Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Jul 1933

Vol. 49 No. 3

Supplementary and Additional Estimates. - Vote No. 57—Railways.

I move:

Go ndeontar suim Bhreise ná raghaidh thar £4,500 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1934, chun íocaíocht fé Acht na mBóthar Iarainn, 1924, fén Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc.; agus chun crícheanna eile a bhaineann le hIompar in Eirinn.

That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £4,500 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1934, for Payments under the Railways Act, 1924, the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, 1883, etc., and for other purposes connected with Irish Transport.

This money is required to pay half of the amount required to meet losses on the working of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company in respect of the working of the Letterkenny and Burtonport, Buncrana and Cardonagh and Letterkenny railways. This railway company has been subsidised each year up to the present and it was contemplated that with the passage of the Road Transport Act, the subsidy for the period ended December 31st, 1932, would have been the last; that the company would be reorganised and that this would have removed the necessity for a subsidy. The company during 1932 under the terms of the Road Traffic Act, 1932 did reorganise its passenger services and put them upon a sound basis so that they are likely to continue in the future to be operated in an economic manner and yield returns to the proprietors of the company. During 1933, however, it is anticipated that losses will occur in consequence of the disorganisation of the merchandise traffic with which the Road Transport Act, 1933, is designed to deal. As that Act would not come into operation in full anyway until the end of the year, it will not be possible for the company to take full advantage of it and to reorganise its merchandise services until the end of the year. It is to compensate for the possible losses on the working of this year that this Vote is introduced. It was proposed to close down the railway and I was not very much alarmed at that prospect because in a considerable part of that area I think that road merchandise services are as suitable, if not more suitable, than railway services. But in respect of one part of the service at any rate that was not the case; the extension to Burtonport is necessary because the roads in that area are not capable of bearing the traffic which would be occasioned if the railway services were discontinued and on enquiry from the Department of Local Government we found it would not be possible to make the roads in condition for road traffic for the present year at any rate. We agreed therefore to make good one half of the losses on the working and the Government of Northern Ireland agreed to make good the other half.

There will be thorough reorganisation, plans for which in tentative form have been already submitted, and a clear understanding that no further contributions will be forthcoming no matter what the developments in the future may be. There is no reason to believe that the company, which was so successful in the reorganisation of its passenger service, will not be equally successful in the reorganisation of its merchandise service. So far as statistics indicate, the merchandise in the year has not diminished, but rather increased, and is sufficient to maintain a transport organisation of a suitable kind on an economic basis. The fact that the reorganisation necessary could not be contemplated for some time, and that full effects could not be given to it, until the Road Transport Act was in operation, gave, in our opinion, sufficient justification for continuing this year the same financial assistance as in previous years. That is why we and the Government from Northern Ireland agreed to make this contribution.

Would the Minister say what the total amount given to this railway company in the way of subsidy in the last ten years has been approximately?

The approximate amounts were these: 1924, £7,240 paid by the Saorstát Government; the Northern Government making no contribution that year. In 1925 the contribution was £7,000; 1926 the sum was £7,200; 1927—£6,000; 1928— £5,000; 1929—£5,750; 1930—£5,750; 1931—£3,862; 1932—£2,500. In each year the Northern Government made a similar contribution.

Who controls this railway?

The Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Co.

It is an independent company itself?

Yes. The other railway company is a different concern and is jointly owned by the Great Northern and by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company.

I think this is a very fortunate company. It has received approximately £50,000. I was under the impression that when the last advance was made to this company it would be the last, I want to know have we yet reached that stage.

Yes, definitely this is the last. The Deputy will understand that these lines were not built as commercial enterprises. They were built in the main out of Government money and formed relief work at the time. At no time was the situation of this company such that it could be regarded as commercially sound in the sense of earning dividends over any length of time. Dividends were paid for a period when the condition of the company did not justify dividends. The situation is now that the lines will probably be maintained with services reduced and supported by revenue derived from road services. The company took advantage of the 1932 Act regarding the control of the omnibus services in its district and to some extent substituting road services for rail service in respect of passengers. That was a success. The omnibuses are paying concerns and the loss on the working of the railway was substantially reduced. It was contemplated that the loan would be sufficient to put the whole company, by the end of 1932, in the position that would relieve the necessity for any further subsidy. It was announced that the subsidy would terminate in 1932. In the meantime particular developments took place there. First there was an abnormal growth of the competitive merchandise services in the year, and secondly some diminution of traffic on the line in consequence of the development of industry —the establishment of bakeries and other industries in Co. Donegal. The loss of traffic there was not very substantial. In fact, during 1932 the volume of goods was somewhat higher than in 1931, although receipts were slightly less. It is anticipated there will be some diminution of traffic on the system. We contemplate an examination of the transport system in Donegal and a possible development of a port in that county which will have an effect upon the transport system. Meantime, we consider it is desirable that this system should be maintained, and an opportunity given to carry out reorganisation in respect of merchandise services. This service will feed the railway and relieve it in some measure of expense and will make the whole concern one capable of carrying on without State assistance.

I would like to impress upon the Minister that we have had very hopeful statements on previous occasions made by Ministers who occupied his office, but as each occasion went by considerable sums of money were advanced towards this railway. It is hardly fair that this one railway should be singled out for special consideration. The Minister is aware that there are a number of other railways, some of them more important than this one, in very unfortunate financial positions. I think that the House is entitled to some assurance that if it passes this Estimate the Minister will not have to come on again another year with another application of this sort.

I can give that definite assurance. When the position of the company was brought to my notice on this occasion my first conclusion was that the better course would be to allow it to close down. I could not see any future before it on the position revealed by the figures then available. There was the argument that the Burtonport extension was necessary and that the roads were physically incapable of carrying traffic, and that the roads would have to be reconstructed at considerable expense at that particular part of the system. Some other arrangement might be made to permit that particular line to be kept open if the others were closed. When we came to a decision we found that the company had made genuine efforts to put itself on a sound basis in respect of its passenger traffic. It had not the advantages then of the Road Transport Act of 1933. Now that that Act is there and that the same position is created in respect of its competitors as was already created in respect of its competitors in the passenger trade, it will be able to carry out reorganisation there. The subsidy is merely intended to enable it to carry on trade over the period during which that reorganisation will take place. I may say that the company themselves put up proposals for a reduction of their expenditure and a certain reorganisation of the system of administration which will also reduce expenditure from their point of view.

It must warm the cockles of the hearts of all of us to see the Minister and Deputy Good in one another's arms assuring one another that there will be no more extravagance in West Donegal. "Bloody" Balfour, peace to his ashes, had a somewhat more friendly feeling towards the unfortunate people who live in the neighbourhood of Burtonport and he took the view that rather than let the people perish on the Atlantic coast of West Donegal it was the State's duty to provide some means of bringing these people in touch with the rest of the world.

Not necessarily by a railway to Derry.

Now that we have a good national Government, supported and criticised by Deputy Good, we have discovered that there must be nothing but hard business administration in West Donegal. The Minister is bounding to his feet to reassure Deputy Good that he is with him heart and soul and that if these people do not put their house in order he will wipe them out. I suggest to the Minister that he should take a lesson from "Bloody" Balfour who first put the railway there, who recognised the necessity of a railway, and who realised that the people he had to deal with on the rocks and the heather of that part of the world, are not in a position to offer traffic to a railway sufficient to make a railway economic. If the Minister can devise some alternative scheme whereby the traffic of this area will be diverted to Sligo, or to a Donegal port, I shall be glad to hear of him doing it. But, if he imagines that he is going to run an economic railway through the Rosses and Gweedore, or if Deputy Good imagines that he is going to run an economic transport service through the Rosses and Gweedore, he had better think again. So long as the Rosses are the Rosses and Gweedore is Gweedore, he will never run an economic transport service of any kind owing to the very peculiar conditions that obtain there. So long as we have a large population scattered over that part of the country the transport difficulty will be a constant one. The Minister had better not be so glib in assuring Deputy Good that his orthodoxy will be not longer outraged by any suggestion of the kind put forward to-day. The Minister will have to make provision for adequate transport facilities for these people in West Donegal, both as to goods and passengers, whether he proposes a transport service from a Donegal port, which I hope he will, or from Sligo, which is the only reasonable alternative.

The only thing I can say is that if the directors of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company take Deputy Dillon seriously then, presumably, they will decline this subsidy.

Has the Minister seen the last year's balance sheet of this company? What were the assets and liabilities and what were the receipts and expenditure for the year?

In 1932 the receipts were £31,700 and the expenditure £35,121. I cannot state the assets, as I do not know how much reliance can be placed on what appears on the balance sheet, in view of the fact that the total of the advances which we have made since 1924 appear on the balance sheet as liabilities. In other words, in theory, they undertake liability to repay us the amount advanced. If Deputies place on the other items of the balance sheet the same reliance that I place on the prospect of getting repaid that amount they will not take them very seriously.

Is this liability to be a recurring one?

No. I say definitely that if the reorganisation in respect of the merchandise service is not sufficient to put the company upon a paying basis in 1934, then the closing down of the railway would have to be faced, and I think it would be the better course to follow in the circumstances.

Then I do not think there can be much objection to this. It was beautiful to hear Deputy Dillon waxing eloquent about the Rosses. My interest in this matter is in connection with railways in West Cork as to which we may be looking for something.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn