I move that the Resolution in respect of the Supplementary Vote for Railways (Vote No. 57) come to in the Committee on the 10th June, be reported.
Supplementary Estimate. - Vote 57—Railways—Report.
I do not want to divide the House on the question now before us, but I would like to know from the Minister before he gets final authority to pay out this amount at the expense of the ratepayers whether he merely intends to let things go on as they have been going on for the past three or four years in connection with this railway, and that the intervention of the Ministry during the period of the payment of the subsidy, when they do intervene, will be merely for the purpose of seeing that the agreement under which the sum will be paid for the next few years will be carried out by the company. I want to know whether he can foresee what is likely to happen at the end of the subsidy period, whether he has any reason to believe that there is a likelihood of the same position being created at the end of the subsidy period as was created two or three months ago when the line was partially closed down. I understand that the agreement under which the amount is being paid is that the passenger-carrying services of the Lough Swilly Railway Company in future will be confined altogether to the roads, in other words, that any passengers carried by the company will be carried on buses now being run by that company.
I want to know whether the Minister has any information to the effect that a decision was recently taken, and whether if so he was a party to the decision that passenger trains should be run periodically? If such a decision has been come to, I think, it is contrary to the spirit and perhaps to the letter of the agreement recently signed on behalf of the Ministry and also on behalf of the Six County Government. I want to know whether the Minister believes that as a matter of policy, he has no responsibility for the maintenance of a proper and efficient transport system in this county. At the end of the two year period during which the taxpayers will be providing this money is the Minister going to allow any private transport company, whether by road or otherwise, to make whatever arrangements it likes, or is he going to face the period when there will be no proper transport system in the county either for passengers or goods? I believe that during the remainder of the subsidy period the Minister, having responsibility for the maintenance of an efficient transport system in the county as well as in the country, should set up some committee or commission to report to him at the earliest possible date as to the best method of maintaining a transport system in that county. The county is situated in a peculiar way, as it is between Northern Ireland and the Free State. I think the House and the country, and particularly the taxpayers who are called upon to find this money, are entitled to know from the Minister whether he is going to allow the same position to be created at the end of the subsidy period as was created two or three months ago. That is the only question I wish to ask in connection with the matter.
It is no breach of any obligation entered into with this company that they should run passenger trains. What the company asked was that they should be relieved of the necessity of running certain passenger trains. That is what we are taking steps to do. That does not mean that they are forbidden to run passenger trains. I hope they will find it profitable and remunerative to run passenger trains, but I hope they will not attempt to run these unless they are remunerative. As to what is going to happen in that area afterwards is a matter that will have to be watched during the year that we are in. We have no doubt whatever that a transport service of a type sufficient to meet what the county is likely to be able to pay for will always be maintained. The thing that I have to watch particularly is that the taxpayer is not going to have to pay what in fact will meet this situation—that he will be paying the wages of railwaymen to enable them to keep in occupation where the traffic does not entitle them to any such railway occupation. A service of road transport of a type can at any rate be relied on to provide most of the transport that the county wants.
Is it proposed to give any additional grants to the County Donegal from the Road Fund in order that better provision may be made for the roads which will have to be maintained either at the expense of the taxpayers or the ratepayers, in view of the increased bus service on the road?
Not out of this Vote.
Is that not a question of public policy, and should it not be the natural concern of the Minister?
It is not on this Vote.
Would the Deputy state what part of the County Donegal he refers to?
I am talking about the roads over which the bus services of the Lough Swilly Railway Company will run in the future as a result of the passenger-carrying service being transferred from the rails to the roads. The Deputy is a large ratepayer, and he knows that as a result of this change there will be an increased demand for the maintenance of the roads, and that that will be at the expense of the ratepayers of the county.
What passengers are being transferred to the roads?
The passengers carried previously by the passenger-carrying section of the Lough Swilly railway. In future they will be carried in buses over the roads and that will mean an increased demand for the upkeep of the roads.
The Deputy has not adverted to the fact that this whole situation has arisen because passengers would not travel by the railway. They were already travelling by road.
They will have no option in future but to travel by the road.
That will not press any heavier on the roads.
Does the Minister mean that because passengers will not travel by train they must now travel by the Lough Swilly railway buses. If that is so are the Lough Swilly railway buses to be maintained at the expense of the ratepayers as against private people who have been maintaining bus services on the roads? Is the Lough Swilly railway company to be subsidised to carry passengers by bus who would not travel by train?
No buses are being subsidised.
If the people around Carndonagh and Buncrana will not travel by rail and now travel by the buses provided by the railway company, then, of necessity, that bus service must be subsidised out of this particular Vote because the Lough Swilly Railway Company is being subsidised and it provides not alone a railway but a bus service.
This money is given on the strict understanding that no part of it whatever will be used for buses. I fail to understand the "of necessity" conclusion of the Deputy. The situation is that a number of passengers in that part of Donegal do not use the railway but use the buses. They are going to use the buses for the future. How that is going to press any heavier on the roads than the pressure that has been on them up to this I do not know.
What buses did they use?
Does that matter? If there are buses provided for the roads to carry passengers, and if the buses are not increased in number, and there is no increase in passengers carried, then there is no more pressure on the roads.
But if the passengers who formerly used buses that were run by private individuals, now avail of the buses provided by the subsidised Lough Swilly Railway Company, will not that mean an increased charge on the ratepayers?
There are no buses being subsidised.
Are they not the property of the Lough Swilly Railway Company, and is not it being subsidised?
It is.
How can you disassociate the one from the other?
Not one penny will be paid on anything except to meet railway losses.
Are we to understand that a separate set of accounts will be presented to the shareholders of the company and to the Minister showing the profits or losses on the running of bus services and railway services?
I do not know anything about the presentation of ac- counts, but not one penny will go from the Exchequer to the buses. I will have sufficient investigation of the accounts to see that that is so.
Will the Minister see that the Deputies who are now being asked to vote this money will be furnished with information to satisfy them on that point?
No. They will get it from me.
Is there to be a separate set of accounts for the bus carrying section and for the railway section?
No. I am indifferent as long as I am satisfied that not one penny of this money goes to the buses.
But the company might increase their losses considerably, and we would have to pay.
The Department is not composed of greenhorns to allow that.
Is this to be on the Hatry system of keeping accounts?
I am not aware whether it will be that or any other association that the Deputy belongs to.
Question put and agreed to.