asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware of the great hardship and unemployment that will arise if C.I.E. abandon transport on the Grand Canal; and whether in view of the national importance of the matter he has ascertained or will ascertain from the board the reasons for the decision; and if he will make a statement.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - C.I.E. Decision on Grand Canal.
4.
The Transport Act, 1958, imposes on C.I.E. the general obligation to conduct the undertaking so as to eliminate losses by the 31st March, 1964. That Act also provides for generous compensation in the event of redundancy arising as a result of steps taken by C.I.E. in compliance with this statutory obligation.
Neither C.I.E. nor their predecessors were under a statutory obligation to operate services on the Grand Canal. The Committee of Inquiry into Internal Transport, established by my predecessor, indicated, in paragraph 128 of their report, that by terminating canal services and transferring the traffic to other forms of transport, the C.I.E. undertaking as a whole would benefit to the extent of over £100,000.
With regard to the board's decision on canal transport, I must make it clear that under the Transport Act I have no function in the matter, and it is not my intention to interfere in the exercise by the board of the powers conferred on them by the legislation.
Is it not clear that the figure which the Minister quoted is a figure dealing not merely with canal transport but also with maintenance? Is it not also clear that under the statute passed last year the canal must be maintained for a further period of three years and that therefore it is not a comparable figure for the saving?
With regard to maintenance, the canal must be maintained as long as any traders use it and some by-traders still use it.
Is that figure of £100,000 not the total of the two figures?
No; at least that is the figure given by the Committee of Inquiry——
Certainly, for the two.
No, no. It was their estimate of the gain to C.I.E. by the transfer of the canal traffic to other forms of C.I.E. transport.
Is the Minister further aware that this decision will involve the dismissal of some 120 men directly employed on the boats and the dismissal of further men indirectly employed, quite apart from maintenance men? What proposal has he to offer to those men, most of whom come from Roberstown where there is no other winter employment?
In so far as that position can be met by the possibility of transferring these men to other employment within C.I.E. it is a matter for the board. So far as legislation deals with the matter, there is, as the Deputy is aware, provision for compensation on loss of employment.
Does the Minister not accept that this is different from the closing of a section of the C.I.E. rail undertaking? This is the closing of an entire system, of the entire water system. Surely therefore that is a matter of general policy to which the Minister must have advertence, both in relation to the waterway and in relation to the employment concerned?
As I pointed out in my reply, C.I.E., and their predecessors, the Great Southern Railways, were never under any statutory obligation to operate services on the Grand Canal.
Will the Minister not do anything for these men?