Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 23 Nov 1955

Vol. 45 No. 8

Transport Bill, 1955—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to enable the Board of C.I.E. to raise the finance necessary for the rehabilitation of the railway system.

The railway system which the board inherited in 1950 had, through years of neglect, fallen into a general state of disrepair, much of the operating equipment being obsolete and ill-fitted to meet modern transport needs; no locomotives had been built since 1937 and no coaches since 1939; the number of wagons built had been far short of requirements and the permanent way had been neglected. In addition to these physical disabilities, the board were faced with the ever-growing competition from road transport which threatened the very existence of the railways. The task before the board of rebuilding the railway system to meet modern requirements was indeed an unenviable one which required a high degree of enterprise, foresight and courage for its accomplishment.

The board applied themselves with vigour to the task before them. Having carefully surveyed the overall position the board came to the conclusion that nothing less than a complete renewal of the rail operating equipment would save the undertaking from total collapse, and that the undertaking could only be put on an economic footing by an almost complete change over from steam to diesel traction. The wisdom of the board in plumping for diesel traction has perhaps been nowhere more clearly illustrated than in the recent decision of the British Transport Commission to change over to diesel traction in the very home of coal.

As a first step towards the rehabilitation of the undertaking the board prepared a programme of capital works in May, 1952, costing £2,500,000, which have already been largely carried out. Included in this programme were a number of diesel railcars which since their introduction have proved their worth both in their contribution towards the financial improvement of the board and in their appeal to the travelling public.

In 1953, the former Government approved of a ten-year dieselisation and reorganisation programme drawn up by the board, which involved an almost complete change over to diesel traction, the renewal of a considerable proportion of the existing rolling-stock and the improvement of certain stations with a view to a more expeditious and economical handling of merchandise. The cost of this programme was estimated at £10,650,000. At the same time C.I.E. were authorised to proceed with the development of a suitable type of locomotive capable of burning either turf of oil. It was proposed that, when a suitable prototype had been developed, 50 of these locomotives should be constructed by C.I.E. at an estimated cost of £1,000,000.

In addition to these capital programmes, expenditure of the order of about £250,000 per annum will arise on the provision of capital additions required for the normal development of the undertaking.

Under the Transport Act of 1950, the capital borrowing power of C.I.E. is at present limited to £7,000,000. A stock issue of £2,500,000 was made in 1953 to finance the programme of capital works drawn up in May, 1952. A further issue of stock for £4,500,000 to finance part of the dieselisation and reorganisation programme was made in April, 1955, thus exhausting the board's existing borrowing power. To enable the board to finance their capital development over the next three or four years it is proposed to increase their capital borrowing powers from £7,000,000 to £12,000,000, and provision is made to this effect in Section 2 of the Bill.

As Senators are aware, the financial position of C.I.E. has already shown a considerable improvement due largely to the introduction of diesel rail cars to the system. The board expect, as a result of the more complete change to diesel traction and the general reorganisation programme, to be in a position within a few years to meet all revenue charges other than interest on transport stock. They hope to reach a position of complete solvency within a few further years.

In view of the improvement expected in the board's finances, the payment of subsidy by the State, which had come to be regarded by many as an inevitable feature of our public transport system, has now been discontinued and it is proposed that any losses which the board might incur within the next few years should be met by short-term borrowing which may be guaranteed as necessary by the Minister for Finance.

The existing statutory limit on temporary borrowing by the board is £1,000,000 and the amount which may be guaranteed by the Minister for Finance is limited to £500,000. Section 2 of the Bill provides that the board may borrow up to a maximum of £1,500,000 on a short-term basis and Section 3 provides that the Minister for Finance may guarantee such borrowing up to a limit of £1,000,000.

The prospect of a modern, efficient and self-supporting transport undertaking will be welcomed by all sections of the community. It will be particularly welcomed by the railway employees. Their position in the tottering organisation of C.I.E. in the past has not been an enviable one. Over a number of years the collapse of the railway system had been averted only by the substantial contributions of the taxpayers. The recurring deficits of the concern could only have meant for the railway worker growing insecurity and instability of employment. The reorganisation of the system should in time bring about that secure and stable employment which can only be provided by a self-supporting concern.

The main economy to be secured from diesel traction is in fuel costs, but there is also some reduction in staff requirements. The Minister has had discussions with representatives of both sides of the industry in this matter and he has made it clear that the redundancy involved should be kept to a minimum and that the problem should be approached with the utmost humanity. He has been assured by the board that everything possible will be done to minimise the problem and to provide redundant workers with alternative employment. The board expects that a number of the redundant employees will be absorbed on the construction of the turf/oil locomotives and on the carriage and wagon programme which are part of the reorganisation scheme. I have every hope that between new work and normal wastage most of the redundant men can be absorbed.

If, however, cases arise in which the board are unable to provide alternative employment provision is made in Section 4 of the Bill for the payment of compensation for loss of employment to the employee concerned. Provision is also made in Section 4 for the payment of compensation where an employee suffers a worsening of his conditions on transfer from one position to another on grounds of redundancy. Compensation is, however, confined to permanent employees and employees with three years' continuous service with the board as is the case under the Transport Act, 1950.

On 30th November, 1949, the Dáil authorised the payment to C.I.E. (1945) of a repayable advance for capital expenditure amounting to £2,462,369. In view of the financial difficulties which the present board have been obliged to meet since their establishment in 1950, there has been no repayment of principal or payment of interest on this advance. While the efforts of the board have resulted in a substantial improvement in the financial position of the undertaking, there seems to be little prospect that they will be in a position to discharge this liability in the foreseeable future. The Government have decided that in order to assist the board in their efforts to achieve solvency they should now be relieved of this burden of debt. Section 5 of the Bill provides that the advance in question should now be treated as a non-repayable grant.

The provisions of Sections 6 to 8 of the Bill are of minor importance. They are designed to remove some legal difficulties and anomalies which have emerged in the course of the operation of the existing legislation governing the abandonment of railway lines on which all services have been terminated. I do not propose to deal with them in detail now, but if there are any matters which Senators may wish to raise in regard to these sections they can be discussed on the Committee Stage of the Bill.

In recommending this Bill to the House, I am sure that every Senator will wish to facilitate the recovery now being made by our national transport system. As I have said, the primary function of the Bill is to enable C.I.E. to proceed with their capital programme which, I am confident, will lead to an efficient self-supporting public transport system so vital to our agricultural, industrial, commercial and tourist needs.

In his opening remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that the principal reason for this Bill was that it was essential to spend a considerable sum of money to enable C.I.E. to give efficient services and that that was necessitated, in the main, by the lack of expenditure in the years 1939 to 1947. It is only fair that, when we are discussing a Bill of this kind, and particularly when the Parliamentary Secretary thought fit to refer to this particular purpose, we should have regard and appreciation for the fact that the services were maintained at all during the emergency years from 1939 to 1947 and that during that period the programme that is now being put into operation was drawn up.

The late board—which was removed by a Bill passed through this House, and a new board established—had recommended to the then Minister— and the then Minister had approved— going over from steam, from turf or coal burning locomotives to diesel. One of the first acts of the first Coalition Government was to issue an ultimatum to the board not to proceed on those lines. The reasons given then were that the financial position would not warrant it. The board's case at the time was that in order to give efficient services, in order to attract the people back to the rails, it was essential that sums of money be expended. The previous Government had felt that it was their duty to maintain the rail system and to make provision for finding the moneys that would be necessary. I would not have referred to this particular period were it not for the opening statement of the Parliamentary Secretary in introducing this Bill.

The Bill is a very simple one, as has been pointed out to us. It provides that C.I.E. borrowing powers be extended from £7,000,000 to £12,000,000 and the State naturally enough acts as guarantor for those moneys. Not having the technical knowledge or the advice the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary has, we are not, therefore, in a position to give any verdict on whether the amount should be greater or less. I think we all agree it is essential, if the railways are to be maintained, that they must be put in a position to give an efficient service and the purpose of the Bill is to authorise C.I.E. to raise this money.

I should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I am sure that Senator Hickey would also like to hear, what will be the rate of interest on this money. Over a long number of years now, we have been listening to this matter of the high rate of interest. In recent weeks, the E.S.B., the Cork Corporation and the Dublin Corporation have borrowed money at the exorbitant rate of 5 per cent. and a rate of even 6 per cent. and 6½ per cent. was demanded. We have had to pay for the subsidisation of tea over the past 12 months. We have had all this high interest, in spite of the fact that we were promised cheap money. As a matter of fact, I felt at one time that Senator Hickey must have converted not only the members of his own Party but all the Parties forming the Government to this idea of cheap money.

I did not even convert the Senator's Party.

It would be no harm at this stage if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some idea as to how the moneys will be borrowed; whether they will be borrowed on short or long term; and the rate of interest we may be called upon to pay.

The next matter I should like to refer to is the provision of £1,000,000 to build 50 locomotives capable of burning turf or oil. I am not satisfied that the people responsible in C.I.E. are enthusiastic about this proposal, because, if they were, much greater progress should have been made since this authorisation was first given. As has already been stated in the House, it is a form of insurance to ensure that, in the event of another emergency, we would be in a position to run our trains with turf burning locomotives. If that position should not arise, they are to build in such a way that they can normally use oil. Apart from the insurance value, my interest in the question would be the amount of employment this work would give. If I understand it correctly, the transfer to the diesel system will result in a very serious position for a number of our workers here. I feel that if the people responsible for this particular work in C.I.E. were a little more enthusiastic about this, much greater progress would have been made.

With regard to the provision of the £12,000,000, the Parliamentary Secretary has already given us an outline of what the expenditure is to be on. I should particularly like, through the Parliamentary Secretary, to draw the attention of the Board of C.I.E. to a situation which has continued all down the years. As a matter of fact, it would be a miracle if one could influence the people who have been responsible for the direction of rail services in this country, particularly in connection with the treatment meted out to the West of Ireland down through the years.

It has been the policy to pick up whatever scrap there may be in the form of wagons, carriages and engines and just throw them to the people of the West of Ireland, saying these are good enough for the people there. We spend a lot of money on the tourist business and the West of Ireland is one of the greatest attractions, from the tourist point of view. The people responsible in C.I.E. should be encouraged from what we say in this House to change their approach to the people in the West of Ireland and to ensure that the West will get its fair share of whatever new carriages and other amenities are to be made available in order to provide a better service. I am not asking that special consideration be given to the West, but only that they get their fair share. We should not search all the scrap-heaps up and down the country and throw their contents into the West of Ireland.

The same remarks apply to the bus service and the transport service. The idea seems to be that anything at all is good enough for the West of Ireland and I think that attitude should be changed. Here again economy was put forward as the reason. We were told that it was going to give more efficiency. That has not proved to be the case. The double line from Galway to Dublin was taken up some years ago and a promise was made that that line would be relaid. You cannot have an efficient service from here to the West of Ireland while you have only a single line to operate on. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there would be any chance that some of the moneys we are providing now would be spent upon laying down this line.

Is it all single line?

Not all the way. The other important aspect of this question is that the transfer from steam to deisel is going to result in a very large number of employees of C.I.E. being rendered redundant. Of course, the Parliamentary Secretary naturally enough passes over this matter very briefly by referring to the fact that compensation will be paid in accordance with the Schedule of the 1950 Act. It seems to suggest that he feels the numbers will be rather small and that alternative employment will be found.

That statement does not seem to be exactly in accordance with what the Board of C.I.E. have estimated. I think they estimate that about 40 per cent. of the employees in the operational service of C.I.E. will be redundant and about 20 per cent. in their workshops. As regards this matter of redundant employees, we are dealing with human beings, people who, over a period of three years in their employment, may have settled down. It will be a rather difficult problem to find alternative employment for them. But what is more difficult still, you have so many different sections of the trade union organisations catering for these people. We should induce the Board of C.I.E. to approach this question in a very humane way and not just take up the attitude that Parliament has embodied Section 3 in the Bill and that if they cannot offer alternative employment, they will give compensation in accordance with the provisions made in this particular Bill.

There are many approaches that could be made to them. I expect that the representatives of the trade union organisation in this House will deal more fully with the matter than I wish to do at the moment. I am merely drawing the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the problem in an endeavour to strengthen his hand in the approach to both the trade union organisations and the employers in this case. The offering of compensation to many of those people will be of very little use, because the sum will be so small. I would suggest that one of the approaches could be that those people who are near the retiring age could be induced to retire by stepping up the years and giving them the pensions they would be entitled to.

Such a step would be to the benefit of the younger people who have come in and who have greater responsibilities probably than those people who have spent a number of years in their employment. In that way, we might be able to solve some small portion of this problem. I feel, from past experience of organisations like C.I.E., that, once we pass this Bill and in spite of all the assurances the Parliamentary Secretary may give us, the attitude of C.I.E. will be that they cannot find alternative employment. You will have them putting the case that they are fulfilling their obligations under an Act passed in Parliament by giving the workmen what they are entitled to under the particular section.

You could offer employment to people that would be such that they could not reasonably accept that offer. Take the case of people, with their wives and families, who are employed in Dublin. They could be offered employment in some remote part of the country, probably in Cork or Galway, and the remuneration they would receive from C.I.E. would not be sufficient to maintain themselves and their families. I think we should impress on the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him the Board of C.I.E., that they must approach this question from a humane point of view.

Of course, the whole responsibility does not rest with the Board of C.I.E. The various branches of the trade union organisations catering for these particular people will also have to play their part in a very humane way and deal with every case on its merits, as it arises, rather than lay down a hard and fast set of rules by which one employee, because he belonged to one particular section of the organisation, cannot be transferred to another section.

I should also like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us some assurance in regard to the statements we have read in the paper in the last few days in connection with the Sligo/Leitrim railway and the proposal to continue that service for six months. The Parliamentary Secretary should give us some assurance that every avenue will be explored to ensure that this very essential service —and every rail service in any part of the country is essential, but in this particular part of the country, it is more essential than in any other part —will be kept open, not for six months, but permanently, and that everything the Government can do will be done to ensure that that will be the position.

There are two factors in this Bill which are very excellent and desirable in themselves. First, when its enactment is completed, it will remove a very important aspect of our activity from what I regard as the insidious and dangerous zone of State subsidy. The second thing is the limit now set on the borrowing. Though it may seem an enormous sum to the individual, it is a sum which will mean that an appeal will have to be made to the Oireachtas in the course of a few years' time. That has to me at least the great advantage that it means that the railway situation will be brought before us and we will be given an opportunity of discussing it. As far as I see it, we will be given an opportunity to discuss this rail transport problem at intervals. That is a very important thing indeed.

I was rather sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary did not say a little more about the railway problem in general, so that we could see it against its wider background and know exactly what shape the policy is taking. For example, we have the railway competing against the steadily increasing danger of road transport and air transport, and sooner or later. some conditions of mutual survival will presumably have to be agreed upon.

Another thing is this question of the means of locomotion. The introduction of the diesel transmission system has justified itself, but a very interesting feature of the proposal before us is the expenditure of quite a large sum of money on these experimental turf-oil locomotives. I would like to know something more about that. It is proposed, I believe, to construct 50 of them. Is it the intention of the company to have the 50 running on oil fuel more or less continuously and then, if an emergency should arise, to switch over to turf; or are these oil-turf "yokes"—if I may be permitted to call this apparatus by its common name—simply to be kept experimental, and is the Minister satisfied that they are going to fulfil their function?

It is extremely hard to imagine any type of machine that can deal with a very portable liquid fuel such as oil and, at the same time, be capable of being transformed into a machine that would be adapted to a very bulky fuel of much lower heating value, namely, turf. I should be most interested indeed to see one of these combination locomotives, and I hope the Seanad will be given an opportunity to have a trip on one. We ought to hear a bit more about them.

If we are going to concentrate on the diesel traction, electric hydraulic and diesel power traction, we would like to know something about the stores of oil in the country. We ought to have proper and really good oil reserves. I would like an idea of how long the country could run on our oil stores, should, for some reason, the oil tap be turned off. We are running a risk in fixing ourselves so firmly to a particular type of imported fuel for which we cannot find a ready substitute. Adequate reserves of oil are a most important consideration in connection with that transport programme. The oil should be stored, not in large containers in ports, where it could be bombed and destroyed by fire, but in properly selected sites, through safe parts of the country. The question of oil is a very important one indeed and this Transport Bill gives one the opportunity of mentioning it.

Senator Hawkins warmed my heart by a couple of his references. He referred to some of the old coaches that served the western part of our country. I have seen some of those pathetically old locomotives and coaches dying on the road like a tinker's horse. I think it is a very sad sight from every point of view. Some of the resources of C.I.E. should be expended in trying to preserve the appearance of some of them. They look like the last relics of old decency which, when it was flourishing, was a very decent decency indeed.

As regards the new coaches they build, they are extremely comfortable and very well sprung, but I wonder if the Minister is satisfied as to their durability. They are very much lighter than the old coaches. That gives them a much greater acceleration power, but will they stand up to the knocking of the years? Will the repair bill be rather steep?

Another matter to which Senator Hawkins referred was the redundancy which will arise partly because the new diesel traction will require a different type of driver and partly because the machinery will be imported and not assembled in this country. Surely it should not be beyond our resources, and those of C.I.E., to have technicians trained here to carry out this work. Some years ago, discussing technical and scientific education in this Chamber, I expressed the hope that some time C.I.E., with its long established and inherited traditions, would divert some of its power, its actual money and its opportunities for employment, to helping to train technical students and such people for this particular work.

These are the only things I wish to say. I think the removal of the transport system from State subsidy is excellent, and that the opportunity of having a periodical review of the entire rail-road problem of the Republic and beyond it is another excellent thing. When that opportunity for review arises again, I hope that we will take better advantage of it.

This Bill provides, among other things, for a lifting of the limit of the borrowing powers of the board. That is to provide for the re-equipment of the railway system. I think that from all sides of the House we would welcome such progress and the guarantee it gives that here, in this part of the country, at any rate, the railway system is not going to be abandoned, but rather expanded. Good work has already been done by C.I.E. in improving its passenger working by way of introduction of the new diesel rail cars. What is perhaps needed, I understand, under its new capital expansion programme is, as well as building coaches and diesel electric and diesel hydraulic engines, the building of extra wagons and the improvement of goods store working. By that, it is hoped to reduce the operating costs in running goods trains and shifting goods and, at the same time, I hope, to get more traffic to the merchandise section of the railway. Whilst we welcome the improvement in the passenger working, I am sure we all appreciate that that comprises only a small section of the railway undertaking as a whole and has a rather small effect on the financial working. The most important factor is the goods working and I am glad to see that it is proposed to improve that.

I hope the building of the extra wagons and improvement of goods store facilities will be completed quickly, because I would like to think that, with this cut in operating costs, there will be an effort to induce more traffic to the railways. That can best be done by quickening the goods service by way of vacuum brake wagons rather than the present system of goods leaving Dublin and, maybe, getting to Cork 24 or 48 hours later. There is a definite need for a quickening of the goods service, and I hope that that will be put in hand pretty quickly.

In regard to inducing more traffic to the railways, the Minister, I am sure, will have regard to the important influence that the traffic of State and semi-State undertakings can have on the C.I.E. finances. Reference was made to that in a report by the trade unions on the working of C.I.E. some years ago. I am sure that the Minister does not think that it is a bit of a contradiction that we should be promoting the expansion of C.I.E., in the hope that it will remove any need for future subsidies, while other semi-State undertakings should be putting C.I.E. back into semi-bankruptcy, by not availing of public transport facilities. I appreciate that it is not always convenient for those other semi-State undertakings to avail of public transport, but there have been some glaring examples of the complete lack of understanding by those semi-State undertakings of the need of supporting public transport.

I remember that, some years ago, C.I.E. engaged on a rather expensive undertaking of converting certain wagons to facilitate the E.S.B. in their programme of rural electrification. The E.S.B. said that they wanted a certain number of wagons to take poles throughout the country. Those wagons were converted, at a great expense, I should imagine, and, as soon as they were converted, the E.S.B. promptly bought their own lorries to take those poles around the country and left the wagons sitting there. That seems to me to have been an extraordinary happening, and it is, to my mind, indicative to some extent of the attitude of other semi-State undertakings to the nationally owned public undertaking here.

As well as the help to C.I.E. finances which can be provided by the provision of more adequate and more welcome facilities, I do think that the employees as such can contribute something. I suggest to the Minister that they are willing and anxious to contribute. We all know the pride that a railway man has in his job, whether he worked for the G.S. and W.R., the D.S.E.R., the M.G.W.R., or works now for C.I.E. There is, and has been all the time, a definite pride in the job and in the company, or the nationalised board, as it is now. I notice, too, that the Minister in some recent speeches has been recommending to employers generally the need and desirability of an exchange of views between management and staff or unions representing the staff; in other words, what we generally know as consultation. Certain boards of management, and C.I.E., I suspect, to some extent, regard consultation as another form of dictation. Of course, this is a rather deliberate twisting of the whole thing. If consultation is mentioned, the attitude is that what you are requiring is not consultation, but simply the right to dictate to the management how they should do their job of managing the concern. The Minister, I know, has a more enlightened view in regard to consultation, and when he speaks to employers generally about the need for the development of industrial democracy, I wish he would also direct his remarks to undertakings such as C.I.E. and, indeed, the G.N.R.

I say this because I find that, in the employees of public transport at the moment, there is a belief that the undertaking is within sight of standing on its own feet. There is a pride in the development which has taken place in the past few years and they want to be regarded—and I think they have a right to be regarded—as something more than merely hired hands. They want to contribute of their experience and understanding and goodwill. Of course, they expect in return to get back increased satisfaction in the performance of their work and greater pride in the public transport service, and—more important than all—in-increased self-respect. I will not labour that point any further but, as the Minister has mentioned the need for consultation, the desirability of it, when speaking to employers generally, I am sure he will not take it amiss that I should ask him to address similar remarks to semi-State undertakings, and particularly to C.I.E.

The effect of the change-over from steam to diesel traction on Inchicore and the other workshops of C.I.E. is going to be rather serious, unless very determined efforts are made to provide other work there. The position formerly, as the House knows, was that most of those steam engines were built, from the wheels up, at Inchicore. It is not possible, I believe, to construct the new diesel electric engines in the same way. Inchicore has been kept going for a long time by the need for recurring and persistent repairs on the steam locomotives. There will be a saving not alone in fuel costs by those new diesels, but also in regard to repairs for a long number of years. Consequently, it can be readily seen that there will be less work available in the workshops, arising out of locomotives. I notice that in the debate in the Dáil mention was made of this, and I think the Minister did point out to C.I.E. the need for trying to get other work, particularly from other semi-State undertakings. The Minister may recall that this is a subject which has concerned the T.U.C. for some years. They always felt it rather odd that although there is a heavy industry owned by the public transport undertaking in the Republic, other semi—State undertakings should get their work done in Britain, or else trying to set up inadequate workshops of their own. The Minister should persist in his efforts to get C.I.E. to secure this work for itself

Mention was also made of the expansion of the British Transport Commission at the present time and their need for facilities to carry out quickly their capital programme. Here might be an opportunity for C.I.E. to get some of this work under contract and thereby have it done here at Inchicore. Certainly it would seem a reversal of the whole former situation, if Inchicore could be, to some extent, building railway equipment for Britain. I mention this because I have for some time suspected, as have other trade union people, that the board of C.I.E. regard Inchicore as a bit of a headache and would thank God if the whole thing was gone from there altogether. That may be all right from their point of view, but Inchicore and the workshops and facilities there are important to the nation. The continued employment of the workers there is a matter of vital importance.

Another effect of the change—over to diesel traction is the redundancy which will be created. This redundancy arises primarily from the fact that the old steam locomotives carried a driver and fireman, as well as a whole host of people engaged on fire dropping and work in the loco sheds. These people will no longer be required, with the introduction of the diesel locomotives, which will require only a driver and will not call for the present large staffs at the depots. All that gives rise to redundancy. Some of those rendered redundant will be absorbed to some extent, but they in turn must cause redundancy in other sections. Some people have made the point that difficulties would be created by trade unions because of their disagreement with the absorption of these redundant workers in other parts of the C.I.E. undertaking. That is not, however, the whole picture. As I have stated, many of the workers being absorbed will, in their turn, be displacing other workers and making them redundant in turn.

C.I.E. has, I think, foreseen this problem of redundancy for some time past and has been employing an unusually large number of people on a temporary basis, declining to appoint them on a permanent basis until the change-over came along. Those people would, as a consequence, be made redundant at the bottom of the scale. I cannot really see any cure for this situation, unless there is an increase in the traffic and a considerable expansion in the traffic. It was all right to say that the people rendered redundant would be absorbed elsewhere, but there are hundreds of workers in C.I.E. who, in the past few years, have been employed on a temporary basis, pending this change-over to diesel traction, and they will all be paid off. In those circumstances, it appears obvious that these people could only be absorbed if there was a rapid expansion in the traffic available to C.I.E.

Whatever might be said about the desire and the need for a humane approach by the management and the trade unions, nobody can suggest that there will not be redundancy amongst the people at the bottom of the scale, unless there is a very big expansion of the work done by C.I.E.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the improvement in the finances of C.I.E., arising out of the introduction of the diesel rail cars. I wonder could he be more exact, because we have no information as to what the financial position of C.I.E. is. We are discussing this Bill in a bit of a vacuum, because Senators will know that the last annual report we have had was for the year ended March 31st, 1954. In other words, the last information we have about the finances of C.I.E. is 20 months old. We have not yet got the accounts for the year ended March, 1955. Perhaps the Minister would tell us if we can expect the annual report this year or early next year. It certainly seems to me to be scandalous that our public transport system cannot give this statement of its accounts within a period of eight months after the close of the financial year. Are we going to get the accounts for the previous year on the eve of Christmas when we might not be disposed to examine them as critically as we might otherwise do? I suggest to the Minister that the British Transport Commission, which is a much larger concern, can give its accounts in a much shorter period, and surely then C.I.E. could publish its report much earlier than it has been doing. The same thing applies, so far as the G.N.R. is concerned.

That is all I wish to say on the Bill, but I would ask the Minister to give us some information about the finances of the company and the improved financial results which can be expected from the introduction of diesel cars.

In his opening remarks, the Parliamentary Secretary described Sections 6 to 9 of this Bill as being of minor importance. I suppose, in regard to the larger picture of the whole organisation of C.I.E., that is so, but I wonder whether Section 6, which refers to the abandonment of certain transport lines, might not ring the death knell of a line of transport well known and looked upon by many Dublin citizens with great regard. I refer to the Hill of Howth tramways. To my mind, and to that of many others, I believe it would be very regrettable if this last relic of the Dublin tramway system was to be destroyed. It will, I am afraid, be judged by C.I.E. entirely as a matter of transport, pure and simple; but I would urge that it is not a matter of transport pure and simple. I think that C.I.E. should consider the tourist value of that tramway line. Its scenic attractions are well known to anyone who has been in that part of the country. It would seem to me to be very regrettable if such a fine tourist attraction were to be obliterated, simply in the interests of transport. Its importance is not so much for the few dwellers on the Hill of Howth, who could get other means of transport, but as a valuable tourist attraction and that should be considered before any steps are taken under this section to deal with the trams on the Hill of Howth.

What I should like to say in general is that although C.I.E. is primarily interested in transport, it must be remembered the company is the servant of the Irish public, and they should not take too narrow a view of their duties to the public.

Take another example. When branch lines are closed, the local railway stations are closed as well. I wonder if members of the House have given consideration to the value of these local railway stations, their social value, to the communities in which they serve. I think that is something which ought not to be neglected. I think it is a very severe loss to any local community when the local railway and the station are closed down.

I have in mind my own town of Dalkey where there is a remarkably fine railway station. If it was closed down and the stationmaster and staff were removed elsewhere, it would be a very distinct loss to the local community from the social point of view. Further, some of these stations are exceptionally well built and architecturally well designed, and some of them are spacious buildings. I wonder has C.I.E. considered these premises from the point of view of how they should be used. In the stations of Dalkey and Dundrum, County Tipperary, there are large waiting-rooms which are hardly used at all by the people. They are well built and have plenty of room for shops or something of that kind, but instead they simply lie idle.

I want to urge in connection with premises and branch lines that their function is not purely and simply a matter of transport. The welfare of the community is also involved, and the matter should be looked on in the terms of the social value of these centres. I should like the Minister to say whether any consideration has been given to that matter. I know that, in the larger picture, the Minister will be concerned primarily in terms of employment and transport; but there is something more. I think that the disciplined communities of stationmasters and the other servants which C.I.E. employs in these branch stations, set an example to the local community and are an important part in the social life of that community.

This Bill is to be welcomed, in so far as it indicates a definite viewpoint in regard to the finances of public transport. I do say, however, that I think that valuable time has been lost, and as a result public money has been lost, by not adopting and prosecuting this idea of the re-equipment of C.I.E. at an earlier date. It is tragic that the idea of re-equipping C.I.E. in this way some years ago by the old board did not meet with agreement. If it had met with that measure of agreement from public men, and if we had then the agreement that we have now in this matter, that time would not have been lost and the re-equipment of C.I.E. on modern lines would have been so well under way at this stage that we probably now would be looking for greater borrowing power for the Board of C.I.E. If the re-equipment had been started then, the loss by way of subsidisation would not have had to be met by the taxpayers.

Transport is a matter which has very many aspects, but it is not something which should be dealt with purely from the economic aspect. If transport in this country is to be judged purely by the economic aspects at different stages, it might result in the closing down of many lines from time to time until we got back where we started, where there would be only one line running from Dublin to Dalkey, and I am sure Senator Stanford would not like to see that happen. The transport system has a social responsibility to the public in the giving of service and there is also the question of its social responsibilities to the people employed. I would like to feel satisfied that the Board of C.I.E. have regard to that responsibility. I would like to feel further, that being so, that they can envisage the maintenance of their services. Certain units and certain services that might be judged on a purely economic basis to be uneconomic in themselves might not be uneconomic, if one looked on them as part of the whole network playing their part in the whole organisation. It could be that a section which might be considered uneconomic at the present time might, with development, prove to be economic.

There is a tendency on the part of C.I.E. to centralise. We have a motion before this House dealing with decentralisation. If the idea of decentralisation has any value, surely one would expect that an organisation like C.I.E. should be the people to start decentralisation. It was Senator Fearon, I think, who mentioned the necessity, as a precautionary measure, of having some decentralisation of oil supplies because we are now switching to diesel and the need for storing our supplies over the country in order to conserve them in the event of war. The primary purpose of this Bill as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary is to provide capital for the re-equipment of C.I.E. I do not think there will be many people in this House who will object to this and I, at any rate, do not. My only regret is that valuable time has been lost in that regard.

There is provision for redundancy. It appears that redundancy will arise from the re-equipment and the development of more economical and more modern types of traction. I am with the members of the House who hope that there will be as little redundancy as possible and as little hardship caused. If the redundancy were to be serious, it would give rise to serious difficulty and hardship for the people employed and their families. None of us would like to see that happen. C.I.E. being amongst the biggest employers in the country has its responsibilities, its social responsibilities.

There are other centres where there are railway works, apart from Inchicore. Dundalk, I agree, is operated by the G.N.R., but the effect of transport on a centre of population like Limerick should be considered. You have other small workshops throughout the country. You have one in Ballinamore and you have one in Manorhamilton which deals with the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway. That is a different matter, and I may refer to it later. An effort should be made by decentralisation to ensure that those workshops are maintained and that the skilled men there have not to seek alternative employment. It is a pity that we should lose the value of men who have developed skill and technical knowledge by having to switch them to other work, because that skill is then lost.

It has been suggested that Inchicore could mean a problem and that it has been a headache to the Board of C.I.E. There is a tendency now for some of our State organisations to provide their own machine shops. Because we are dieselising our transport and because we are all agreed, apparently, that the volume of work will not accrue in Inchicore, it may be possible to find a solution whereby the Inchicore undertaking could be taken over and managed by an independent board comprised of Bord na Móna and the E.S.B. That joint management, and the amount of work that would accrue under it, might result in maintaining Inchicore as an economic concern. At any rate, there would not be the redundancy which the previous speaker feared.

In the process of dieselisation, as much as possible of the construction work should be done in this country. It may be stated by the board that it would not be possible to build the coaches or do the coachwork here. I wonder has it been tried? One cannot say one cannot do a thing without having tried and failed. Surely it would be within the capacity of the board to have some of the staff trained, even abroad, so as to equip them with the technical knowledge and skill to do as much of the maintenance and repair work here as possible. The demand for repairs may not be very great for a number of years, since they are embarking on completely new equipment; but it will arise later. It is only reasonable that the board should be asked by the Minister to take steps to ensure that the work will be done in this country. If we proceed on that line, Inchicore might not be a headache at all to the board. If it is going to be a headache, the only solution I can suggest is that of getting some major undertakings to join in its management. Even if it had to be decentralised and transferred, lock, and barrel, to Portarlington or Portlaoighise, there would not be any harm in that. It has been known on the Continent for complete factories, with their moulds and jigs and everything else, to be brought from one country to another—though, unfortunately, that was as a result of war. It would not be impossible, I argue, to decentralise a works like Inchicore.

There is a disquieting feature in this Bill. While the Parliamentary Secretary indicates that the real purpose of the measure is to ensure that the board is in a position to borrow greater sums to do work we all agree with, there is the snag that they are making better provision for the abandonment of railways. I feel sure that the Minister and the board have set their faces as far as possible against the abandonment of railways. A public transport undertaking has a social responsibility apart from the pure economics of employment and of giving service. We all know—and it is a matter of annoyance and concern to the Minister—about the proposed closing of the Sligo-Leitrim Railway. I am sure the Chair will permit me to make a short reference to it.

Might I explain that this Bill deals only with the affairs and finances of C.I.E.: it does not deal with the affairs and finances of the G.N.R., which is State owned. The Sligo-Leitrim Railway is privately owned and does not come within the scope of the Bill.

I do not think the Minister raised a point of order.

As it does not arise on the Bill, I probably will be prevented by the Chair from replying to it.

The Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach are fairly tolerant.

With you, I agree.

The Senator wishes to ask some question of the Minister relating to the Sligo-Leitrim Railway?

I was going to draw a parallel. We would like some indication that the Minister and the board have set their faces against the closing down of railways, no matter where they are in the country. If that is accepted, once you put it in the latter sections of a Bill like this——

There is nothing in this Bill about the abandonment of railways.

There is better provision for the board to avoid their responsibility.

Section 6.

That deals with what happens where a railway has been abandoned.

Is that not abandonment?

The intention is to make a better job of it.

It has no such purpose and you cannot even insinuate it into the Bill.

Perhaps it is due to my suspicion and my fear of what is happening in another quarter. I realise that the Minister is not just trying to prevent me in putting across——

I have no such occult intention.

I am aware of the very serious position that exists and of the vital necessity to maintain a railway in the area I have mentioned. The impact of its proposed closing on the community I know best and that I have some responsibility to safeguard, as far as I can, makes me use any and every opportunity to give my opinion. I say, first of all, that the Sligo-Leitrim railway should not be closed down. I feel that the Minister is with me in that. Secondly, I feel that we should set our faces against closing down railways. Once you close down an undertaking, it is much harder to restart it. I know that the position is difficult, but I still hope that, by having a united opinion on issues like that, we may ensure that the railways will be kept going—and that applies also to the Sligo-Leitrim Railway.

Senator Fearon referred to the experiments carried on by C.I.E. in the production of steam from turf and suggested that the heat-producing qualities of turf were inferior to those of oil. I am familiar with a number of industries in this country which are now using turf in the production of steam through "Mona-jet" which has been designed by Bord na Móna. They find that it is much more economical to use "Mona-jet" than oil. I am glad that C.I.E. is still experimenting and I am hopeful that the results of their experiments will eventually enable this country to be largely self-dependent as regards transport on the railways.

Senator Murphy mentioned the Inchicore works and suggested that Inchicore was important to the nation. So, I suggest, are the border counties of Monaghan and Cavan, Sligo and Leitrim, as regards transport in those counties. It is unfortunate that those areas which are served by a different line were not modernised and developed in the enlightened way in which the C.I.E. system has been developed for some time past. I feel that counties which are deprived of a rail service will suffer very severely economically. The agricultural industry there will not have a railway system to transport live stock, and live stock cannot be transported as cheaply by road. The distribution of industries in rural Ireland will be affected, since you cannot attract them to areas where there is no rail system. The transport of heavy merchandise is much more expensive by road.

The substitution of the railway permanent way by a road will eventually mean that the ratepayers in those counties will have to contribute more towards the maintenance of their roads. In that way, an injustice will be created in those counties. The infinitesimal loss that has been suffered by one railway, as against the much greater loss in a bigger concern, would justify, in my opinion, a smaller railway being carried on, because the loss per mile from working is so much less. I feel that those areas should have the same chance of showing what they can do as a result of the development of diesel traction in that part of the country. By the modernisation of the railway system solvency would be reached, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, but it required a considerable amount of enterprise and courage to develop the C.I.E. system as it is being developed now. It is very fortunate for the State that that enlightened programme was entered into at a time when many cynics suggested that railways were gone forever. I feel, therefore, that the Minister should consider favourably a further Bill to provide funds for the improvement and development of the systems which are not now under C.I.E.

There has been much consideration of the redundant staffs on the railways and it is dealt with in a specific section in the Bill. I am hoping that this clause will not be used as often as has been suggested this afternoon. The process of diesel traction on our railways has gone on for the last seven or eight years and it will take probably the rest of the decade before it is completed. I believe that the board—who are doing such good work—will have covered this question of redundancy in large measure and that it will prove more easy to grapple with that problem when it does arise than has been suggested here this afternoon.

Senator O'Reilly took the board and, through the board, the Minister and previous Ministers to task for looking at the railway company as a facet of our economic life. I believe that we can look at the railway company in no other way. This is in large measure a free economy and certainly, if the railway company is State-sponsored, most of its customers are free agents. They will be attracted to the railway company only by the economic aspect. If the railway company can transport goods and provide the necessary travel facilities on a par with the amenities provided by other methods people will use the railway company. If they have to pay more and if the services provided are not good and efficient, then the people will not use them.

It is a pity to over-stress the social aspect of the railway company. The railway company has to pay and it will have to give good service. I think it would be a pity were we to keep redundant lines that never pay and which were subject to baronial guarantee and all sorts of devices to keep them in operation. We should not saddle a new railway board with a number of these railway lines, some of which, I believe, originally came into operation as a result of sustained agitation by certain local groups and were not a success economically. They had to be subject to baronial guarantee. It is not fair to hang such millstones around the necks of the new board and start them off with disadvantages.

As a State-sponsored body, they are doing wonderful work. The British Transport Commission was mentioned. Although this is, a small country—we have not the vast resources they have in Britain—we are doing ten times as good a job as they are doing in Britain. The trains run to time. They are clean and the rolling-stock is modern. In the past five years, I have rarely seen trains running to time or trains which were really a credit to the British Commission. I should hate either in this Bill or any other Bill dealing with this matter to give the new railway board any of the disadvantages suggested to-night.

Senator O'Reilly suggested that we should look at the social aspect of this question, rather than the economic aspect, but he forgets that advantages will flow to the people who are employed by the railway company in secure and well paid positions. That, in my opinion, is the best social advantage, particularly in a State which is a private enterprise country like ours. If there was a planned State economy, we might look at it in some other way, but we cannot so look at it having regard to our type of economy. We cannot, as Senator O'Reilly suggests, use the railway company as a social beneficiary.

Does the Senator suggest that the railway company has no social responsibility?

Wait until it comes to closing the Clonmel branch.

We will keep it open.

In connection with Section 8, I should like the Minister to elucidate the position. Is the sale of lands on abandoned lines confined exclusively to the owners of the adjoining lands? If neither one nor the other of the owners of the adjoining lands agrees with C.I.E. in regard to the purchase of land, would the land be sold to some other person? I think that would be highly undesirable, because, as we know, those old lines intersect bogs and if they were to be sold to some other person, it would create a problem which would be a source of annoyance. I should like to ask the Minister if he would ensure that could not happen. It may be that the Land Commission have taken steps to prevent such things happening. If they did happen, it would be most undesirable.

Quite a number of points have been raised in the course of the debate and I will do my best to cover all, or most of them, in my reply. Senator Hawkins and, I think, some other Senator criticised the rolling stock at present in use by C.I.E. and particularly the rolling stock which served the West of Ireland.

It is because the company's rolling stock was deficient, that its carriages were out of date, many of them being in a decrepit condition, that it had not built a single locomotive since 1931, that it became necessary to introduce the reorganisation scheme which is now in operation. I might mention to the House that the reorganisation programme provides for the expenditure of £5.3 million on diesel locomotives; £5,500,000 on the renewal of carriages and wagons; £350,000 on improvement of stations and approximately £1,000,000 for the provision of turf and oil locomotives, making a grand total of £12,150,000. I do not think even that will see the end of the reorganisation programme and I will probably have to come to the House again to ask for more money to finance the programme of modernising and re-equipping C.I.E. The only hope of making the company financially solvent is by re-equipping the line and reorganising the system. The only hope we have of getting away from a deficit mentality with C.I.E. is by giving the company the necessary funds to reequip and modernise the lines to bring back the traffic it has lost.

One of the features of C.I.E. activities in recent years has been that, because of its modern approach to problems, because of its 20th century approach to transport, it is now beginning to rehabilitate itself in the public mind. Some of the services which C.I.E. now provides have been the subject of much favourable comment, not merely by our own people who were previously critical, but by visitors to this country as well. Therefore, I hope the moneys which will be made available to C.I.E. in this Bill and the further moneys which may be made available when the present reorganisation programme reaches maturity will all help to ensure that C.I.E. will be a modern, well-equipped transport system. In that way, and in that way only, I believe can the company be made solvent.

A suggestion was made by Senator Hawkins about doubling the railway track from Dublin to Galway. If there was an example of transport lunacy, it was the decision to single the line from Dublin to Galway. Now, of course, having taken up the whole track from Dublin to Galway, it is realised to-day that it is desirable to put the track back. If digging holes and filling them in again is a barometer of economic wisdom, this is surely the highlight of all time in transport insanity.

It would cost now approximately £500,000 to double the track for portion of the way. I think, from recollection, that the cost of restoring the track in full would be over £1,000,000. When we tore up the track from Dublin to Galway, it was welcomed as transport wisdom of a high order. Now we have only to reflect on the matter to see how futile and foolish were the minds that conceived as the solution of our railway company's difficulties the taking up of the track on which, if there had been good carriages, wagons and engines, it could have operated properly. That is one of the matters that will have to be considered in connection with the re-equipment and reorganisation of C.I.E. It may well be worth our while to do something in the way of doubling the track at some portions of the line, so as to avoid the inevitable delay which arises where you have got to have in and out working on a single track.

The question of redundancy was raised by a number of Senators. I dealt with this matter at length in the Dáil and I do not think it is necessary to go into detail about the matter now. The fact of the matter is that, as a result of the reorganisation of C.I.E., there will be considerable savings. Operating costs will be cheaper. The carriages and the locomotives which will be provided will not need the persistent and regular care and maintenance which the present out-of-date carriages and locomotives must receive. An inordinate amount of time is being spent in maintaining the present out-of-date coaches. If we are going to have modern disel locomotives, diesel rail cars, with their capacity, sturdiness and long service, it is obvious that considerable savings will be made in avoiding the servicing of the new vehicles as compared with the old vehicles. There will be much cheaper operating costs generally.

There will be less demand for staff than there is at present for operating the present locomotives. All that is calculated to produce redundancy and this Bill provides compensation, if the redundancy takes place. I have asked C.I.E. to deal with this problem of redundancy on a humane basis, not to look at this thing as if the people concerned were so many pieces on a draught board who must be got rid of. Instead, I told them to remember that every one of the people they will deal with is a human being who may have a wife and children; that they have given substantial service to C.I.E., and that they should deal with these people not as items on a balance sheet but as human beings and deal with them fairly.

On the other hand, I told the trade unions I believed this redundancy could be virtually avoided if they faced up to this problem with some flexibility of mind and allowed no sense of protocol or punctilio to stand in the way of shifting a man from one job to another, if shifting involved keeping him in employment at a rate of wages which would not be unfavourable compared with the old rate of wages. If the company approached this problem from the point of view that they are dealing with human beings and if the trade unions approach the problem with a mental flexibility, I believe we can get over the difficulty of redundancy. It may be that the paper redundancy will look startlingly big. I do not think it will, in fact, but C.I.E. have an annual wastage of about 600. With a bit of patience, understanding and a desire to deal with the problem in accordance with their capacity to solve it at a particular time, I believe that the wastage can be utilised in the main to take the place of the redundancy which may occur as a result of the dieselisation policy.

In any case, this policy will be spread over a period. The redundancy will not manifest itself in full in any one day, month or even a year. It is a problem which will arise from time to time. If C.I.E. approach it sympathetically and understandingly and if the unions are equally co-operative in the fields in which they can render service and constructive work, I believe we can get over the bulk of these difficulties, if not all.

This reorganisation programme, totalling £12,000,000, will provide a substanial amount of work in C.I.E. workshops and provide a substantial amount of new work for people who might otherwise be redundant. It may be necessary to have some interchange-ability of staff. Let us not get bogged down in a web of technicalities as to whether a man in one particular grade should properly be employed in another grade.

A Senator proceeded to assume that not only would all diesel locomotives come in, but everything connected with the new reorganisation was going to be imported. That is not so. There will be more work than ever in C.I.E. under this programme. It is the additional work I am relying on to provide alternative employment for the people who will be rendered redundant as a result of dieselisation. I think, between the work of providing carriages and wagons, it should be possible to provide a substantial volume of new work in these fields alone for the people who may be displaced as a result of dieselisation.

Senator Hawkins raised the question as to what rate or interest would be charged to C.I.E. for moneys borrowed. The terms of the borrowing, including interest, are subject to approval by the Minister for Finance. I presume that the interest rates will depend on whatever the market quotations are. If they are very favourable, it will be helpful to C.I.E. If they are not, their experience is likely to be the experience of each and every one of us. We have got to pay if the rate of interest runs against us.

The question of the Sligo-Leitrim railway was raised and I presume I may reply to the points put. The Sligo-Leitrim railway is a privately owned railway. No part of the ownership resides in the hands of this Government or the Six County Government. It is a purely privately owned railway and is, therefore, outside the scope of this Bill. The railway runs for a distance of about 40 miles. About 30 miles of the railway line is in our own territory and ten miles in the Six County area. The railway has been in operation for a very long time, giving employment to about 120 people. The railway company now finds itself in very serious difficulties.

The Six County Government has indicated that not only will it not put up any additional money to keep the line going but will cut off its existing subsidy and that it has paid its last subsidy to the line. The line has had a subsidy of approximately £6,500, £3,000 of which was from the Six County Government. They said they could not operate unless they got at least £10,000. We said we would put up £5,000 if the Six County Government would do the same, but the Six County Government would not. In fact, they would not put the £3,000 in the kitty after this year.

The Sligo-Leitrim railway is in a very difficult position at the moment. The strange part of it is that the line is of more economic benefit to the Six Counties than it is to the Twenty-Six Counties, because it is used in large measure for transporting cattle from the north-west area for shipment through the ports of Derry and Belfast.

When the Sligo-Leitrim railway closes down, if it does close down, the G.N.R. will lose per annum £26,000, £10,000 of which will be lost to the G.N.R. through the port of Derry and £16,000 through Enniskillen and Belfast. The Six County Government will have to put that £26,000 into the G.N.R. kitty because of the loss on their side of the Border. If they would continue their present subsidy of £3,000, and £5,000, they would avoid that £26,000 loss; but they have decided that they will not continue the present subsidy of £3,000 or the £5,000. Consequently, the Sligo-Leitrim railway is now in a very difficult position. I have considerable sympathy with the viewpoint of those who want to keep it going. I saw a deputation from Sligo and Leitrim recently which put their point of view over.

The side of the thing that worries me most is the human problem attached to it, because it operates in a rural area and I see very little prospect of the people getting alternative employment. I could very well see them in a very bad economic position. There is some doubt as to whether the railway company, even if its assets were sold, would be in a position to give them even a penny compensation, because that is the financial position that may arise if the assets of the railway company are disposed of. However, I am dealing with the matter at the moment. I want to deal with it as sympathetically as I can and as realistically as I can, and I hope shortly to be able to indicate what the position is. It is not going to be easy to take a favourable decision in this matter, but I think that, having regard to all the difficulties, we must make every effort to keep the line open.

It may well be that we will have to do that unaided because the Six County Government will probably pay no more subsidy, even though the line is of considerable economic benefit to them. There are human and other problems involved in this matter, and, for that reason, as I said, I would like to look at the matter with the utmost sympathy, tempering, of course, that sympathy with a realistic approach to all the difficulties involved, so far as subsidies from this side of the Border are concerned.

Senator Stanford raised the question of utilising the railway stations and thought that they should not be allowed to deteriorate. The position at the moment is that C.I.E. have provided storage facilities at a number of those stations. For example, fertilisers have been stored there, and the company uses them as store places for goods which are in transit or have to be deposited somewhere. I do not think that the stations are being wasted from the transport point of view, merely because they are not now used in the everyday purposes of C.I.E.

Senator Stanford also raised the question of the Hill of Howth tramways. They were built under the Tramway Acts, and the provisions of this Bill do not apply to the Hill of Howth Tramways. It is worth mentioning, however, that this tramway is operated by the G.N.R., and at a very considerable loss. The policy has been up to now, and probably will be continued, to keep the tramway going until such time as the roads are made wide enough and safe enough for the purpose of operating a bus service. Even if the bus service is operated, I do not think it could take away from the scenic attractions of the hill.

The question of turf and oil locomotives was raised by Senator Fearon. The position is that C.I.E. propose to operate these locomotives on oil for seasonal traffics like beet and wheat, but in emergencies turf would be used in those locomotives, so we can have them for use in normal circumstances at periods of high traffic and in times of emergency, they would be available for conversion to use turf. The position is that at the moment C.I.E. are building prototype locomotives as an experiment and to see how this scheme will work. They are endeavouring to produce these prototypes, and I have asked the board to keep me informed regularly as to the progress they are making. I can assure the House—although some doubt has been expressed about C.I.E.'s affection for turf-fired locomotives—that the company have, notwithstanding that suspicion, assured me that every effort will be made to produce the prototype with the minimum of delay.

Senator Murphy raised the question of State bodies utilising the workshops of C.I.E. for the purpose of carrying out work for those other bodies. I spoke to the directors of C.I.E. some time ago on this particular matter and suggested to them that C.I.E. ought to regard themselves as the brother of an organisation like Bord na Móna, the E.S.B., Aer Lingus and other State-sponsored bodies, and if they could do work for any of those bodies which those bodies were compelled to get done outside this country, they should arrange to see the other State-sponsored body and invite them to place their order with C.I.E.

I know that C.I.E. has made contact with those bodies and that it is anxious to co-operate in developing that line of policy. I hope that it would result in the provision of more work at C.I.E. workshops. In addition to that, all these State-sponsored bodies have been communicated with and urged from the transport point of view to make as much use of public transport as possible with a view, again, to avoid loss or to cut loss, so far as C.I.E. is concerned.

The question of C.I.E.'s finances was raised by Senator Murphy, and he was anxious to see the accounts of C.I.E. as soon as possible. I hope that the accounts for this year will be released within the next week, and the Senator will therefore have an opportunity of examining the accounts. I have no details of the accounts at the moment, but I have been informed by C.I.E. that they are very pleased with the direction in which the accounts are pointing at the moment, and so pleased are they with the introduction of the diesel railcars that they have decided not to close any more branch lines until such time as they get a chance of operating those branch lines with the new diesel railcars and the new diesel light locomotives. These new types of transport are easier and cheaper to run than the types of transport which brought about the economic difficulties of those branch lines. If we can operate the branch lines with this new type of transport, which can be operated more cheaply, and if the local people will travel by rail and send their goods by rail, there is no reason why we should not keep those branch lines open.

I think there is something saddening and decadent about the closing of a branch line. They were opened amidst public acclaim. Everybody hoped that they were all the indications of moving into a more enlightened civilisation and a period of progress. There is something saddening about closing the branch lines, and as they can be kept open quite easily by the local people patronising the branch line and sending their merchandise along the line, there is no reason why they should close, except through the indifference of the local people, who prefer to travel by bus, instead of keeping open the available railway service they have there. The fact is that it is not unusual for people to turn up at an inquiry as to whether a branch line should be closed, travelling in the bus—to protest against the railway being closed.

The bus should not be there then.

That is another problem. The fact is that we can keep the branch lines, if our people patronise them. We will only lose them if our people prefer to travel by bus or by private car, and to send their merchandise by private haulier. But if we can convince our people that the maintenance of the branch lines is essential, then a switch to support of the branch lines would enable them to be continued indefinitely.

I have, I think, answered, as far as I can recollect, practically all the points raised on the Bill. If there is any other point upon which a Senator wants further information, I hope I will be able to give it to him orally or in writing, if he raises the matter with me afterwards.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, November 30th.
Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.
Top
Share