhill, Doonane and Mayo areas of County Laois. That is south of the county, convenient to Carlow and convenient to north County Kilkenny. It is a depressed area for employment. Because of the quality of the land, people are in poor circumstances, and again, it is mainly a mining district. It is an area in which there is a good mining tradition.

Most of the miners from around that area have in recent times emigrated to mines in Wales and in England. That is a great pity, because mining has been a tradition of the area. Generations have been engaged in mining and it would be a pity if these mines should have to close down, or remain as they are, and if we have to face a time of no prospect of development. Would the Minister arrange that either Bord na Móna or the ESB examine the possibility of the utilisation of anthracite for power? I feel that something can, and should, be done about it. I am not too happy that it has not been very fully explored.

It is too bad, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that the Taoiseach will soon be retiring. It is also too bad that, despite the record of industrial achievements for which he may take credit, what we can describe as a masterful blunder on his part was the creation and establishment of CIE in the first instance. I was a member of this House in 1944 when the Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, announced his intention of bringing in his Transport Act at that time, and announced the birth of CIE. He had great hopes for the company at that time. As a matter of fact, we all had great hopes at that time because he was so convincing in his argument that he did succeed in convincing the country in 1944 and succeeded in convincing this House that there was really something in the establishment of CIE.

In 1944, during the general election campaign, the Taoiseach spoke in Carlow in reference to the establishment of CIE and it is very interesting to recall what he said. He said:

The Government proposes the establishment of a national transport organisation, operating under Government supervision, charged with the reorganisation of transport services so as to ensure that cheap and adequate facilities will be available in every area.

The new company will be constituted from the amalgamation of the Great Southern Railways and the Dublin United Tramways Company.

The economies resulting from the scheme will mean cheaper rates for transport, better services, and will give transport workers better security of employment and remuneration which they can never have unless such a reorganisation is effected.

The Government believes that a really efficient national transport organisation, with up-to-date equipment, can give private traders a better and a cheaper service than they can give themselves in normal circumstances.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy give the reference, please?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Mr. Lemass, addressing a meeting in Carlow on 6th May, 1944, published in a reprint in the Sunday Independent of 16th January, 1966.

The Taoiseach is a much wiser man today. What is the present situation in so far as CIE is concerned? Has it not been that we have had no cheap transport, no security for workers, railway stations sold, railway lines torn up, hundreds of miles of railway abandoned altogether, traders not getting as good a service as they were getting and road freight charges completely out of the reach of the people?

There was to be cheap transport for everybody when CIE was established. Not alone were we to have cheap transport, but we were to have efficient transport. It was going to be one and the other—cheap and efficient. Is it not correct to say that the subsidies this House had to vote for CIE have been enormous and that CIE was a complete failure? Let us make up our minds on that—a failure. CIE was established, the Taoiseach tells us, to provide cheap and efficient transport, and it did neither. It did not provide cheap transport and most certainly it did not provide efficient transport.

On the subject of cheap fares, it is interesting to read what the Taoiseach said in the Dáil in September, 1944:

It is obvious that Dublin transport facilities will be substantially expanded and cheapened. Cheap fares to housing districts and to suburban dwellings generally will be the function of the new company.

That is what the Taoiseach said in 1944: cheap fares to all the housing districts around Dublin. Not alone were they to be cheap and efficient but these new services were being provided by CIE. The only conclusion we can come to is that all this talk was complete nonsense. It was most regrettable that private enterprise was interfered with. CIE has cost this State fabulous sums of taxpayers' money and its general conduct has not been too creditable or too good.

Personally, I have had no confidence in the Board of CIE, more particularly when I read a cutting from the Irish Independent of 13th January, 1966, dealing with a Labour Court hearing of a claim on behalf of the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. Evidence was being given before the Labour Court and there was a staff relations officer, a Mr. Redmond, giving evidence on behalf of CIE. He said that the company felt that it would be wrong to hold open competitions for the recruitment of young men to clerical positions when the company was not in a position to give even a reasonable guarantee as to their future in the organisation. Because of the problem concerning uncertainty, the company recruited temporary clerks to fill all permanent vacancies. That is not a very good position in any company.

Mr. Childers

In that particular case, it was due to the mechanisation of accounts that was proceeding steadily. Computerisation and so forth were the reasons for it.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I agree with the Minister that there is a reason for everything but I think there was something else at the back of it. Deputy S. Dunne will agree with me that the Old Pals Act had been working in relation to all these and other appointments in CIE as well.

Mr. S. Dunne

Section 1.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Old Pals Act giving the jobs to the friends. All they wanted was an opportunity to do away with the examination. Once the examination was done away with and the vacancies there for temporary employees, it was not what you know but whom you know.

Reference was made earlier tonight on the Private Members' motion to CIE pensioners. Enough has been said about that. There is no need to bring it into this Estimate but I want to avail myself of the opportunity to say here and now, with full responsibility as a Member of this House, that it was disgraceful that Dr. Andrews should have got the pension he did get out of CIE after five years. To give one man £60 a week pension was nothing short of a national disgrace, having regard to the fact that in order to keep CIE going, the taxpayers of this country had to have their moneys voted by this House and when we see so many engine drivers, bus drivers, bus conductors, railway porters and men of the permanent way staff of CIE, almost 2,000 of them, with less than 30/- per week pension after doing the practical work in the company. Here we have a man who walked in from Bord na Móna and he gets a pension of £60 a week and on his birthday takes over another job as Chairman of Teleís Éireann.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy knows well that it covered the whole of his service and he also knows that his predecessor, allowing for the change in the value of money and for the length of service, got nearly as much, and also got a huge gratuity.

Mr. Molloy

Hear, hear.

Mr. Childers

And he was appointed by a Minister of a former Government.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Molloy

Short memory.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Oliver Flanagan.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

Two wrongs do not make a right. To give a man £60 a week pension from CIE, the huge lump sum he got and a job on his birthday is a little too much for us to stomach. I think it was rotten and I hope that at the right time it will be very suitably exposed—at the next general election. I think it is bad.

I want to ask this: what are the prospects for CIE? I wonder are the prospects any better now that Dr. Andrews is gone? I have always felt that Dr. Andrews was a hindrance to the progress of CIE. Now that he is gone, what are the prospects for the future? The present part-time Chairman is a member of the Board of CIE, and is, in my opinion, one of the most highly qualified men in Ireland today for that position. I do not want to set myself up as a prophet in the House but I want to say this much. If, for the period Dr. Andrews was Chairman of CIE, Mr. Thomas Hogan had been Chairman, the many and several blunders made by the company would not have been made. I regard Mr. Hogan as an expert and a man of commonsense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think the Deputy should continue mentioning individuals, either in praise or in criticism.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Chairman of CIE. The Minister for Transport and Power has made an appointment of a part-time Chairman of CIE and I want to say that, in my opinion, the Minister was quite right in appointing the part-time Chairman he did appoint. The only thing I see wrong is this: why a part-time Chairman now, and when Dr. Andrews was there, a fulltime Chairman? There never has been a satisfactory explanation of that. It is only right that the Minister should explain what was the change in policy of CIE in relation to the Chairman. Was it so that when Dr. Andrews was there, all powers were vested in the Chairman, and when Dr. Andrews went to Telefís Éireann, there was only a part-time Chairman who was a member of the Board appointed? Would the Minister go fully, word for word, into the circumstances in relation to the replacement of Dr. Andrews on the Board of CIE?

I must repeat for the record that the present Chairman is, in my opinion, competent, suitable and a practical man. Is it not a great pity that all around him he should not have a commonsense, intelligent, reasonable and practical Board? I do not think he has that. The time has come when a new look should be taken at CIE. There should be a general reorganisation, a complete overhaul, a spring-cleaning which is long overdue in CIE. The only time we can debate that is here on the occasion of the Minister's Estimate. When the Minister is replying to this debate, I hope he will give us a little more information, or is he aware of the general dissatisfaction which exists throughout the country in regard to CIE services, in regard to the charges and the staff of CIE? Is he aware of all the overloading and the wasteful expenditure on staff cars, the necessity for so many staff cars, and the failure of high officers of CIE themselves to use CIE?

I want to make reference to the plea made here by the Fine Gael Party for a full public sworn inquiry into the affairs of CIE. If the Minister for Transport and Power had nothing to hide, would he not allow an inquiry into the conduct, a full investigation into the workings, methods, expenditure and general administration of CIE? But the position is that the Minister is afraid of a public inquiry into this company. I venture to use the word "fear". If there were a public inquiry into CIE, I feel it would not turn out too well. There is nothing like renewing a sincere appeal.

I want to renew the appeal from this side of the House for a full public inquiry into the affairs of CIE. They are bad, wrong and distasteful. There is a very strong smell from them and, for that reason, I think the Minister is cloaking up something, has something to hide or has people to hide. There must be some reason for refusing a plea which has been made by the principal Opposition Party. If this were a plea by an individual or group of individuals, one could understand the Minister saying they did not carry very much weight but here you have the principal Opposition Party throwing out a challenge, making a charge and demanding a public inquiry into the administration of CIE, and the Minister holding back in fear and dread of such an inquiry.

I should like to ask the Minister— since he is smiling—what has he to be afraid of, if everything is above-board, if everything is right, if there is nothing to be ashamed of? If the inquiry reveals nothing, well and good: it will clear the air for everybody and everybody will be satisfied and happy. But it leaves it more open to comments from the suspicious minds of this country when one hears the Minister saying he must refuse the principal Opposition Party an inquiry into CIE. I respectfully say he is afraid of the inquiry.

Mr. Childers

That is ridiculous. If I do not think it is necessary, I do not have to have an inquiry. If the Government do not think it necessary, we do not have to have an inquiry, simply because the Opposition demand it. The same thing would apply if this Party were on the other side of the House. The Deputy is being absurd. Because you refuse an inquiry does not mean you are hiding something; I am not hiding anything.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

If the Minister has nothing to hide why not conduct the public inquiry asked for by the Opposition Party in this House?

Mr. Corry

And the jobless lawyers in this country.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I venture to say that if there was nothing to hide, there would be no reason why the Minister should not allow such an inquiry.

Mr. Childers

I might as well ask for a public inquiry into the inner workings of the Fine Gael Party, and a refusal might not be due to the fact that they had anything to hide.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I would give a lot of money for a public inquiry into the workings of the Fianna Fáil Party at the moment.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy knows how ridiculous it is to make these statements.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

As a matter of fact, it would be very interesting to know the side the Minister is on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

These matters do not arise.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I agree it does not arise and should not have arisen in the first instance, but for the Minister inviting an inquiry into the activities of Fine Gael. There is no need for an inquiry into the activities of Fine Gael: they are above-board now and always and, unlike Fianna Fáil, we do not have the worries, the trouble and the difficulties Fianna Fáil appear to have from time to time.

Mr. Childers

On that argument, the Deputy would not mind an inquiry into Fine Gael. I am referring only to the absurdity of these statements; they mean nothing at all.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

The Minister is concerned with an inquiry into Fine Gael; I am concerned with an inquiry into CIE, and the taxpayers of this country are concerned with an inquiry into CIE. I have just pointed out— and here and now repeat—that the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government as he says he does now, sees fit to say there is no need for this inquiry. I say that both the Minister and the Government are hiding something: they are afraid to allow a public inquiry into the administration of CIE over some years past, particularly the huge sums of money by way of subsidies voted in this House and the manner in which they have been spent.

I do not propose to detain the House any longer. I shall wind up most seriously by inviting the Minister to give us the inquiry into the activities of CIE which he has denied us.

Mr. S. Dunne

If Deputy Corry makes an appearance about 11.30 a.m. tomorrow, he will be in plenty of time to take up the running.

Mr. Corry

That is very kind of the Deputy.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am always kind to old warriors like Deputy Corry. I noticed in the course of this debate earlier to-night that the House was even more attenuated than it is now. There were, I think, no more than about four Members in the House altogether. There was no one at all backing the Minister, absolutely no one. I can only assume that the canvassing was very active and intense, and engaging the attention of the entire Party in the corridors, and that it is still going on. However, that is a matter about which we will have more to say when the opportunity offers.

The debate on the Estimate of the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility is the only occasion given to us on which we can put questions in connection with the running of his Department. Alone among the Cabinet, the present Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility has distinguished himself time out of number by waving aside the civil questions addressed to him by Members of the House on various aspects of the running of his Department. All of us have had occasion——

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, is it not a fact that the Ceann Comhairle of the day decides whether questions should be answered having regard to the legislative enactments governing the companies over which I have supervision and the Deputy is, therefore, casting a reflection on the probity and impartiality of the Ceann Comhairle in this matter?

Mr. S. Dunne

A good try, but it does not hit the bull's eye.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is aware that the Chair decides whether questions are in order.

Mr. S. Dunne

I want to impute no irregularity to the Chair as such, but I know the mechanics of how it is done nonetheless, and I am aware of the fact that if the Minister decides that a question addressed to him is one which he will not answer, the Chair must accept that.

Mr. Childers

By no means.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is making an unfair charge against the Chair.

Mr. S. Dunne

No, I am not.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair acts without any instructions from Ministers or anyone else.

Mr. S. Dunne

In any event, the position in which I as an ordinary journeyman Deputy have found myself is that on many occasions I have had representations, as we call it in parliamentary parlance, from constituents concerning their vital and immediate problems. These problems have come within the competence of the Department of Transport and Power without responsibility on innumerable occasions and invariably—I want to say this in my own defence and in defence of other Members to whom it has happened—when I put down Dáil Questions, as we are alleged to be entitled to do on any aspect of the Department's activities, I have been frustrated and denied that opportunity. This is something which is of a very serious and fundamental nature because, in my view, it amounts to the gagging of the elected representatives of the people on matters of interest and importance to those whom we represent.

It is necessary to say this here because we cannot afford to write to everyone in our constituencies a letter setting out what purports to be the legal position and explaining why letters which they may write to us concerning this Department cannot be translated into questions on the Order Paper. It is necessary that I should say this to have it on record, and I say it in the hope that it will reach a wider audience so that those who send us here will know the obstacles with which we have to grapple once we reach this House. Many are of the opinion that membership of the Dáil —and they have been encouraged in this opinion—gives a Deputy the right to question or challenge any activity of the Government. That is not so. Many are of the opinion that this is a completely free and democratic assembly. That is not so. The point I am making is exemplified with the utmost clarity by the attitude of the Minister for Transport and Power without responsibility who stands over this complete and blanket refusal to answer questions of the nature of which I speak, which Deputies endeavour to put down on the Order Paper.

The time will come, I hope, when it will be possible to alter this situation, and by the look of things, that time and that opportunity may not be long delayed, but until that time does arrive, I intend to avail of every opportunity open to me to explain to the public the manner in which we are handicapped and spancelled by the attitude of the present incumbent of this office.

There has been reference to CIE. I remember the occasion of the founding of Córas Iompair Éireann. I recall the election in that year and the year before. I remember sharing the views of many who at the time felt this might well be a progressive move, that there was, in fact, a need for rationalisation of our transport industry and that in line with other progressive countries the thing to do was to amalgamate such services as existed to render them more efficient, to reduce running costs and to bring into existence for the benefit of those who worked on the railways and buses an equitable set of labour relations.

I remain convinced that, properly handled, this would and should have been possible. I am satisfied in my own mind, from my experience and from such examination as it has been possible for me to make of the workers of CIE in my contacts with them on the shop floors of CIE, that this concern has reached its present condition of economic debility as a result of mismanagement of a very low order. Great praise has been lavished on the former Chairman of CIE; not alone praise, indeed, but worldly goods as well and scholastic and academic rewards. In my view, the running of CIE has been a classic example of how not to operate a national transport company.

In so far as the workers there are concerned there has been a long and unhappy history of strikes and stoppages. The Minister, in the course of his very lengthy introductory statement consisting of 48 typescript pages, endeavoured by inference to place the blame for the deficit incurred during the last financial year on the shoulders of the workers employed by CIE. I want to confute that as energetically and positively as I can. There was introduced into CIE a form of management which could not have any other result than to provoke labour unrest and there was brought to labour problems an attitude of mind that more properly belonged in a military barracks. Little or no thought, apparently, was given in those days at the beginning of CIE or during the years since to the most important element in any business—human relations; and as a result we have had from time to time stoppages which were unpleasant to us all.

Further consideration of Estimate postponed.