On this section, I should like to raise with the Minister the question of the advisability of having laid down a second line to Galway. I think he was favourably disposed to that, but I will impress on him the necessity of having this work carried on.
Transport Bill, 1955—Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I have a lot of sympathy with the Senator's point of view in this matter, as he may well have concluded from the opinion I gave on the Second Stage. C.I.E. have made representations that the singling of the line has had a very injurious effect from the standpoint of the efficiency of the services provided, and has retarded them considerably in their efforts to accelerate the service on that line. I am awaiting proposals on the subject, and I can assure the Senator that, when they are received, they will be sympathetically examined. It is essential to do something in the way of doubling the line, at least in portions of it, to provide the better service, which I think we should provide, to the West of Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to ask the Minister whether in deciding that this grant of £2,462,000 should be considered as a non-repayable grant, it was considered that only portion of it might be regarded as non-repayable. I do not know whether I am the only Senator present who thinks this is a rather fat present for C.I.E. It is usually considered fairly difficult to find £2,500,000. I realise that this £2,500,000 was previously granted and we now say we do not want it repaid. I should feel happier if the reason for this could be explained by the Minister, if we could be told that the matter had been given full consideration and that it was considered that not one pound of this money could ever be got back again from C.I.E. I am sure that the matter was carefully considered, but I should like to hear along what lines it was decided that the total sum must now be considered as non-repayable.
The position is that this advance which it is now proposed to treat as a non-repayable grant was made not to C.I.E., but to the predecessors of C.I.E. It is because of that fact and because we felt it an unreasonable proposition to endeavour to get C.I.E. to pay this advance, that we do not seek repayment. I think it is beyond their capacity to repay the advance, and if they have it in their books as an advance which they are liable to repay, it is not calculated to enhance their financial reputation, which it is desirable to build up in every way, because C.I.E. will have to go to the public from time to time looking for money to finance their activities, which I hope in the future will be much more economically rewarding than in the past.
I see no hope of getting back from C.I.E. this sum of money which was paid over as an advance to their predecessors. We think it is better to treat the amount as a non-repayable grant and give C.I.E. the feeling that whatever financial burdens have to be borne by the company are not crippling in their effect, nor should they be calculated in any way to damp the enthusiasm of the board and the whole undertaking to reach a state of financial solvency which is much to be commended and which holds out so much prospect not only for the board, but for the staff and the whole community as well. In any case, in the present circumstances, the Senator will appreciate that C.I.E. could never hope to repay this money within any foreseeable date, and to leave the amount in their books would have a deleterious effect on the company generally in a number of other fields.
I feel that there is a good deal in what the Minister says, but I am not sure that I do not view C.I.E. with more optimism than he does, because I should like to feel that there is at least a foreseeable future in which C.I.E. might be able to honour some of this debt, even if it were a debt which was assumed by them from their predecessors. To say at the outset that they will never be able to repay not merely the total sum but any portion of it, is to give a pessimistic view of the company which I do not think the Minister wants to do. I feel we are not doing them any harm in retaining the right to ask them for at least some of this, to keep it on their books. After all, we are not collecting interest on it. It seems to me unduly pessimistic to say that the company cannot at some foreseeable date be able to pay off some of it. Why should we wipe it out, and abandon our right to collect any single penny of it?
The prospects of getting much back from C.I.E. can be judged from the fact that the Department of Finance have consented to this being written off. If they did that, I think Senators will agree that it was rather a forlorn prospect. If at any time C.I.E. operates in such a way that it has a surplus which would enable it to pay that big surplus, I take it it can be utilised for highly desirable purposes, namely, providing better services and cheaper fares for the community, because now it is a community service.
I feel satisfied with the last portion of the Minister's remarks, but I should like him to bear this in mind on some future occasion when we are told that it is quite impossible to find money for this, that or the other, that we are in fact crossing out, admittedly with the consent of the Minister for Finance, £2,500,000 at the stroke of the pen.
I would nearly be prepared to give the Senator a substantial commission, if I thought there was any prospect of collecting it.
I might take the Minister up on that!
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.