Public Business. - C.I.E. Report and Accounts, 1959-60: Motion. – Seanad Éireann (9th Seanad) – Wednesday, 8 Mar 1961

Public Business. - C.I.E. Report and Accounts, 1959-60: Motion.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I move:

That the Seanad takes note of the Report and Accounts of Córas Iompair Éireann for the year 1959/60.

In the course of a debate on a similar motion in Dáil Éireann on 16th February, there was considerable discussion on the decision by C.I.E. to close the branch railways lines in West Clare, West Cork and Waterford-Tramore. I should like to remind the House of the legislation governing the operation of C.I.E. just in order to keep the record straight.

The Oireachtas passed a new Transport Act in 1958. By this Act, C.I.E. were obliged to conduct the undertaking so as to eliminate losses by 31st March, 1964. As a means towards reaching solvency, C.I.E. were given authority to terminate any train service, provided the Board is satisfied the operation of the service is uneconomic and is also satisfied there is no prospect of its continued operation becoming economic within a reasonable period. The statutory responsibility for deciding whether to close any particular service is therefore now vested solely in C.I.E.

Prior to the passing of the 1958 Act and despite the Exchequer subsidy to the extent of £12 million and the raising of £7 million for guaranteed stock in the period 1949/50 to 1955/56, the C.I.E. undertaking continued to lose money at the rate of £1.6 million a year. In 1956, the Government appointed a Committee of Inquiry into internal transport, known as the Beddy Committee, to consider the situation.

The committee, in their report, considered that the railways should be given a limited period of years under conditions wholly different from those applying up to that time to show whether their continuance would be justified. The committee recommended a radical pruning of the rail system and envisaged a mileage of 850 compared with the then existing system of 1,918 miles. It was to give effect with certain modifications, to the findings of the Beddy Committee that the Transport Bill, 1958, was enacted.

As Senators are aware, the Government did not accept the specific suggestions in the report as to the extent to which the railways would have to be reduced. It took the view that this was a matter which could be determined only by C.I.E., who alone had the day-to-day responsibility and access to all the relevant facts and who alone, therefore, were able to judge the value of any particular railway service to the community and the prospects of operating it economically. At the time the Bill was going through the Oireachtas, it was accepted on all sides that unless some such powers were given the Board, the already desperate position of public transport was likely to show a further deterioration. Very few people have noted the fact that C.I.E. have not closed services and stations to the extent envisaged in the Beddy Committee Report.

When the west Cork line is closed, the Board will have closed a total of 420 miles of uneconomic rail lines since the date of the report compared with the closing of almost 1,000 miles suggested by the Beddy Committee. That is the last closing envisaged by the Board during the re-organisation period of five years provided for in the 1958 Act. The Board say that, from inquiries it has made, the substitute road services already provided are operating satisfactorily and efficiently and operating to the satisfaction of the public. Complaints have been few and, where justified, additional facilities are being provided. Indeed, the Clare Champion has already praised the substitute services provided for west Clare.

The whole character of the 1958 Act clearly indicated there was to be no bias in favour of a railway, if a bus and road freight service were more suitable to the majority of the people. The Board recently announced its intention of providing improved standards of heating, ventilation and comfort in buses. Improvement in road freight services are also under consideration. In particular, the Board is providing better terminal facilities and more up to date mechanised equipment at goods depots. The Board has also announced reductions in the weekly charges for provincial buses, bringing these charges in line with rail charges.

With regard to charges for freight of livestock from fairs, the Board has decided to operate for its regular patrons a system of through rates at stations beyond the rail heads based on rail station to station rates.

The Minister for Transport and Power has already referred to the effect on the roads in west Cork, west Clare and also to the Waterford-Tramore road by the additional traffic likely to be transferred to those roads as a result of the closing of the branch railway lines. He has indicated the number of vehicles which will be used for the operation of the substitute C.I.E. services. With the numbers of vehicles at present using the roads, the entire regular substitute road services in west Clare, west Cork and Waterford-Tramore will require only 27 buses and lorries, with some additional vehicles for peak services—particularly 40 additional lorries for beet in west Cork and some additional buses for summer excursion traffic between Waterford and Tramore. These figures compare with a total of 9,500 commercial vehicles and 43,800 other vehicles registered in these counties. Obviously, the additional vehicles for the substitute services can have but a marginal effect on the roads, although additional expenditure will no doubt be required.

The Taoiseach recently explained that it is the policy of the Government to assist local authorities to maintain the roads in their areas in a state suitable for the traffic using them, and he gave an undertaking to consider carefully any realistic proposals to bring rates up to that standard. The Minister has also stated that prior to the C.I.E. decision to close branch railway lines in West Cork, West Clare, and Waterford to Tramore, the Board gave the fullest consideration to the effect of the closing of those branch lines on the possible development of new industries and was satisfied that any new industrial development can be served at least as well by road as it would be by rail. There is no question whatever of any industry or potential industrial development in those areas being adversely affected by the closure of the lines.

The public is aware that in two years the losses on C.I.E. total operations have been reduced from over £2 million to £750,00 per annum. In the year ended 31st March, 1960, nearly £850,000 additional revenue had been secured on a previous grand total of about £17,000,000.

Much has been said about the refusal of the Minister and of C.I.E. to receive deputations in advance of rail closings. Everyone knows that C.I.E. have full authority to close lines under the direction given them by the Oireachtas, but the Minister informs me that of all the letters and representations received by Ministers and by C.I.E., not one contained a specific offer of additional traffic. On the other hand, none of the claims that closure of the lines would damage industry or agriculture or otherwise adversely affect the public interest has been substantiated. Obviously, no uneconomic line would ever close if the Minister or C.I.E. listened to deputations, most of whose members never used the rail services, and that has been the experience up to now.

The Minister is here and will reply to the debate and deal in detail with all the points that may be raised during the discussion on this motion.

Mr. Murphy

First of all, I should like to welcome the opportunity being given to the House to debate the report and accounts of C.I.E. It is an innovation, and a welcome one, and it should be repeated for C.I.E. and other semi-State organisations. Might I also say that the report of C.I.E. has reached the public and the members of the Oireachtas at an appreciably earlier date than was the practice formerly? I could never understand how it was that the report of C.I.E. for the year ending on 31st March could not be published until the following Christmas. Maybe it was thought that people would not then take too much notice of it.

This report covers the first full year of working under the Transport Act of 1958. The most important point is the fact that the net deficit is merely £750,000 compared with nearly £1,500,000 for the previous 12 months. That improved result is, to my mind, due to a combination of benefits and reliefs under the 1958 legislation, and not less to the inspired and confident leadership that has existed in what is termed the new C.I.E. That leadership has had a dynamic effect on the management and staff of the organisation. I do not think I shall be understood as taking in any way from that leadership by making the point that the staff who have worked and have produced this better result, and the management also, are largely the staff and management who have been operating C.I.E. up to now. They have shown that under the better conditions given under the 1958 Act and under good leadership, they are capable of producing results.

I am glad that that is so, because these people were largely made to feel in former years that there was something wrong with them, that they were in some way less efficient and less well able to do their jobs than the staff and management of other semi-State organisations. I do not think, indeed, that the Minister has helped them too much in that by his series of references to the past losses of C.I.E. and the cost to the Exchequer, because that leaves the impression that there has been some inefficiency, some mismanagement, to account for it. We all now see that the same management and staff, given a proper chance and a proper basis on which to work and with proper leadership, can produce a very satisfactory result. I know that they feel vindicated by the more satisfactory result and are keen further to improve the position. It may be a bit ironical, however, that most of the people who bore the heat of the day in the bad old days and who were left under the cloud of supposed inefficiency because of the continuing losses of C.I.E. now find themselves regarded as perhaps too old to avail of the expansion which has taken place in public transport.

The Minister and the House know that for decades public transport here, as indeed in other countries, has been staggering from one crisis to another. There have been a series of amalgama-tions, a series of contractions, and legislation following legislation. That has left a legacy to the new C.I.E., the C.I.E. incorporated under the 1958 legislation. It has left a legacy of depressed conditions and depressed rates as compared with the more modern standard in other semi-State organisations.

I must say that for some time I have been concerned at the difficulty of trying to redress that situation in a position where C.I.E. never have and never will, I think, appear to have a whole lot of money to play around with and to redress it without impairing the good relations and the team spirit built up over the past 18 months in C.I.E. C.I.E. has inherited a machinery of negotiation formerly used by the Irish railways as a whole. It fulfilled its purpose and was so successful that there was only one rail stoppage, I think, but in fact it increasingly appears that that machinery has outlived its usefulness.

When I learned that the C.I.E. report was to be discussed, I was thinking of suggesting to the Minister that he might look at that question and see if anything could be learned from the arrangements made in other State undertakings, particularly the E.S.B., but I am glad to see that other minds have been working along that direction and we can hope that there will be progress to provide a more up to date and a more satisfactory machinery of negotiations to deal with disputes within C.I.E. I should hope that that machinery would not alone be efficient and acceptable to all parties but would get its business done without undue publicity, which, I think, is sometimes harmful to all parties concerned.

The cost of labour is an important factor in C.I.E. and possibly weighs more heavily on public transport than on any other semi-State organisation here. More money, a greater proportion of money, is spent on remuneration of staff than in any other undertaking. Maybe it was because of that that the Oireachtas made special provision in passing the 1958 legislation and previous legislation regarding C.I.E. that C.I.E. should have regard to the maintenance of reasonable conditions for their employees. That is not usual. I do not remember seeing it in the legislation dealing with any other semi-State organisation.

Perhaps it was a recognition of the economic difficulty of public transport and was meant as a solemn declaration from Parliament that C.I.E. in carrying out their other function of attempting to balance its books as soon as may be should not do so by depressing rates of pay and conditions generally of the employees. It was unique. Parliament deliberately said to C.I.E. in Subsection 1 of Section 7 that "it shall be the general duty of the Board to provide a reasonable, efficient and economic service, with due regard to safety of operation, the encouragement of national economic development and the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment for its employees". It goes on in the second subsection of that section to say to the Board that they shall "so conduct their undertaking that as soon as may be and not later than 31st March, 1964, its operating expenditure, including all charges properly chargeable to revenue, shall not be greater than the revenue of the Board". I do not know whether it could be argued that subsection (1) takes precedence over subsection (2). I do not think so, but it is a fact that in telling C.I.E. that they should balance their books, we are also telling C.I.E. that they should so operate their concern as to have regard to the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment.

In this regard, and with regard to costs, C.I.E. cannot isolate themselves from outside developments. I think there might be a tendency by C.I.E. and, indeed, by the Minister, to concentrate on this aim of achieving financial viability as early as possible and perhaps involuntarily to overlook that other direction that Parliament has given, namely, the maintenance of reasonable conditions of employment. If, for example, salaries increase in the E.S.B. or other semi-State organisations, sooner or later that is going to affect the situation of C.I.E. If the working week generally is reduced in the country, again C.I.E. cannot isolate themselves from that development.

Apart altogether from the equity of treating their employees no less favourably than comparable employees in other semi-State organisations, I think it would be false economy to the nation in the long run if there were a conscious effort to continue as a permanent feature a low-pay policy in C.I.E. The House, I think, well knows that the experience now is that schoolchildren who get as far as finishing their secondary education and doing the Leaving Certificate are at that stage persuaded by their teachers to sit for all examinations offering at that time. If they are good students and qualify in a number of competitive examinations, naturally they tend to take the employment offering the best pay and the best opportunities. I do not think anybody could argue that C.I.E. can afford to do without their share of the best brains produced from the schools every year.

It is all right to talk about past experience. It is a tradition of the old railwaymen, who are born and bred into the job, but now the situation is, as I said, that young people doing the Leaving Certificate sit for every examination. They are taking the best jobs according to the places they get. You cannot indefinitely have a situation that by reason of C.I.E. concentrating upon trying to keep down costs, the younger people taking the higher places will not be disposed to take employment with public transport. I think that, with the difficulties of public transport, they more than anybody else need their share of the best brains being produced.

I want again to refer to this question of the deficit. It was a deficit, as I said, of £750,000—an improvement over last year's deficit. To carry out the direction of the 1958 legislation, C.I.E. need to improve by the amount of that deficit. In other words, they must improve the financial result of their year's operation by another £750,000 in order to comply with the legislation. I sometimes wonder can it be done. Last year, owing to a combination of an increase in revenue and a reduction in operating costs, it was possible to make that substantial improvement.

I think we would all be foolish to imagine that simply by a big drive a substantial improvement materialises; that you can necessarily by maintaining, improving or increasing that drive, produce a big improvement the following year. I do not think it is quite as easy as that. C.I.E. last year improved their traffic and the question now, if they are to wipe out that £750,000 deficit, is to generate more traffic and/ or cut costs further. To put it a little differently: Can they so operate the concern that to earn a £ they need only spend 20/- and at the same time —and this is something that cannot be overlooked—provide a satisfactory service?

I think that more traffic can, in fact, be secured. I will later say something as to how I think the Minister could help in that direction. I think that costs can be further reduced but reduced by improving efficiency and by the introduction of new methods. It must be recognised that the cost per head of employment will tend to increase. Whether C.I.E. or the Minister likes it, that will be the tendency. I think that, generally speaking, there is not any opposition amongst the trade union movement towards improving efficiency and the introduction of new methods, but there is, I know, strong opposition to any policy of trying to pin down the cost per unit on C.I.E. in order to comply as early as possible with the direction to balance their books.

The accounts which we have before us show that some £748,000 had to be allocated out of revenue last year for interest and provision for sinking fund for the various Transport Stocks; in other words, a little more than the actual deficit on the year's operation. I recognise that the 1958 legislation gave substantial relief to public transport in regard to capital and the costs of remunerating capital, but I am concerned as to whether or not we went far enough.

I am concerned to know if the task given to C.I.E. is just that bit too heavy. I suggest that if it is, it would be less costly to the economy as a whole in the long run if we so arranged things that C.I.E. could with confidence give an efficient service and not be embarrassed with a yearly deficit. I do not think that we should provide a permanent and a general subsidy for C.I.E., but, on the other hand, I think that we could so arrange things that the task placed on them would not be impossible.

I notice, for example, that in regard to another aspect of public transport, namely, air transport, we have a situation where Aer Lingus can, with good management and with some confidence, expect that, if the year is good, they will balance their books and will not be embarrassed with continuing heavy deficits. I also notice that in the Appropriation Accounts for 1959/60, there is a total deficiency met from the Central Fund on the operation of Shannon and Dublin Airports. In other words, the permanent way or whatever you like to call it, for air transport was subsidised to the extent of £500,000. I think it was right to do so but it was so arranged that Aer Lingus was not embarrassed by being given an impossible task, by being asked to do something which it could not possibly do. The target set for Aer Lingus was something they could reasonably aim at.

I said I would suggest to the Minister that he could help somewhat in the desire of C.I.E. to increase their traffic and, indeed, the desire of the staff of C.I.E. to get more business. I suggest that the Minister might take every opportunity of discouraging other semi-State undertakings and local authorities from building up their own transport fleets. I know the Minister will object to asking that these should be compelled to use public transport, but I am not asking that. I am talking about the undesirability in the national interest of investing public money in building up transport fleets, when the fleet of public transport, owned and remunerated by public moneys is not fully utilised. I do not think that is good business and it certainly is not in the overall interests of the economy.

I know it would certainly be good business, good organisation and good management for semi-State organisations to have some transport of their own, but unfortunately it seems to be the experience that when you start on that road, somebody is appointed in charge of the few vans and lorries and the tendency is for him to build up his own empire. He can, I am sure, very convincingly show his board that it would be more economic for that semi-State organisation to get more lorries and build up a bigger fleet. That is largely duplication of the investment in that type of lorry and, I suggest, is not in the best overall interest. I ask the Minister to avail of any opportunity he has to discourage that tendency and point to the desirability of the public transport organisation being utilised to the utmost.

Another factor which affects C.I.E. in its drive to improve traffic—and members of my trade union complain about this—is the incidence of illegal haulage. However, it would be too early yet to attempt to say whether the new provisions in the 1958 Act have been effective and have curbed this illegal haulage throughout the country. I know it is still there, but the provisions in the 1958 Act, the fines and punishments that were put in, have a cumulative effect and it might be too early to attempt to say whether they will meet the position or whether something else will have to be done.

There is another and rather new aspect of illegal haulage, that is, illegal passenger operations. I should like the Minister some time to look at the experience of U.T.A. in Northern Ireland, where you had the position that the road passenger side was, as with C.I.E., the paying end. Year after year, they could expect a surplus on that part of the operation in order to help to carry the overall public transport organisation. The illegal haulage of passengers, particularly by mini-bus operators has torn the guts out of the road passenger services of U.T.A. in the past few years and I am concerned to see that similar developments do not occur here.

I know that in a matter like this there are other Departments concerned —the Department of Local Government and the Department of Justice— and I ask the Minister to look at the problem some time and see that it is not allowed to get out of hand in this part of the country. I must confess right away that it is a very difficult problem and I have no easy answer to it.

The Leader of the House, in moving this motion, referred to the closure of branch lines and the report which we have before us refers to the closure of seven such lines. I am quite sure, from the little knowledge I have of the position, that those seven closures were warranted on a financial basis and furthermore that a suitable alternative transport was provided. I feel that the obligation of C.I.E. to become financially self-supporting might, however, in certain cases be inconsistent with their obligation to provide public transport services. It might be right, as I think it is, for C.I.E. under the legislation to close a branch line or, indeed, all lines eventually, to meet the obligation we have put on them under the 1958 legislation of paying their way, but I am sure that whilst that might be the right thing for C.I.E. to do under their charter, it might not necessarily be the right thing for the country and the economy as a whole. Sooner or later if C.I.E. cannot balance their books under the present arrangement, and they are under continuing pressure to make economies, and to make them where they can be made, namely, by the closing of railway lines, we could reach the situation that railway lines which are important to the economy and to the national interest might be closed by C.I.E. because we have told C.I.E. to do so.

I remember we had a fair debate on this subject when the 1958 legislation was going through. I remember that we pressed the then Minister for Industry and Commerce very hard to write into the Bill that the Minister should be consulted, that somebody apart from C.I.E.—C.I.E. who would be concerned with their own affairs of balancing their books—somebody concerned with the national interest and answerable to Parliament should be brought into the picture and should, in the national interest, be able to say: "This line should not be closed" or "You may go ahead and close it" and accept responsibility to Parliament for it.

In spite of the good arguments, and I noticed we converted every Independent Senator in the House that day, the Fianna Fáil vote matched the combined vote of the others and it was a tie vote so that the insertion was not put into the Bill. Therefore, the Leader of the House should not be too happy here tonight in rubbing it in to us and saying the Seanad and the Dáil gave authority to C.I.E. to close branch lines. We tried our best to provide that at least the Minister from time to time would have responsibility in the matter and would be answerable to Parliament for any decision to close a branch line. I know, of course, and I suppose this is the main argument against it, that it would be a political embarrassment and I do not think that we have really yet reached the situation that branch lines which are essential to the economy as a whole—even though Senators from west Cork might not necessarily agree—have come to be closed. I know also that C.I.E. have said that they do not expect within the next five years to have to close further branch lines, except the west Cork line, which will be the last gasp.

Let me remind the House again on the point I was making earlier on. The fact is C.I.E. cannot isolate themselves. If costs are increasing on C.I.E. and if they cannot make economies to offset them by improved methods or improved efficiency, then they will be under new pressure to reach financial viability as quickly as possible and to look afresh at branch lines.

We might come to a situation where a branch line such as the eastern line to Wexford and Rosslare might be contemplated for closure. I do not know enough about that line to say whether it would be essential to the economy or not, but the point I am making is that in view of the C.I.E. position under the Act, it might be right and proper to close the line. It might not be right in the over-all national interest that a line like that should be closed. However, as I said, Parliament has decided, even on a tie vote, and the position is that C.I.E. have that authority and, indeed, are obliged under parts of the Act to proceed to make the necessary economies.

I should like to say a few words in conclusion about the buses. I am speaking simply as an ordinarily fare-paying passenger, not as a Senator with trade union or labour connections. I wonder whether or not some improvement could be made in the Dublin city services? I have watched people working on the buses and I have seen the hardship on conductors on double-deck buses, particularly in the rush hours, scrambling up and down stairs, trying to collect the fares, trying to get down to punch the bell, trying to watch the platform and a hundred and one things.

That is all very interesting and I suppose very good for an active young man, but unfortunately bus conductors, like the rest of us, tend to grow old. I think the hardship of that job must really affect them when they get into the fifties. I notice that, on the continent, the practice seems to be that they go in for long single-deck buses to provide city services and, which may seem strange to us, the conductor sits down by the door and takes the fares as the passengers enter. I do not think the passengers think that is any particular hardship on them.

If C.I.E. were to contemplate—and I am sure they would not look too kindly on this idea—changing their arrangements, even in a gradual process, they would be involved in p.s.v. regulations, but that is something which, I think, could be got over if it were thought that it was a good and proper arrangement. The idea might be considered because increasingly bus conductors will be growing old and unable to carry on their jobs for medical reasons, because of the hardship of running up and down stairs a hundred and one times a day.

I know that already there is the problem, and there will be a further problem when we pass the Road Traffic Bill, of the medical fitness test for bus drivers. Again, those people, like ourselves, grow old and so far as I can discover, there are not proper arrangements to provide them with reasonable alternative work. If some arrangement could be made by which some buses were so designed that the conductor could sit and take the fares from the passengers as they entered, it would help the people when they grow old who might otherwise be unable to continue in their work.

I do not think it would be beyond the wit of our designers to produce double-deck buses—not necessarily long single buses—with an entrance at the rear, a pretty wide platform, probably, and an exit in the front. It would mean that instead of one door, there would be two and instead of one stairs, there would be two. I remember, in the old trams, there were two stairs, one which led down by the driver which you were not supposed to use. If we had buses with these two stairs and two power-operated doors, the bus conductor would be able to take the fares as people entered and would not have to be dashing around picking up the few pence. As I said, I am making this suggestion as a fare-paying passenger. More than C.I.E. would be involved in it. The Minister and the people dealing with p.s.v. regulations would be involved, but it might be worthy of consideration.

I should like to express the hope that next year we shall have the opportunity of discussing again the annual report and accounts of C.I.E. I hope also that we shall be able to point to a satisfactory improvement as has been achieved for the year ending 31st March, 1960.

Mr. Donegan

We cannot view C.I.E. as an ordinary semi-State company. We must view it as a company with closer ties with the Government than any other semi-State company, in their finances and in every way. The company employ—to give the House some idea of their strength and influence—seven times as many employees as Arthur Guinness, Son and Company Limited. The number of C.I.E. employees is around 20,000, spread all over Ireland in every constituency. That means, of course, that the employees of C.I.E. must wield considerable influence, and that all the machinations of C.I.E., all their ups and downs, react one way or the other for or against the Government.

The Government are also responsible for the entire financing of C.I.E. They have borne the brunt of their losses, producing fresh capital year by year, some of which has been written off in the past four years. Therefore, we must view these accounts, not as an ordinary set of accounts, but as a set of accounts which have a closer relation to Government policy and action than any other set of accounts which come to us from any other semi-State company.

There is an improvement in the situation which we are viewing but it is best to look at this improvement, in the first instance, from the material point of view. How was the improvement effected? So far as I can gather from the figures, the number of staff who have been rendered redundant, due to improvements or changes that have been made since last year, is 1,188. The modernisation of C.I.E., the closing of branch lines considered uneconomic and the various other changes have resulted in the necessity for an injection of £3 million capital from the last C.I.E. loan. The lines which have been closed are Cavan-Leitrim, Dundalk-Clones, Monaghan-Cavan, Inny Junction-Cavan, Headford Junction-Kenmare, Claremorris-Ballinrobe and Farranfore-Valentia. There is no doubt that at least some of these closures were necessary. Perhaps some were ill-advised. There were votes here and, as stated by Senator Murphy, one got through by the skin of its teeth, although opinion has been divided on the wisdom of voters on that occasion or any occasion.

When you talk about closing a railway line—again this set of accounts is only a small part of the story—you must think of heavy traffic formerly carried on the line it is proposed to close which must move on the roads. Irish country roads as distinct from main roads—some of which are not up to heavy traffic—are definitely not up to the large and heavy traffic which has resulted from the closing of a line.

On my way here to-day I met a cattle lorry and trailer which must be all of 70 feet long and which could not physically operate without taking the complete crown of the road. I could not see how that trailer with cattle in it and the lorry itself with cattle in it could operate by staying on its own side of the road on the particular occasion to which I refer. The driver would constantly be pulled into the verge. He made the dangerous turn on the crown of the road. It was not his fault. He had blown his horn and so had I. We both moved over.

That will give a picture of the difficulties and the colossal capital investment there will have to be in the roads. We are not looking at a complete picture but at a most incomplete picture and one which, in argument, can be distorted and changed. It is quite difficult for anybody except the most unbiased observer to approach this set of accounts without making some error of judgment in their interpretation.

As well as the closing of the branch lines and disposing of 1,188 staff members, as far as my memory and my information serve me, the improvement was effected by increases in freight charges and in bus and train fares. Another matter I must discuss later is the increase as a result of Government policy in stringency of administration of the Transport Acts and the Transport Act, 1958.

Another factor was that during the year there was written off—I refer Senators to the Report ending 31st March, 1960, the last paragraph on page 7 — a charge of interest and repayment on the 3 per cent. transport stock of 1955-60 of £296,672. As I understand it, in this paragraph credit it taken for the fact that an additional charge of £146,250 was introduced representing the interest and sinking fund contribution on the new transport stock. But the new transport stock produced an injection of £3 million into C.I.E. economy. Just as every company and business has to repay its borrowing and provide for interest thereon, so with C.I.E. Therefore, while in no way deprecating anybody I would say that the conclusion drawn in that paragraph is incorrect inasmuch as if you get £3 million you must be prepared to pay it. In fact, the figure presented to us is not true and is worsened by £296,000 written off. Most unfortunately, it is I think the fourth or fifth writing off of repayment and interest charges during the past four years. That is not meant to be unfair to C.I.E. I have the greatest regard for the efforts being made. One should always be constructively critical where one thinks it might help. I propose to be such.

I shall now refer to something which has a strict application to this account and the figures produced to us. It is the change in the Government interpretation of an Act. In ordinary business it is unusual that Government policy will change the interpretation of an Act of Parliament. Indeed, things proceed as they were, more or less. In a company like C.I.E., where the Government are financing losses, there is a grave danger the Government will seek to change their interpretation of an Act and the administration of the law. I fear that has been done and I must make mention of it. I refer to Transport Acts.

Young policemen who showed exceptional ability as they came forth from the passing-out ceremony were sent to a series of lectures in Dublin for specialist information on how even technical offences could be detected under the Transport Acts. These young policemen have been spread in different towns all over the country. Fleets of Vauxhall Wyvern cars were supplied. Every Senator must have seen a young policeman in such a car in the course of the past twelve months. Their job was to stop private hauliers and private firms' carriers and seek a conviction under what was usually a technical offence that never happened before. It is no good saying that the law was there. The interpretation and administration of the law had largely been liberal. A change was effected. It affected young men who had their lives to live and their bread to eat just as the employees of C.I.E. I have the greatest sympathy for the 1,188 employees who are no longer there.

It is true to say that there was considerable interference with private business. I know that a lorry came to a town and was held for three hours by the Garda Síochána who sought information of all kinds from driver and helper. That is going too far. It is obvious an ordinary sort of conviction is not being sought and that strong Government policy is behind such action. I have the strongest views in that regard.

Mr. Murphy

I am glad to hear it.

Mr. Donegan

It is a mistake, as stated by Senator Murphy, to say there is not a necessity for fleets of lorries in other semi-State companies. There is every necessity for an adequate fleet in every business in this country which needs a considerable quantity of transport. The reason is that the driver and helper who are constantly doing the firm's work know the job and the pitfalls and the difficulties. Even in the proper filling-up of the lorry-man's sheet which, I presume, goes in every day in every organised business, he can succeed in keeping the office out of trouble. You cannot get just anybody and put him on a job of work in a detailed sort of business and expect him to do it as well as somebody who has been doing that very job for the past ten or twenty years. One might think of a package deal so that the same men in C.I.E. might be doing the same work for the same firm all the time. In fact, it does not work out that way.

I feel there is necessity for an adequate fleet in every private business, and the problem is to see how we can have C.I.E. with a fleet to look after the business that is not handled by those private firms and, at the same time, seek to reduce our loss. That is the difficulty, and the way to solve this difficulty is not by interfering with private business. Such interference, I fear, there has been.

I was confirmed in my opinion that the implementation of the law has a direct relation to Government policy when Senator Murphy said to the Minister that this question of minibuses engaged in illegal passenger haulage is very serious and urged the Minister to get going; but he did not urge the Guards to get going. Therefore, I fear that when you see all the best young policemen in every town in Ireland in new Vauxhall cars looking after one particular facet of legislation, while more serious offences are perhaps left unattended to, there is a grave situation, and one in which the Government is perhaps weighing the scales too much on one side to the detriment of other parts of legislation.

Mr. Murphy

Does the Senator advocate the breaking of the law?

Mr. Donegan

No, but I most certainly do say that there has been a change in the administration and interpretation of the law over the past four years, and everybody in this Seanad knows it quite well.

There are other points which should be discussed in these accounts. I note that the mileage covered by the old G.N.R. has been included as this is the first full year of operation under C.I.E. That is natural, but the difficulties that arose in Dundalk because of the loss by the railway works there of a lot of work that came to it from the north of Ireland are very much with us. We are extremely sorry about the situation there. Again, of course, there is completely excluded from these accounts the fact that £1,500,000 have been injected as capital and six separate companies have been floated; yet at the same time, it is all part of the railway trouble.

I would not criticise for one second the action of the Government in putting in the capital, nor would I criticise their efforts. It is most unfortunate that in the manufacture of Heinkel cars, they struck a situation where, over two years, all the other small cars came on the market which largely out-dated the Heinkel, and at the same time, there were these crises in the motor trade which did not help.

The Minister can be assured from a politician opposed to him from that area that whatever way I can help to assist the Government in their efforts with those six companies, I will help, and my only worry in that regard is the fact that the information conveyed to us by the Minister for Industry and Commerce last week is sad and sorry news, because the figure he has given is roughly 500 people left, where there were 1,000, and that may be further reduced by the fact that about 150 of those were not there when the railway works were closed.

An Cathaoirleach

That matter is scarcely relevant.

Mr. Donegan

Except for the fact that £1,500,000 of Government money are there. My view is that what we want is not too stringent an approach to the further closing of lines. The Government have gone half-way, as the Minister has said, to meeting the report that suggested the closing of 1,000 miles of line. I feel that the cost of roads must be viewed at Cabinet level, and the Minister must take account of the cost of bringing the roads up to the standard to enable them to take these heavy lorries without damage to the community and the road users. The Minister may be heading into very deep financial water if he goes any further, and I would urge him not to close any further branch lines.

I have failed to find a break-down of the capital expenditure on the rail and road services of C.I.E. The accounts have been produced in a rather ingenious, rather modern way, but they are not quite as explicit as the old fashioned balance sheet, broken down into profit and loss accounts and so on. I have not succeeded in getting information as to what share of the capital expenditure is represented by roads and what is represented by rail. No new diesel locomotives were bought during the year. I cannot have any opinion on that, because, when you buy a diesel locomotive, it is a large purchase, so we do not know what are the plans of the Government in that regard, unless the Minister has news for us.

I would urge the Minister to remember that there are other bodies besides C.I.E., and another thing I should mention is that the deliberate tendering at uneconomic rates for work should be discontinued. That is a practice of which I have some evidence, and I am quite aware that on occasions there has been tendering which was deliberately uneconomic, the purpose of the tender being to get the work and, having got it, to hold it in following years, because if they got it in one year, presumably the fleet that was there to do it would have been dispersed before the following year. That is rather like the rich man showing a loss deliberately for two years to squeeze out his competitor. When you have a Government behind you and when it is either a million pounds or three million pounds next year that is wanted — the figure is just a paper figure in a book — a loan will be floated on very generous terms and it will fill. It is quite against our democratic institutions here to quote at uneconomic rates for individual loads. I do not want to give individual instances. If the Minister wants them, he can get them privately from me.

I wish C.I.E. well, but I would say that none of the operations that tend to expand C.I.E. will help to any degree. If we could get a normal natural flow of fleets of privatelyowned vehicles, with C.I.E. providing the ordinary services without seeking to expand, it might be the best situation.

On buses, I would say that my colleague, Senator Murphy, is mistaken in his interpretation on what happens on the continent. The position on the continent is that the conductor sits or stands at the back and nobody hopes to guarantee himself a seat on the bus. The bus is crowded with people all standing, and there are fewer buses on the streets. That is quite true in Italy and in France, and my view is that over the years that situation may develop here, too. I do not think we are ever going to be rich enough to move back buildings to give the true flow of traffic at the pace we would like.

I think that the difficult answer may be more people on the buses and less comfort. That is a rather revolutionary thought in this country but it is what happens. I was often quite annoyed by the fact that some continentals did not give up their seats to old people or to ladies, but nevertheless that was the picture: fewer buses with more people on them. That will happen here and when it does, it will mean more traffic moving through Dublin city and less comfort in the buses. That is all I have to say about the accounts, except that I hope that next year we will see fuller production.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

I am glad to get this opportunity of discussing proposals of C.I.E. and I must say, coming from the area I come from, that speaking of C.I.E. is like showing a red rag to a bull to the people down there. An announcement was made some few months ago that the people of west Cork, an area as large as two counties here, say, Longford and Leitrim or Carlow and Louth, are to be completely abandoned by C.I.E. because, they state, they lost £56,000 last year. That is the reason they give for abandoning 100,000 people who will be expected to contribute their portion of this £750,000 which C.I.E. have lost this year and who will have to contribute as well to any future losses.

Mind you, we do not think of this line as a branch line. The people there have been a unit to themselves — over 110 miles of railroad extending throughout the whole southern seaboard and serving a large area and over 100,000 people. Since that announcement was made, the people of west Cork and their public representatives have made every effort to meet the chairman of C.I.E., the Minister for Transport and Power and the Taoiseach to discuss with them ways and means of keeping this line open and there is no doubt that, with proper organisation and proper services, this deficit, which I maintain is grossly exaggerated, could be wiped out.

An Cathaoirleach

There is nothing about the west Cork railway in the report.

Mr. O'Sullivan

It is not the first time it was mentioned. A west Corkman spoke at the opening of this inquest on C.I.E. operations in west Cork. That is the surprising part about it. A west Corkman who rode on this railroad, who represented the people of west Cork for a considerable number of years, was put in the unfortunate position that he had to come before the House——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

There is nothing unfortunate about it.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

——and read the evidence at the inquest. I am sure it was not his own wish but part of his duty as Leader of the House and that he would wish to come in to support the rest of the people there in their fight to keep the line open.

I shall take one item of goods carried in west Cork. If they had the complete haulage of the beet crop of west Cork — we are taking beet alone now — it would wipe out this deficit of £56,000 which we are led to believe arose last year. It has been stated by the Minister in the Dáil that, in 1959-60, the total beet crop in west Cork was in the region of 83,000 tons. It was stated that 41,000 tons of this beet went by rail and the other 40,000 tons by road. I can assure the Minister and the Chairman of C.I.E., as a member of Mallow beet board, that for many years back, since 1955, we have a path made to the office of the traffic manager in Glanmire trying to get him to give us some facilities to help people loading their beet at the station. It took C.I.E. five years to bring a light from the passenger side of Glanmire station to the goods side. Prior to that, the people were expected to load beet in frost and snow, in rain and cold in the dark or with the help of some few lanterns provided that often went out as soon as they were lighted.

That is the service they gave the people of west Cork. We wanted them to improve loading conditions so that beet could be loaded with less effort than at that time when people had to throw it three or four feet up into the wagons. Nobody considered these hardworking people who, after doing a day's work — and they did not get overtime — came in after dark to load beet in these conditions. Now they say that the people of west Cork did not give them their business. Why should they? Surely to goodness, C.I.E. should be expected to provide at least a decent service for the people. That tonnage which increased probably last year and will be increased in the future could wipe out that deficit completely. Every ton of beet going from Clonakilty is carrying a subsidy of 18/6d or 18/9d a ton. This increase in one item alone would wipe out the debt if C.I.E. provided any sort of facilities for the people.

Now what will happen? This beet will have to go by road. You can say 43,000 tons or 50,000 tons of beet, plus what was sent by rail last year. Nearly 100,000 tons of beet will be put on the roads of west Cork and we are very well aware, and many Senators who have travelled those roads are aware, of the many corners, turns, railway bridges and the narrow streets of Clonakilty, Bandon and Cork city where all this beet will have to travel to reach Mallow. They also know the condition of the roads there is such that heavy traffic will completely burst them up. I have here before me — the Minister has already seen it — a document prepared by the county engineer in Cork, who, after giving serious consideration to the matter, in consultation with all his assistant county engineers, decided that the cost of improving the roads would be considerably greater than the loss supposed to be sustained by C.I.E. during the past year.

One thing that is not taken into account, even by the county engineer, is the number of railway bridges over the road. If you are going to have a free flow of road traffic, every one of these bridges will have to be removed. The cost of doing that will be greater than the loss sustained by C.I.E. in one year.

The peculiar thing about this loss was that last year, for the first time in many years, C.I.E. carried out a decoration scheme in the railway stations and on their houses in West Cork. They introduced the grandest painting scheme I ever saw. It would do one's heart good to look at it. If Leinster House had a coat of the paint, it would make it look a lot more attractive. It was not very good business, knowing that they were going to abandon a certain area, to paint every bridge and house. As one painter said to me: "We put it everywhere except on the grass." There were tons of it knocking about. Was it to cause this deficit that all this paint was used? Was it to create a deficit that a couple of miles of new tracks were put in to be ripped up the year after and used, perhaps, in the Congo or elsewhere next year? I can assure the Minister that if C.I.E., even at this late hour, came down to hard facts and looked after their transport system there and got one item alone, the beet on the rail to Mallow, the line would pay for itself next year.

Let me now come to the question of the tourist industry. I hope this line will not be taken up. I hope that even at this late hour C.I.E. will see reason and give it a chance for another few years and examine the business. I can assure them they will get the co-operation of the people if they do that.

I travelled by rail from Dublin some time last year. In the carriage with me was a family coming on holidays from Coventry. In conversation with them before we arrived in Cork, they asked if they could catch the west Cork train. I said they could, although the time between the arrival of the Dublin train and the departure of the west Cork train was so small that it did not give much time to anybody to catch it. I could see how alarmed they were at the prospect of having to incur the further expense of getting a car. I could see that this family would have stayed in Cork city and never moved to west Cork, if it were not for the train. I took them over and had time to load their luggage so that they could get to Bantry.

The loss of the railway train to a man with a family — this gentleman was accompanied by his wife and four or five children — would have been a serious matter. One can see the considerable expense it would put them to, had they to get private transport to bring them somewhere. They certainly would not have gone down to west Cork. We can see by that the harm it will do the tourist industry. It will mean the loss of the tourist trade to west Cork where the people are doing so much to further the industry and hope to get a good share of it, once the Cork Airport is in operation.

It seems to be the policy of C.I.E. to regard west Cork as a forgotten place that will no longer be on the map. As the Bishop of Cork says, it is an abandoned area, but we will prove to C.I.E., the Minister and all concerned, that it is not an abandoned area. We have gone over this at various meetings during the past few months. I am not going to take up the time of the House since there may be others who wish to speak on the matter, but I certainly appeal to the chairman of C.I.E. and all concerned to give this line a chance for another few years and make every effort to get the business already there. I can assure them of the help of the people of west Cork.

Of course, the day has come when every member of this House, no matter on what side he is, will have to consider seriously the question of State-sponsored bodies and the powers given to them. We have seen the result of dictatorial policy here and there. It is time we had an appraisal of the situation. I think that time has already arrived. If the Minister and the Government examined the matter, they would be doing a good day's work.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We are anxious to finish this debate tonight. Could I get an indication of how many wish to speak, as the Minister would probably need an hour to reply.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

There are only about three more.

Mr. O'Quigley

We will never finish this to-night.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I think it would be advisable to sit later than the normal hour, having regard to the amount of Government business in the offing.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I think it would be advisable to finish it to-night.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a motion that appeared only recently on the agenda and there are other motions that did not get the same facilities. I do not see any reason why we should finish, due to the fact that we were here to-day only by accident to deal with a matter of urgent business in relation to mental treatment. I do not think we ought to sit late to-night merely to dispose of something which I do not think we could finish, even if we sat until 11 p.m.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

This motion was put down by agreement as a result of discussions at meetings of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

Mr. O'Quigley

But not as a matter of urgency.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister will require an hour. We could continue the debate until half-past nine and see what will happen.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

This motion, as the Leader of the House said, was put down by agreement. Of course, it was put down entirely for the purpose of discussing the closure of the west Cork railway. Some Senators who spoke to the motion spoke entirely on the report of C.I.E., but, nevertheless, there is no use closing our eyes to the fact that the motion is intended to cover something else, too. It is a peculiar thing that, when a Government want to make any great change towards real progress in an area, many interests, for various reasons, come together to oppose it and to create an organisation which they may use eventually for many different purposes. That is what we have in connection with this noise about the closure of the west Cork railway, without any examination of the facts. It is all a one-sided, one-way argument the whole way through. If anybody is to blame for the closing of the west Cork railway, surely it is the people of west Cork themselves. Surely the people of west Cork are the very last who should be expected not to progress as well as any other part of the country.

These railways came to west Cork at a time when they were a wonderful innovation and remember that their coming was not at all popular. There was plenty of opposition to them because it was held that they would deprive carters, farmers, carpenters, harness-makers and labourers of their employment when all goods were carried by cart from one end of Cork to the other.

Mr. O'Quigley

There was not a great improvement with C.I.E.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

I do not want any interruption from the Senator.

Mr. O'Quigley

Do not get cross.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

That opposition was there at the time and I have heard the old people talking about it. The opposition was so great that they felt the railways would not pay without a guarantee. When any of these branches were extended, they had to be guaranteed by the rates, but it was only on 31st December, 1924, that that baronial guarantee ceased. It is a strange thing that with all this ballyhoo about closing this railway, there was never a mention about who was to guarantee these losses. A further proof of the opposition to the opening of that railway is the local tradition, which many people persuade you is a fact, that there was a house built across the railway at Clonakilty to prevent the railway going any further the next day. I do not know if that is true or not.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

It is probably a fiction.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

Maybe. Make local inquiries. Every move towards progress has its adherents and its opponents. For instance, I think it was in 1946 that what we thought at the time was the last link connecting the railhead with Beara was severed, when the Princess Beara was taken out of service. The people of Beara at the time thought that it was going to be very difficult for them to get their goods inwards and outwards. They had a service each way on alternate days and they thought it was a terrible thing to lose that service, poor as it was. Of course it was lost because they themselves failed to support it and it was lost because in the 25 years prior to that, one merchant after another and the carriers had been getting lorries on the peninsula and there were about one dozen of them. Needless to say, because they could get transport from the railhead in a couple of hours, they were not going to wait three days and therefore there were no goods left for the Princess Beara to carry one way or another and it had to be withdrawn.

I thought at the time that it was going to be a very difficult situation and I had discussions with the Department of Industry and Commerce. However, they were able to satisfy me that they would give an alternative service by road, a daily service, which in addition to being a service from Beara to Castletownbere, would be a service to places such as Glengarriff, Castletownbere and Allihies, and would actually be a door to door service along the road, and extend far beyond the terminus at Castletownbere. Therefore, the people really got a much more satisfactory service and what we thought would be, as is described in one motion here, a retrograde step at the time, proved to be great progress and is working very satisfactorily so far.

We have not heard much here about the origin of all this. We have heard a lot about the 1958 Transport Act but we have not heard much about the Beddy Commission in 1956, when, after pouring £12,000,000 subsidy and £7,000,000 guaranteed stock into the operation of C.I.E., they were still faced with a loss of £1.6 million per annum. That was a very serious situation and it was tackled seriously at the time by serious men. They saw no option but to report to the then Minister that about 1,000 miles of railways should be closed. That report was accepted by both Governments but they did not find it necessary so far to close 1,000 miles of railways. In fact, when this west Cork line is closed, there will only be 420 miles closed altogether.

We hope that situation will continue and that there will still be enough traffic left to obviate the necessity to close any further mileage. So far as I know, trade unions are satisfied with the arrangements made for redundant labour and of course there remains the question as to whether or not a satisfactory alternative service will be provided.

When we take into account that, at the moment, there are 70-odd merchandise licences in operation in the area formerly served by that railway, that there are a couple of hundred lorries carrying goods to and from that part of the country — there are lorries with merchandise plates which will carry goods anywhere in Ireland, and are carrying goods all over Ireland — and that every ton carried by all those lorries is one ton off the freight carried by the railways, we can see how little is left for the railways to carry.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

Twenty-two wagons of cattle left Bantry fair last Friday.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

The Senator should not interrupt me. I did not interrupt him.

(Interruptions.)

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Order!

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

On a point of order——

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

I am prepared to sit down, if the Senator wishes to make a point of order.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

On a point of order, when my namesake, Senator O'Sullivan, was speaking, I referred to the fact that 22 wagons of cattle left Bantry fair last Friday.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

Is that a point of order?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is not a point of order.

Mr. J.L. O'Sullivan

I thought it was.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

You did! As I was saying, all these co-operative societies in west Cork are carrying goods to all their clients, every ton of which was formerly carried by the railways.

Cattle have been mentioned. Since this ballyhoo began, at a west Cork fair I counted as many as 31 vehicles carrying cattle out of that fair. How much was left for C.I.E. that day? There is no doubt about it, we must face facts. There is no one to blame for the closing of the lines except the people themselves who refuse to support them.

With regard to the beet situation, we are told in these figures that 41,000 tons went by rail and 42,000 tons by road. If that is so, are we to compel people who have been sending beet by road through all the years to send it by rail now? I have been sending beet by rail for more than 20 years. It is not the handiest way, I agree, but four others as well as myself are sending beet by rail in my area. All my side of the country have been sending beet by road for years, at their own option. I should hate to get the Army out to try to compel them to put their beet on the rail and the same applies to those who sent the 42,000 tons from west Cork.

One would think that something new was happening now. As far back as 1927, it was proposed to close a branch of this railway and, many times since, the suggestion has been made to close different branches, or to close half or three-quarters of them. So far, for one reason or another, no definite effort has been made. Another strange thing is, that since all this noise began, C.I.E. receipts from any of these stations have not increased by £1. One would have thought that over the past four, five or six months people had some opportunity of showing in a practical manner whether or not they wanted a rail service.

I was speaking to a reverend gentleman home on holidays from Africa, who had got the newspapers faithfully every week and was very interested in the closing of the west Cork line. He visited a west Cork town. He went there by car but decided to return by rail to do his little bit towards retaining the railway. He informed me that there was one person with himself leaving the station that morning and 20-odd people left the same town by bus. That shows the value the people of that town put on the railway. We must face the facts. Propaganda is a wonderful weapon.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Senator knows that well.

Mr. Ted O'Sullivan

It is great for organising and for creating organisations, but those organisations, created for a certain purpose, may be used for other purposes. I warn members of the different organisations engaged in that work to be careful, and to do their utmost to ensure that when these lines are closed, the people of west Cork will get as good a service, or a better one. They will get a door to door, instead of a station to station, service. I hope it will be as satisfactory as many people in South Kerry tell me their service is, since the railway in Kenmare was closed. With the exception of one extraordinarily large cattle fair, I thing, generally speaking, they are pleased and have made suggestions for small improvements. If we can honestly ensure that the people of west Cork get a better service then, indeed, we shall be able to report progress.

Mr. McGuire

Some heat seems to have been engendered in this debate, but I should like to remind the House that this is not a political debate. We are talking about a company in which everyone in this House and in the country is interested, and not only interested, but want to see successfully operating.

I should like to start off by saying that I, for one, would like to say I am glad that in the past couple of years C.I.E. have been successful and are slowly working from the red into the black. Therefore, I must say I do not think I heard anyone here to-night attack the Minister as a Government Minister, or a Fianna Fáil Minister, about anything in connection with C.I.E. If the present Minister were not here, whatever Minister was here of whatever Party, we would stand up and make criticisms, constructive criticisms, I suggest, for the further improvement of C.I.E. That is the approach I myself should like to make.

I should like to start off, as I said, by saying that, on the whole, a very good effort has been made, a realistic effort, a businesslike effort, to make C.I.E. a success and to make it viable. The first right thing that happened in connection with C.I.E. was that they were given more or less the powers of a private enterprise company, and not saddled with obligations which were uneconomic and with which private enterprise is not saddled. That being so, there was a complementary obligation, in giving these powers, that private enterprise should have a fair show as regards C.I.E., too. It is a two-way thing.

There is a certain amount of disquiet amongst the private enterprise economy in this country about the powers given to C.I.E. and about some of their operations. I do not want to stress this too much. There is an intrusion by C.I.E. in certain branches of their operations into the realm of private enterprise. I feel the law is overdone in pampering C.I.E. about road transport. Surely any man and a helper on a lorry belonging to a private individual or a private company are as good a pair of workers as any workers in C.I.E.? Why should one type of Irishman have preferential treatment, because he is in C.I.E., as compared with a private enterprise man? Another complaint is that C.I.E. are selling goods in their hotel shops during hours which are not permitted by the trade unions to private enterprise.

These are two examples of operations which I feel are not fair. I am all for giving C.I.E. the benefits of operation at private enterprise level. On the other hand, they must have fair competition with private enterprise and private enterprise must have a fair chance against them. A certain amount of monopoly is still being conceded to C.I.E. which is not conceded to private enterprise. If these monopolies were created in a private enterprise economy, they would come into conflict with the Restrictive Trade Practices law.

It is very important, not only in C.I.E. but in the whole question of State companies and their relationship with private enterprise, that there should not be conflict. For some years past, some of the leaders in State companies have been rather indiscreet in statements about the importance and super-importance of State companies vis-á-vis private enterprise. That is bad. It would be bad for people in private enterprise to be too critical and unfairly critical of State bodies.

We are a small country. We are starting our industrial life. We are setting up the infra-structure of our economy. We should work together. We cannot afford to be against one another in spirit, in practice or in fact. Therefore, it is very important that at all levels and on all occasions State enterprise and private enterprise should work in harmony in a private enterprise economy.

It is essential that it be understood that we cannot pile up costs of wages, conditions of employment, and so forth, and other costs based on State companies. State companies get their capital from the taxpayer. If they make a loss, it has to be made up by the taxpayer generally. They are not the people to set the headline for expenses in this country. State bodies should follow and not lead the private enterprise economy in such matters. To do otherwise is really putting the cart before the horse: the person leaning on everybody is leading instead of following in these matters.

C.I.E. have a great responsibility, and are shouldering it, to ensure they are not having imposed upon them a set of wages and conditions that cannot be carried by other elements in the economy. We are all for fairness to their workers and for fairness in relation to the general expenses they must incur with different people, but they must not get out of line with what the general economy can stand.

On the question of making C.I.E. an economic proposition, making it viable and getting it to make profits, I think any business can go too far in cutting out uneconomic operations. If we reduce any business to its profit-making elements, we may very often lose an important part of the whole. It happens in the business I know about, the department store. We may have 50 departments. At any given time, we may carry five or ten or more departments that are services and create a general service as a whole. In the same way, our transport services cannot be regarded completely as the paying units and the non-paying units. If we brought that to its logical conclusion, we would not have any bus services in the country at present. Dublin bus services are carrying the country.

If we are to have a viable transport in the country, we will have bus transport in Dublin only. If we carry that further into the realm of the closing-down of branch lines, then, as has already been stated, there are undoubtedly a lot of lines that should not be continued. On the other hand, the idea has been carried a bit too far in closing down these lines. Take, for instance, the Waterford-Tramore railway. That was making a loss of about £3,000 a year. Anybody knowing that railway and the service it provided in the summer for the people living in the area will realise its importance. Thousands of people used it in the summer to get to the seaside. The bus could not possibly give the same service. It cannot carry loads of people, as the train could, for a loss of £3,000 a year. What will the cost on our roads be? I take that as an example of what may be the position in other cases. It will be found that the change over will involve a loss of more than £3,000 a year.

During the war, there was intensive wheat-growing. The reason we continue that policy is that the Government say we must not allow ourselves to become too dependent on outside sources and so become vulnerable in times of emergency or war. If that applies to wheat, surely it applies to transport also. What is Government policy? I can see perhaps why these branch lines are closed but I cannot understand why they should be torn up. Millions of pounds worth of investment has been torn up as we have seen it out from Dublin and I gather down the country. The rails are being taken up and sent out of the country. What will happen in the event of emergency or war? How will we manage for transport? If we kept our railways, they could easily be brought into operation again. We could use turf as we did during the last emergency. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to enlighten us on the Government's view on our transport in case of emergency or war and a shortage of oil.

I hope the Grand Canal will not go the way of the Royal Canal. It is false economy and false saving to destroy such a passageway which is a means of transport from one side of Ireland to the other. I do not want to pursue the subject too long. We all know the arguments in favour of keeping the canal which has a future, not only from a transport point of view but from a holiday point of view, from the point of view of canoes, yachts and so on when the Shannon is developed, as, I am sure, it will be, as it should, in the future. We have not begun to realise the value of the river Shannon to this country as a tourist amenity for yachts and for visitors, and we are only at the beginning of our tourist business. To destroy an artery, and such a pleasant artery, from one side of the country to the other would be sheer vandalism not to say completely bad business.

There are a few minor points which I do not want to go deeply into at this late hour. I will touch on a few lighter notes. I am sure everybody agrees that the policy of the present administration of C.I.E. in brightening up and cleaning up their services, equipment and stations is very welcome. The whole look of C.I.E. has taken a turn for brightness and cleanliness which was sadly lacking in the past. I do not altogether agree with some of the colours used, but that is a matter of taste. Many of the colours are rather faded and anaemic. I wrote to the papers about this recently and mentioned that I saw a bus in St. Stephen's Green painted a red which looks like the undercoating or the second last coating before putting on the real red. We should have colours of character and quality. At the same time, I would not like to be too critical on this subject, as I feel that the brightening of the stations and the cleanliness of the rolling stock and, above all, of the engines and trains is very much to be commended.

There is one engine, however, that does not live up to what we would expect, that is, the diesel engine. Anybody who has travelled in the carriage behind the driver's cabin must have been shocked by the state of neglect in which the operating machinery is kept. I am sorry to say that I have travelled between Dublin and Cork and Dublin and Galway and I do not think a rag has been used over the working parts of the steering box since these diesels were bought. I am sure that the mere mention of this tonight will mean that we will see them gleaming and bright like a battleship, as they should be.

One final point I should like to make is that we know the bus drivers all over the country have a very onerous and responsible job, but there is a general complaint about the lack of signals by bus drivers. I would say that they pull out 75 times out of a hundred, if not more, without any signal whatever. On the other hand— and this is something the drivers have nothing to do with—the lights on the backs of the buses are practically useless. They are the smallest red lights I have ever seen, instead of being the biggest, and very often a bus can pull up quite dangerously and without any proper signal that it is about to do so. In country areas, these buses can be a positive danger to traffic, no less than the badly lighted lorries on country roads.

I hope the Minister will accept anything I have said as being said in a purely constructive spirit and with the wish to see continued improvement by C.I.E. on the lines we have seen in the past few years.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 8 Mar 1961