Well, the question was rather directed to me and if I should take it on myself to answer it, it would be to say that naturally my Department has no function in the closing of branch or other railways. The Senator went on to ask why we should subsidise roads rather than railways. That is a very big question and I think it has engaged the attention of, I suppose, the best brains in the country over a number of years. I think the result has been that more railways have been closed since the people with brains sat down to see what is economic and what is not. I shall not dispute the wisdom of closing those lines, but I might say from my own small knowledge of these matters that not only were some of these lines losing substantial sums of money annually, but they were also approaching the point at which an immense amount of money would be required to keep them in a safe condition for further traffic. Not only did we face the loss incurred in general working but also the renewal of certain stretches of these lines which, as far as I can understand, would have meant, at least in some cases, a far greater burden than we are now asked to meet in regard to roads that will substitute for those closed lines.
Other Senators argued on much the same points in regard to the closing of these lines, but in some cases it must be remembered lines were closed, not by persons on this side of the Border, but by the Six County Government. Unfortunately, we had no control over these lines and in some cases the closing of lines on our side of the Border was consequential on the closing of Six County railway lines. The whole question of the rightfulness or otherwise of the closing of branch lines is something we really cannot discuss now. These lines that were closed were losing money; the permanent way in some cases was in a dangerous condition and a great amount of money would be required to restore it to normal condition; and even when that had been done there was no prospect that it would then pay. We must face the fact that these lines have been closed and undoubtedly will remain so. We have seen the last of them and we must do the best we can without them by making our roads suitable to carry the additional traffic.
The question of dangerous bridges in Westmeath, on the road through Enfield and on down there, was raised by Senator L'Estrange. I should say that in regard to the four or five bridges mentioned by him certain consideration is already being given to them and plans are in hands for some of them. The big difficulty which the local authority has found in regard to most of these is to get the rights of way on the lands adjoining them. To do these things, as Senators know, does not appear to be a big job, but it very often turns out to be a lengthy one. We are there to help, but in all cases the initiative must come from the local authority. It is not the practice of the Minister for Local Government or his officials to go down the country and root out these people and say: "There is a bridge to which you must attend." Generally, they get on with the bridges themselves.
In practically every case, we give substantial grants for the reconstruction of bridges and we shall continue to do that. We hope to remedy many of these dangerous bridges many of which, as has been remarked, are situated between good stretches of straight road. We are not neglecting them, nor are the local authorities being in any way slow in the matter.
Senator O'Donovan raised the question of the six counties where we have informed the county councils that they can prepare schemes under the heading of roads to serve industrial undertakings and I gathered he rather doubted that there were six such in the country. I think the Senator has already recalled the Whitegate one himself and there are also the Shannon Airport road, the Arigna Coal Mines road, the Avoca Copper Mines Road and the Gypsum Mine road in Cavan, on the Monaghan border. Those in fact take in the six. If there are others, and I hope there will be, so much the better. If we get sufficient of these scattered throughout the country, our least trouble will be finding moneys for the roads to serve them.
In regard to the general criticism by another Senator that so much money is going to my own county and to counties north of the line, I can only say—in addition to what I have said already about Six-County lines being closed, with consequent closures on our side—that, in the main, those counties, if not poor counties, have a valuation of such size that one penny would not bring in much money and their rates are generally above average and any additional large draw on money, such as in this case, would impose an impossible burden on them. In addition to that, this case has been made by those counties since as far back as 1952. In my own county, with the promised closing of certain lines in the offing, we hammered this case from 1952. Sligo, Leitrim, Monaghan and Cavan have been doing likewise. The fact is whoever is pinched most usually squeals most. That I think is the case and it can be proved in this instance.
Those were the counties pinched most and which saw the greatest hardship in replacing railways with roads. Also in 1952, in my own county, a special transport committee was set up and the general direction in which that committee was pushing in those days was in the direction of the Department of Industry and Commerce whose responsibility the closing of railway lines must be mainly. Eventually, the matter crystallised in the general direction of the Department of Local Government which was responsible for roads and we came to this point. The fact that those five counties benefited is not due to the fact that I come from one of them, or that I pass through those counties very frequently. It is due to their efforts to make a worthwhile case, which they did make. If they are now getting these funds it was not only because of their case but because we knew the plight in which they were going to be placed and the likelihood of some of their road systems breaking down entirely, if nothing were done about them in the very near future. That is my answer to why these grants seem to be in the one direction at the moment.
In regard to Senator Stanford and Senator Walsh, it was indeed refreshing to hear, from two speakers at any rate, congratulations to the road makers of this country and some recognition of the fact that without doubt—no matter what may be our view of certain local roads—unless we do not want to admit it, our road system has been improving continuously. We hope that that progress will go on until we have not only good county and main roads but adequately dust-free tarred surfaces on our country road system as well.
The general impression to be gained from some Senators is that we are just not doing enough about these matters and that we should provide more money. Undoubtedly, I should like to give every county in the Twenty-Six Counties a similar amount of money as is given to the five counties in question, but it remains that despite the fact that there will be an increase, and has been an increase in the recent past, in the amount of taxation money collected, our grants must remain for some time in the future at the same figure, that is around the figure of £5,000,000. It may well be asked why we are not able to increase the allocations when we are getting greater revenue, but the position is rather difficult. The commitments already made on the Road Fund are substantial and due to those commitments, and to debts which we are committed to pay, and are trying to pay off, we cannot foresee any worthwhile increase in the general grant allocation for a number of years ahead.
To pinpoint the position, the commitment in 1954 for the Road Fund was £1.8 million. By 1957, three years later, it had risen to £4.18 millions. In order to bolster up the situation and to get us out of our difficulties in that year, a special subvention from the Exchequer of £9,000,000 had to be paid into the Fund and even then, despite the increase in the revenue, our commitments were still £3,250,000. Much as we should like to, we cannot give any substantial increases, or hold out the hope that the State will be able to afford increases in the general grants to councils, within the next few years.
