Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jul 1979

Vol. 92 No. 10

Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Transport (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Dublin South-Central): The main purpose of the Bill is to give statutory effect to an agreement dated 12 July 1977 between CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners which provides for the permanent closure of the navigation spans on the Brian Boru and Clontarf Bridges in Cork city and for the transfer of ownership of the bridges from CIE to Cork Corporation. In addition the Bill also makes certain provisions in relation to the members of the Board and the general manager of CIE.

The Brian Boru and Clontarf Bridges, which span the north and south channels of the river Lee in Cork city were constructed under the provisions of the Cork City Railways Act, 1906. The bridges were so constructed so as to be able to carry road as well as railway traffic. In addition the Act provided that the bridges were to have opening spans to allow for the passage of vessels along the river.

In 1948 CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners concluded an agreement in accordance with the provisions of section 134 of the Transport Act, 1944, which provided that the cost of working, control, management and maintenance of the bridges would be shared equally between the three parties, subject to the contribution by Cork Harbour Commissioners being payable only so long as any portion of the bridges continued to be moveable.

It is 1961 since the navigation spans of Clontarf Bridge were last opened and 1963 in the case of Brian Boru Bridge. Any craft now using the portions of quay upstream from the bridges would be small and would not require the opening of the navigation spans. Cork Harbour Commissioners agree that the opening spans are no longer needed.

In recent years it became apparent that the provision of a stronger and more durable type of decking on the bridges was necessary in order to improve the traffic flow over the route, and in an effort to alleviate the severe traffic problems caused by the necessity of frequent repairs to the existing bridge surfaces. The operation of trains over the bridges on the line between Albert Quay Station and Glanmire Station, which had been used by CIE for the transfer of certain freight traffic, became increasingly difficult and the line has not been used by CIE since 1976. The freight traffic is now transported by road vehicles direct to Glanmire Station for onward distribution on the rail network.

Following consultation between CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners, CIE prepared proposals to have the bridges converted to fixed bridges and to have the railway lines removed completely. The three parties have concluded an agreement dated 12 July 1977 to give effect to these proposals and to provide for transfer of ownership of the bridges to Cork Corporation. The implementation of the agreement is subject to the enactment of this Bill.

A copy of the agreement is set out in the Schedule to the Bill and, as Senators will note from the agreement, CIE will convert the bridges to fixed bridges within six months and will remove the railway tracks and other equipment from the bridges within 12 months of the passing of the legislation.

Pending completion of these works the cost of maintaining the bridges will be borne equally by CIE and Cork Corporation. Cork Harbour Commissioners will be relieved of any obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the bridges from the date of enactment of the Bill.

When CIE have completed the works, and on payment by the board to Cork Corporation of a sum not exceeding £12,000 towards the cost of providing a more durable road surface on the bridges, ownership of the bridges will be transferred from CIE to Cork Corporation who will then become exclusively responsible for their maintenance. Cork Corporation will indemnify CIE and Cork Harbour Commissioners against any possible claims for compensation for loss of private rights arising from conversion of the bridges to fixed bridges.

In addition to the provisions concerning the Cork bridges, the Bill makes certain provisions in relation to the general manager and members of the Board of CIE.

For some time now it has been Government policy to make statutory provision for the control, in a broad sense, of the remuneration of chief executives of State-sponsored bodies. Section 7 of the Bill will extend this control to the chief executive of CIE. The Board of CIE will be free to fix the remuneration of the chief executive within the range approved by the Minister for Tourism and Transport with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. The Report of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector dated 11 July 1972 recommended ranges of remuneration for the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies. These ranges have been updated by the addition of increases in pay agreed under the various successive national pay agreements.

Every member of the Board of CIE holds office, under section 7(2) of the Transport Act, 1950, on terms and conditions fixed by the Government at the "time of his appointment". Because of this latter phrase it is not open to the Government to alter the terms and conditions of a member of the board without his resignation and re-appointment on revised terms and conditions. Hence, to apply the normal approved increases in remuneration it has been necessary for the chairman or other members of the board to resign and be re-appointed by the Government at the higher rate. To resolve this legal difficulty it is proposed in section 8 of the Bill to amend the existing legislation by the deletion of the words "at the time of his appointment"; in addition provision is being made for the fixing of the terms and conditions by the Minister for Tourism and Transport with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service rather than by the Government.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Staunton

I welcome the introduction of this Bill by the Minister. It is quite uncontentious and, as in Dáil Éireann, it has our support. Obviously there are serious problems in Cork. Deputy Barry referred to these in his speech in Dáil Éireann and he knows much more about the problems there than I do. There are problems and anomalies in the holding open of navigation rights on these bridges in circumstances in which these rights have not been used for some years. When the structure of the bridge is such that it has to be held open for navigation rights it leads to serious maintenance problems in a city in which the traffic situation is very congested and quite unsatisfactory. The introduction of this Bill is probably overdue and the arrangement made by CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners for the carrying out of what has to be done seems very sensible and rational. It is uncontentious and has our support.

The second section of the Bill is quite a different matter in the sense that it does not relate to the first topic. It is also very sensible and it is an example of the archaic workings of Parliament in this country that this has not been updated until now. In this age of inflation and in the light of the problems we have been having it is ludicrous that we are operating under the Transport Act, 1950 under which every member of the Board of CIE holds office on terms and conditions fixed by the Government at the time of his appointment. The position whereby resignation and re-appointment is necessary to comply with that Act is unsatisfactory. The anomaly is being corrected and also has our support.

Mícheál Cranitch

It was with a certain regret and nostalgia that I read this Bill. It has, of course, my unqualified support but the provision for the permanent closure of the navigation spans of the Brian Boru and Clontarf Bridges and for the transfer of the ownership of the bridges from CIE to Cork Corporation brings my mind back to the times when we were youngsters living not very far away from Cork city and we always envied the lads who happened to be in Cork when either of the bridges was opened. I can remember the thrill I got the very first day I saw one of those bridges open. Even though the bridges have not been opened, one for 18 years and the other for 16 years, still there was always the hope that some day a miracle would happen and they would be opened again. However, time marches on and now we are to have permanent bridges. Quite a lot of good will come from that.

The Minister stated that CIE have to convert the bridges to fixed bridges within six months and that they will remove the tracks and other equipment from the bridges within 12 months of the passing of the legislation. That is something that is crying out to be done because both of these bridges, as far as traffic is concerned, are most unsatisfactory. The surfaces are very rickety and certainly do not do good to cars passing over them. These bridges present a grave hazard to cyclists or pedestrians and I always have to make excuses to people from abroad about the bad condition of the roads. I hope that CIE and all concerned will make a determined effort to get those bridges properly surfaced so that they will not be a hazard for traffic and will add to the good looks of our city.

Dr. West

Our capital city.

Mr. Keating

There are two totally different matters in this Bill. I said to the Minister that this Bill was not going to hurt but I am not sure now. On the first part, a matter of regulating bridges in Cork, there can be no disagreement. We may ask why it took so long because all of us have recollections of the situation being unsatisfactory on those bridges and the traffic circulation in Cork being bad for a long time. Anything that puts that right is welcome and nobody will oppose it.

Section 7 represents a total change of gear, to a completely different subject which is the remuneration of the chief officer of CIE, or whatever he is called at any given moment. The Minister stated:

For some time now it has been Government policy to make statutory provision for the control, in a broad sense, of the remuneration of the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies. Section 7 of the Bill will extend this control to the chief executive of CIE.

I had a great deal of experience of the mess, hassle and chaos this broad Government policy created during my time as Minister. I bitterly but unsuccessfully opposed its implementation. I wonder with a Bill such as this whether we should have the Minister for Finance and the Minister for the Public Service in front of us rather than someone from the Department of Tourism and Transport.

Let me very briefly say why I believe there is a mess and what I believe is desirable. This issue of the remuneration of the chief executives of semi-State bodies wastes more time between Government Departments than any other piece of trivia. It certainly did in my time and it will not stop now. It may be broad Government policy and it is certainly narrow and rigorous Department of Finance policy to control in the most minute and precise sense the remuneration the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies. I am a passionate defender of the State sector in our economy. I want to see it bigger and to see it extend into other areas. But I want that on very specific conditions.

I believe in the concept of a national enterprise board which separates the semi-State companies directly from Departments because there ought to be something intervening between those semi-State bodies and the individual Ministers to which they are currently attached. There should be a filtering mechanism so that there is not an effort to politicise the activities of these companies, and to ensure that there is not an extension of civil service attitudes — and particularly Department of Finance attitudes — to those companies. For us to be proud of those companies they must be excellently run. The condition of their being excellently run is that they have the best chief executives available. To get such executives we must pay the going market price.

In the case of NET I will give the example of somebody managing with immense vigour, passion and skill a huge semi-State enterprise with enormous investments who was being paid a most miserable and shameful salary. I was ashamed of what he was being paid and we had endless hassles about it. This measure extends attitudes into CIE which are better kept out and to the extent that they have already pervaded CIE they are better chased out again. The matter is perfectly simple. There should not be this Government policy to control in a broad sense or any other sense the remuneration of the chief executive. There should be a board of people who are dismissible. If they do something foolish and give a man too much money they should be fired by a Minister. They know they are fireable; they know they are expendable; they know they are appointed on the condition that they behave reasonably; and then we should trust them. There is paternalism by the State as well as paternalism by the Church, by fathers of families and by everybody else in this country. It is a stifling thing. This is retrograde. The chief executive of CIE, who should be the best transport executive we can find, should be paid the going rate for the job as determined by the market place. If that sounds off coming from a socialist it is nonetheless something that I believe passionately to be necessary if we are to have a good administration. I am glad to have the opportunity of putting that on the record.

Obviously it is desirable to end the anomaly of the appointment subject to the conditions at any given moment whereby there is the ludicrous situation of a whole body of people retiring and being appointed under new conditions. No reasonable person would oppose those provisions in the Bill.

I am not speaking to this Minister at all. I am using this platform in the Seanad to speak to all those people who form policy in regard to the efficient administration of the State sector, of so called semi-State companies. They are really State companies. I am speaking out of my own experience about the immense amount of wasted time and ill-will that has been generated through the State companies. I am speaking most of all to the Minister for Finance. I do not expect him to listen now but this is a debate that will have to be continued and resolved in another way because we will never get the excellence we know to be possible in State companies and that the nation requires and expects, if we do not pay the best people we can find the going rate.

Mr. Jago

I wish to refer mainly to the first part of the Bill and its relation to the Cork traffic problem. As everybody knows, Cork has a serious traffic problem and that is partly caused by the fact that the river Lee divides into two channels when going through the city. To ease the problem, Cork requires a lot of bridges and is very much behind in the number of bridges which it has in relation to traffic. It is so far behind that the two bridges we are talking about built in 1906 are still known to some people in Cork as "the new bridges".

As explained in the Minister's speech, these two bridges have been involved with three different bodies. Because they had to be opening bridges to allow shipping to go up, Cork Harbour Commissioners are involved. Because CIE had a connection between the Bandon section and the Glanmire Road section, they had to have railways across the bridges. Thirdly, because of city traffic Cork Corporation entered into it. Those two bridges are an essential part of the Cork traffic system at the moment. If either of those bridges went out of commission, whatever mess the Cork traffic is in now, it would come to a complete standstill without an alternative being provided. It is urgent for Cork city that this Bill be put into law as soon as possible.

As soon as this legislation is passed the railway tracks will be taken up and a proper decking can be put in to replace the present timber decking. The superstructure which is the lifting part of the bridge can be taken down. Plans are ready for all this to be done. Alongside one of those bridges a bailey bridge is already constructed to take over. The bridge cannot be put out of action to repair or alter it until this legislation goes through. It is urgent and I would ask all Members of the House to give it their approval immediately.

If we cannot get those two bridges repaired and keep the traffic flowing while the work is being done we cannot ease the traffic problem. The plan after that is to build two more new bridges in the city to cross the river and, lower down the harbour, either a high level bridge or a tunnel. The money has been passed for a study to be made of this and we are very anxious that this should go ahead. To enable these bridges to become the sole property of Cork Corporation so that they can be repaired and adjusted to keep the traffic going for the time being we are very anxious that this measure should be enacted as soon as possible.

Dr. West

There are four separate points here. In connection with the bridges there is the problem of giving up the navigation rights. There is the second problem of pulling up the rail lines. Then there are the two problems, the remuneration of the chief executive of CIE, and matters dealing with the other board members.

I do not think anybody could have an objection to cancelling the navigation rights connected with these two bridges. They have not been open for such a long time that if either of them were opened it would collapse. I walk over these bridges often enough and they are pretty "shook" at the moment. Since there is virtually no navigation in that part of the Lee by reasonably sized boats nobody could object to the cancelling of the navigating rights.

I am not quite so sure about pulling up the railway lines. It seems that one could easily resurface the bridges and make them perfectly stable. I do not think either of them is stable at the moment; they are both in a dangerous condition. One could incorporate railway lines. These railway lines have been important in the past and they could be important again. I would like the Minister to say something about the state of the Albert Quay railway station. A great deal hinges on what CIE plan for this station. This particular piece of railway line connects the two main stations in Cork. Glanmire station is the one which everybody knows because it is the Cork station. Albert Quay station has not been used in the normal sense of a railway for a number of years since the west Cork line was closed down. It is used as a goods yard.

I am always very suspicious about the proposal to close down railway lines, particularly when it means rooting them up. There are a number of people even in CIE who would like to get back the Harcourt Street line. I do not think we should give up our railway lines and give up the right of way there without serious consideration. Senator Jago has talked about the Cork traffic problems. The only people who will solve the Cork traffic problems will be the Arabs by putting a squeeze on the oil. Cork traffic problems, bridges or no bridges, are pretty insoluble. The thought that resurfacing these bridges can do much to affect Cork traffic problems is an illusion. Senator Jago is quite right in saying that if either of the bridges went out of commission then it would make the traffic problems worse. He did not say that if we re-surface these bridges it would make the Cork traffic problem any better. I do not think it would.

We should know something more about the situation regarding the future use of Albert Quay station before we give up the railway line connecting the two stations. If it is to be used as a goods depot then I do not think it is enough for the Minister to say that the goods which are in railway trucks in Albert Quay station can be then put on the road, on a roadrail or truck, and pulled across to the Glanmire Station. That will cause a great deal of loss and expense. I do not see that the preservation of the railway line between the two stations really causes a problem. There have been problems caused by goods trains running at peak traffic times. That is only a matter of administration. All one has to do is say that if this line is to remain in working order then there should be no traffic movement on the line except between the hours of, say, 2 a.m. and 8 a.m. That would seem to me to be an easy solution to that problem. I am not falling over myself with enthusiasm when I hear that we are closing down another railway line.

The situation regarding petrol and petroleum products and their availability in the future looks pretty grim. It is getting grimmer every day if one can judge from the newspapers. This may mean that a considerable portion of both passenger and goods traffic will be forced back from the road onto the railway, which is a much more economic user of petroleum products. This would be a very good thing.

We should be thinking about legislation which would ensure that certain types of traffic could be carried entirely by rail, particularly traffic which may have some problems in terms of dangerous chemicals. They are much safer going by rail than by road. Therefore I view with some dismay a proposal to close down yet another railway line. It is absolutely clear from the Bill that there is no intention of ever having a rail link between these two stations again. I oppose that.

The argument has been perfectly made for making these bridges into fixed bridges but I do not see why the rail line could not be incorporated. It could be done properly and would not affect the traffic flow. Railway lines in the middle of the road always affect cyclists and make life slightly more dangerous for them but I do not think many cyclists or pedestrians have been killed on this particular stretch of railway line over the past 20 or even 50 years. I do not think these lines cause any danger whatever, in a realistic sense, to the public. I am against the closing of railway lines and against the closing of this particular railway line, unless CIE have decided to dispense with the Albert Quay station altogether. Surely if they had decided to do that the Minister would have told us. I am opposed to the provision for removing the railway lines.

The two other provisions at the end of the Bill concern the Board members of CIE and their remuneration. Along with Senator Keating I have no objection whatever to that. It is a quite minor administrative change and will affect nobody. But I am delighted that he has protested against this provision in a very vigorous way and obviously with a great deal of feeling coming from his experience as Minister for Industry and Commerce. Whenever I see this in a Bill I protest against this business of "screwing"— that is what it is — the chief executive of a semi-State body. This is a Government policy. Which Government originated this policy, I would like to know. I am not trying to score party political points, but I think it is a disastrous policy that the chief executives of semi-State bodies should be pushed down. We know the level they are being pushed down to—they are being pushed down to the level of the secretaries of the Departments involved. I think Senator Keating will bear me out in that. It is essentially — I do not like saying it — a question of jealousy on behalf of the senior civil servants who do not want the chief executives of semi-State bodies paid more than they are getting. I think that this is ridiculous; it is a petty point. The man who makes it most clearly and most vigorously and most often is John Healy. He has been at this for years. When he talks about the permanent Government of the country he means the civil servants.

I am totally and utterly against this provision. I have protested against it on many occasions. I am delighted to see that Senator Keating is taking such a strong line and it obviously comes from his experiences. He said it was from his experiences, as Minister for Industry and Commerce. He is a socialist; I have often heard him putting forward strong socialist views. I think this view is not blindly socialist; I think it is a very straightforward, pragmatic view. If you have State corporations and if you want your State corporations to perform as well as private corporations, you must get them managed by the best people and the most important person is the chief executive. When the State or semi-State bodies were started originally the board had freedom to pay the chief executive the salary that was appropriate, the going rate at the time. I think that to take away this freedom from the boards of semi-State bodies is absolutely wrong. There is no justification for it. Everybody knows what has happened to the Devlin Report; it went out the window years ago. One or two small sections were implemented by somebody who wanted to get somebody else. This is one of the most pernicious parts of the Devlin Report and I think that the chief executive of a State-sponsored body should be paid what is necessary and what is determined by the market. If we do not do this, if we adhere to the provision in section 7 of this Bill, what is going to happen? We are going to see people leap-frogging from senior positions in the civil service into the senior positions in the State-sponsored bodies. The reason for that is — not that I have anything against the civil servants at all — that the people from the private sector will find the salary conditions too unattractive to even offer themselves.

I think it is a disasterous policy and I think it is an attempt which can be seen in other spheres of operation of semi-State bodies to haul the semi-State bodies back into the civil service net. I can see it going on at the moment. I have protested against it ever since I have been a Member of this House and I will continue to protest against it. I am very encouraged to hear Senator Keating say that the fight against this particular piece of Government policy must go on. I am glad to find him such a strong and convinced ally. I wonder who started this whole racket. For example, I would like to hear Senator Hillery's views on this particular item. Senator Hillery is a Professor of Business Studies or a senior business academic. Could he justify the policy in section 7? I am not asking him to, because I do not think he would and I do not think he would try to. I do not think it is justifiable on any economic grounds, grounds of efficiency or on the grounds that we must get the best people to run our semi-State bodies.

I have said this before; we were fortunate at the time that a number of these bodies were started — I do not know if it applies to this particular one, but it certainly applies to others — that we did get people to run our early semi-State bodies who were outstanding, who had a commitment, and who got them off to a flying start. We are gradually whittling away their position and hauling them back into the net. I will continue to protest against this particular section and this sort of provision and I am delighted that someone with as much experience in Government as Senator Keating also feels it necessary to register a strong protest. I hope that something more will come out of this, because it is about time this sort of nonsense stopped. I do not fall over myself to welcome this Bill; I think two out of the four provisions are unobjectionable on any grounds and the other two are objectional. So, I cannot join with the other Members of the House in cheering this piece of legislation.

I find the removal of rail lines to be very serious. There are now a number of railways which we would fall over ourselves to put back if we could, Harcourt Street being the main one. As soon as CIE closed that line down — I was on the last train and I got a few souvenirs — the permanent way was sold off. They cannot get it back. I think that policy was short-sighted and I think this policy here may be equally short-sighted. I should like to hear the Minister say what is the proposal for the Albert Quay station. If it is to be kept as an operational goods station or depot then I think that we should not give up the railway line.

I think we should insist that the railway line be retained. I do not think it would affect the new bridge at all, not one bit. I do not know if you can do a job on both of them as they stand: I think they will both have to be knocked down and new bridges built because they are in such a bad state. Senator Jago thinks otherwise but they are pretty bad. No doubt the whole thing could be revamped and the railway lines could be retained and I think that is what should be done if CIE intend to retain the Albert Quay station. So, I would like the Minister to say what is to be the future use of Albert Quay station before I pass any judgment on this particular section of the Bill.

Minister of State at the Department of Tourism and Transport (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick,

Dublin South-Central): First, I would like to thank Senators for their constructive contributions. I think by and large there is no objection by any Senator as regards the permanent closure of the bridges. It has been the decision of the three parties concerned they will serve no useful purpose in the future. As regards urban traffic, we know the present position. Anyone who has any association with Cork knows perfectly well that there is utter confusion and chaos there. I often think that traffic in Cork has become even more congested than in Dublin. It had become obvious that the repair of these bridges which was necessitated quite often, was causing further congestion, causing a build-up of traffic from time to time. Seeing that there was no useful purpose served by them I think the decision taken by the three parties concerned was the right one.

Senator West is concerned about the Albert Quay station and the removal of the railway line. That seems to be the only question that has arisen here — whether it is going to be used again. The information I have is that CIE ceased rail operations between Glanmire and Albert Quay stations in 1976. Prior to this fertilisers had been carried on the line. CIE now transfer the fertilisers direct from Gouldings factory to the goods depot at Glanmire station for distribution from the rail network. Albert Quay is now used as a warehouse depot and a garage for freight vehicles. So, we can see that Albert Quay will not be used any longer in transporting fertiliser by railway for which it was mainly used. From now on it will be used as a warehouse and a garage for freight vehicles. Discussions have taken place with CIE as regards its future development. It has been decided that it will serve no useful purpose from now on as regards having the railway line on the bridges we are speaking about here. I hope that that satisfies Senator West's concern about this particular aspect of the Bill. The general feeling in Cork among people in commercial life is that these bridges had been causing a certain amount of disruption to traffic and that it is desirable that the measures which are contained in this Bill should be enacted.

The only contentious part of the Bill which other Senators have mentioned is section 7 which provides for control of the chief executive's remuneration. This is a policy which was introduced in 1974. It operated during the Coalition Government's term of office. A number of semi-State bodies, as it arose down through the years, as legislation necessitated it, were brought within the umbrella. In addition to those who were previously in, the ESB, Bord na Móna, Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann and Nítrigin Éireann, over a period Aer Lingus, Aer Rianta, the B & I, the Agricultural Credit Corporation, the Racing Board and so on, were brought in. This has been a policy of successive Governments. I believe, and I share this view with Senators who have said it, that semi-State bodies should be able to recruit the best top executives. They play an important part in the commercial life of the country. I am quite convinced about that concerning the chief executives. Every semi-State body is an important body. Only the best is good enough in my opinion for the chief executives of such bodies.

Remunerations are controlled to a certain extent within the guidelines of the Devlin Report but they are not all the same. They vary from semi-State body to semi-State body as I am sure Senator Keating and other Senators are fully aware, according to their size and the contribution which they make to the economy. Whether this matter should be looked at again to see whether there is sufficient latitude, I do not know, but I do think that some type of overall control is desirable to ensure that one semi-State body should not get completely out of line. Senator Keating did say that if you have a board appointed this should not happen. This is a policy that has obtained for a considerable length of time, since before 1974, and each semi-State body, as the occasion arises on Bills such as this, is brought within the guidelines of the Devlin Report. This is a situation that must be looked at from time to time because we know the important part these chief executives play. The Government will keep this in mind to ensure that each of the bodies will be in the best position as regards the recruitment of the best personnel to those semi-State bodies.

There is another provision in the Bill to remedy an anomaly — this should have been changed but it is not all that easy to get Bills through quickly — as regards the resignation of the chief executive or former Chairman of CIE. At the time of his appointment it was difficult to give him any further remuneration or any further increase without this nonsensical practice of his having to resign and be reappointed again by the Government. That is something that is welcomed by all and it will get over that anomaly which has existed for a considerable length of time.

I have nothing further to add and I thank Senators for their contributions. The quicker we get this Bill through the Seanad the sooner CIE and Cork Corporation can begin the work of removing the railway tracks and getting the bridges properly finished so that traffic can move freely again. I would be obliged if the Senators would see their way to give all Stages of this Bill today.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.