asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will now give a decision on the requests of the deputation he received from the west of Ireland regarding the proposed closure of the Limerick/ Ballina railway line.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Railway Line Closure.
21.
As I explained to the deputation which I received on 3rd March, 1976, concerning the proposed withdrawal of passenger services from the Limerick/Claremorris railway line, the Oireachtas gave full powers to CIE in section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, to terminate any rail passenger or rail freight service provided the board are satisfied that the service is uneconomic and that there is no prospect of its continued operation being economic within a reasonable period. Any decision in regard to the future of any particular rail service is, therefore, a matter for the board of CIE.
After the meeting, I conveyed the deputation's representations to the chairman of CIE by whom, I understand, the deputation was received on the afternoon of 3rd March.
I have been informed by the chairman of CIE that, at the request of the deputation, he proposes to raise this matter again with his board and that he will communicate the decision of the board to the Galway County Manager who acted as chief spokesman for the deputation.
There are four supplementaries that I wish to put to the Minister on this very important matter. First, is the Minister aware that the present service from Limerick to Ballina is of no useful purpose to the public because of the unsuitability of the time schedule? Secondly, has he considered the recommendation of a deputation he received regarding the possibility of providing rail cars to bring workers and students to Galway from such places as Ennis, Ardrahan, Gort, Tuam and Claremorris? Thirdly, will he agree that a loss of £250,000 per annum on the west of Ireland service is very small compared with the subsidy of £500,000 a week which CIE receive? Lastly, will he agree that the deliberate phasing out of the service is causing undue hardship to all CIE employees who have worked diligently and responsibly down through the years and does not the letter, dated 10th March, and sent to the deputation, indicate the amazing situation of the Minister not having any authority in regard to CIE decisions? Does this not show also a complete lack of interest on the part of the Government in so far as the people of the west are concerned?
The answers to the Deputy's supplementaries are, respectively, no, no, yes, no, no.
Did the Minister notice that the deputation from Galway whose appointment with the Minister was for 11.30 p.m. arrived by car because to have come by train would have left them late? Does this not remind one of the Percy French ballad, "Are you right there, Michael, are you right?"? The author was taken to court by the then West Clare railway on a charge of slander but he was late arriving at the courthouse in Ennis, because, as he explained, the train was half an hour behind schedule. The case was dismissed.
The answer given by the Minister to me and to the other members of the deputation was that the chairman of CIE would probably consider the matter and, perhaps, grant a reprieve. The Minister appoints the board of CIE. I understand we are now going to appoint a committee to look into State-sponsored bodies, of which CIE is one of the biggest we have in the country. It is no reprieve to give a reprieve and not provide a service. I have seen reprieves in relation to the West of Ireland when they put on a coach and one would be as well off on a bicycle. This is the kind of service CIE put on when they give you a reprieve for a couple of years. They do not put on a service to attract passengers to use the service. We believe that CIE intend to downgrade the whole West of Ireland because we have seen their plans.
I do not think this is true. Deputy Loughnane says that it is a ridiculous situation that the Minister has no control over CIE but this is not a situation of my wishing or something I did personally. This is an Act of the Oireachtas, which was passed by this Dáil, which deliberately prohibited a Minister from interfering with the day-to-day workings of CIE. It put the onus on CIE to run this service economically. I have conveyed all the points raised by Deputy Loughnane and also by Deputy Callanan to the chairman of CIE. I understand the board are meeting tomorrow and they have promised to consider them very seriously.
Would the Minister not agree it is time to have a second look at this Act? This is a very urgent matter. Would he not agree that in working out the costings of closing a railway line many important factors are not taken into account, such as the social amenities, the value of tourism, the extra cost of making the road which carries the bus and also that a bus service runs side by side with the railway which makes it unprofitable? Those are important factors and they are all calculated to lead ultimately to the closing of branch lines. It is time, to adopt a new, firm policy with regard to railway lines generally. Would the Minister not agree that it is time that the Act was revised and seriously amended in relation to the closure of railways generally?
I do not mind looking at the Act. It has engaged my attention perhaps more than that of any other Minister because there are more semi-State bodies under my control. The relationship with them from a Minister's point of view is quite difficult as the Deputy may know, although I am not sure he had any experience in such a Department. I can see the reason for putting that section into that Act. The reason semi-State bodies were set up initially was to remove them from the constraints of operating too closely within the civil service—to give them a certain amount of commercial freedom. I would be very slow to remove that, to take away from them that freedom of action and to make them subject here for every little matter outside broad policy, which of course is a matter for the Minister, the Government and the Oireachtas. If every small detail of their operations were subject to us, this would have the effect of stifling them. That would not be a good thing for the country.
Does the Minister not agree that this is not a matter of individual closures? It is bound up with the overall policy in relation to transport generally and railways in particular.
That is too big an issue for Question Time.
The closure of rail lines is a matter for CIE, but there are no lines being taken up under the present reorganisation of CIE, the 1974 reorganisation. The last time there were closures the lines were taken up immediately so that the railway lines could never again be reopened. That is not the position now.
It is not much. It is only a sop.
I am sure the Deputy will agree that it leaves the door open for any further improvement on any one of those lines which could be reopened again. That was not the case before.
(Interruptions.)
It is long since past the time for questions. A final supplementary from Deputy Loughnane.
I am sure the Minister with whom I have often travelled on the southern line to Dublin, will agree that the recent trend from the south, from Cork and Limerick, has been increased train travel? That is due to the amenities and facilities provided. Would the Minister consider introducing a train system in the west which would be comfortable and similar to those in the south, which the people in Cork, Clare and Limerick can avail of? This would give the people in the west the same chances as the people in Cork, Limerick and perhaps myself, by slipping into Limerick from County Clare, even though I am in the west?
I am very keen to see that every traveller on CIE is carried as comfortably and as quickly as possible to his chosen point of destination.
The remaining questions will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of the Dáil.