Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Feb 1961

Vol. 186 No. 4

C.I.E. Report and Accounts, 1959-60: Motion (Resumed).

The following motion was moved earlier today by the Minister for Transport and Power:
That the Dáil takes note of the Report and Accounts of Córas Iompair Éireann for the year 1959-60.
Debate resumed on the following amendment:
After "1959/60" to add the following:
"and deplores the closing of branch lines without adequate prior consultation with local interests contrary to the undertaking to Dáil Éireann given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce during the debate on the Transport Bill, 1958."—(Deputy McGilligan.)

As I was saying when I moved the adjournment of the debate, there is considerable resentment throughout Waterford city, the town of Tramore and the county in general at the action of the management of C.I.E. in refusing to discuss with responsible people, including the Mayor and members of the Corporation, the President and members of Waterford Chamber of Commerce and the Chairman and members of Tramore Town Commissioners, any suggested solution of the problems giving rise to the decision to close the Waterford-Tramore railway line. This refusal, as well as the unseemly haste with which C.I.E. acted by removing the railway bridge within hours of the deadline, has left a taste in the mouth so far as Waterford constituency is concerned, and that is not to the credit of C.I.E. In any business concern such action would be considered an exhibition of very bad manners.

The effort made by the Minister in his introductory speech to foist upon the members of the Opposition the responsibility for giving to C.I.E. this absolute power is, I would suggest, unworthy of that Party. The Minister must know—indeed it is clear to anybody who reads the debate—that both Labour and Fine Gael Deputies endeavoured to amend the 1958 Act so that at least a consultative committee would be set up to act between C.I.E. and the local interests concerned in areas where it was proposed to discontinue services. I remember quite well that Deputy Cosgrave had an amendment down to that effect, and it was followed by a Labour Party amendment on somewhat similar lines.

I went to the trouble of looking over the debate. It must be clear that this attempt by Fianna Fáil to discredit the Opposition is because they are afraid to face up to their actions in the 1958 Act. They deliberately handed over to C.I.E. a job to do because, in their opinion, it would be politically unwise for the Government to do it.

There have been more commissions than the Beddy Commission. You had a commission in 1948 which recommended to the inter-Party Government on somewhat similar lines. However, there was no decision by the inter-Party Government to accept the principle that uneconomic extremities of the national railway system should be severed without thought for the livelihood of the people engaged in it or without thought for the consequences of uprooting men, transporting them from where they were bred, born, reared and employed, and requiring them either to take compensation over a certain period or accept complete displacement.

The Government of that day were conscious of the fact that a considerable amount of money had been spent out of the Exchequer to subsidise the railways. Naturally, they were anxious that this amount should be as small as possible. They were more conscious of the fact that C.I.E. were probably the largest employer in the country, and that we had a duty to the public, and to the workers engaged by C.I.E., to subsidise that industry if necessary to the point at which it could be most economically tapared off. I refer to the suggestion by Deputy Norton, who was Minister at the time, that a system of less recruiting and natural wastage should be allowed to take care of the problem. Is that not a far cry from the present action, from this arbitrary decision simply to cut out without thought or reason? Is there anything wrong with subsidising a national railway line?

Everything wrong.

Why then do we subsidise farmers? Why do we subsidise the export of butter? Why subsidise the industrialists through grants and tariffs? Is it only the C.I.E. worker who is to be discarded when he becomes uneconomic? We are endeavouring to attract, particularly west of the Shannon, industries which will keep our people at home. We are prepared to give fantastic grants to compensate for the fact that they will be sited in an uneconomic part of the country as compared with others. We feel satisfied that money, provided to induce foreign or native industrialists to set up factories in the most uneconomic parts of the country, is well spent. That is considered a wise move.

Why, if we are prepared to do that, and to continue to do it, should we hesitate at the pretty miserable amount of money mentioned in the joint loss, and particularly in the case of the Tramore-Waterford railway line where the figure is less than £3,000? If the Minister is aware of the position in Tramore, he will not challenge figures I am about to offer to the House. At least every Sunday of the four months of summer, 5,000 people used to travel by that line. Is the Minister aware that a very small increase—an increase equal only to the increase that will be charged for the bus service— applied to the railway would completely wipe out the loss?

The Minister said there was nothing sacred about a railway line in a rural area. Is there something sacred about a bus service? If what I suggest can be done as economically and as well as a bus service, why then all this unseemly haste? Why then did C.I.E. not listen to interested people? Can the Minister suggest to me that during Race Week and at times of Sunday excursions when trains from Limerick, Tipperary, Kilkenny and Wexford arrive at Waterford station with 10,000 or 15,000 excursionists, the bus service will be able to transport that number of people to Tramore within the hours they will want to be there? Of course it is impossible. Anyone who has any knowledge of the place knows it is impossible, but some driving force—whatever the reason was— selected Tramore for blotting out. Is there any reason for it? There is suspicion.

If there is a wind blowing in C.I.E., there is also a wind blowing amongst Waterford constituents, and the time when the Minister's Party will feel the effects of that wind is very close at hand. I could appreciate C.I.E. putting a case forward with perhaps a good deal of merit in it, but equally I could see that the particular problems of Waterford could put forward an equally strong case. Why should the people of Waterford worry if a railway line is discontinued, if, in their opinion, the alternative service is as good and as cheap as the one previously provided? There are no private shareholders in the Tramore line. There are no vested interests affected by the Tramore line. It is because they are satisfied it was the most efficient and the cheapest service—and it was a service that enabled the poor of Waterford city to bring themselves and their children to the most convenient beach—that the resentment is there.

A peculiar position arose whereby, by means of a rail service, the housewife and her children, including the youngest in a pram, could be transported to the beach some eight miles away. Now C.I.E. say they are about to offer some buses to meet that demand. I wonder how many buses? I wonder who will deposit the prams on the tops of the buses, and for how long will it be continued?

Surely we are entitled to protest against the dogmatic attitude of C.I.E., endorsed today by the Minister? I, as a Deputy representing Waterford city and county do not see this on a political basis. I am quite satisfied that, as an Opposition Deputy, I could retain my seat without using this matter as a weapon, but I would be neglecting my duty if, at the call of the Mayor and members of the Corporation, at the request of the President of the Chamber of Commerce and its members, and all the other various responsible organisations and groups, including the Council of Trade Unions of Waterford, I failed to stand here, even now, knowing that the harm has been done, at least to protest against the action of C.I.E. and the endorsement given to it by the Minister.

I hope quite anxiously and sincerely that the alternative service will be successful. I do not wish to cut off my nose to spite my face, but I think it will not be successful. I forecast that it will be much more expensive, both to the people travelling by bus and to the corporation and county council, because, irrespective of what the Minister is advised, the Waterford-Tramore road will not carry that heavy traffic without considerable improvement and without the expenditure of a sum of money which, to my mind, will run into a quarter of a million pounds. Even at that, if the service is to be run in such a way that life will not be lost on that road, there will have to be an alternative road.

I feel it is my duty to join in this protest. The attitude of the Minister, particularly when he said in his closing remarks——

One last word. The terms of the 1958 Act made it clear to every Deputy that C.I.E. would drastically alter the character of services. In giving C.I.E. executive power to close uneconomic lines every Deputy knew that this could only be done in the public interest by rejecting the short-lived universal protests prevalent here and elsewhere against railway closings at the time that such intentions are made public. They are responsible and they alone for making this decision.

——is anything but helpful. As one Deputy who was in the House, let me repudiate that last statement. I believed the then Minister. Perhaps I was foolish to take his word. I felt it was incumbent upon me, a Deputy, to accept the word of a responsible Minister until the contrary was proved.

I hope the lesson has been learned—if it has not, it should be—in relation to legislation passed by this House which both Parties have been too anxious to adopt. The 1958 Bill went through this House without a division on that clause. The 1957 general election put Deputy Dillon in Opposition; otherwise he would be in the dock today instead of the Minister for Transport and Power.

I come from a tillage area. This year's harvest was practically the worst on record. Through the manoeuvres of another monopoly, we had lorry loads of wheat going at least five times to a mill and home again, with the result that the ordinary lorries in the district were unable to cope.

Imokilly Co-operative Society applied to C.I.E. for lorries. They were told, in effect: "Yes, we will send you a lorry at £5 15s. a day. You supply your own petrol. We have no loaders on them and we will give you no help."

That is an effective answer to the Taoiseach.

That is the alternative service. Imagine a lorry going into a farmer's yard. The Minister for Transport and Power is anxious about modernisation. All modern lorries carry a loader for loading a sack of grain into a lorry. However, C.I.E. do not carry any, or at least they did not in the lorries they were prepared to send to Imokilly. The result was that because of an endeavour to save the harvest in that area, some 40 cases have been cluttering up the courts for the past two months—cases of unfortunate lorry owners being fined up to £40. That is the alternative service.

I can visualise this working away for a long time. On at least 11 occasions, I have visited the headquarters of C.I.E. at Kingsbridge and the Glanmire terminus in an endeavour to ensure that C.I.E. would provide loading facilities for beet at railway stations on the West Cork line. For eleven years, year after year, I have been appealing for that amenity but with no result. Of course, we were only farmers; we did not count.

There are 100,000 tons of beet to be conveyed to Mallow from West Cork. If a large quantity of that beet had to be diverted to the road, it was due to deliberate action by C.I.E. in refusing ordinary loading facilities at the station. The line was deliberately sabotaged and deliberately made uneconomic. Because I see the same thing happening in my area today. I take particular notice of this. We have a railway line running from Cork to Youghal. Between 6.30 and 7 a.m. there used to come down along the line something between 100 and 120 empty wagons to take the beet to Mallow. This year, instead of travelling down between six and half past, the earliest time any one of those empty wagons went down that line was a quarter past eleven and they were more often going down at one o'clock to half-past one. The result was that the people who had to load the beet at Killeagh, Mogeely or Youghal railway stations found the lorry pulled in there at half-past four in the evening and they had to fill a wagon load of beet between then and six o'clock. I am not saying anything about which I did not phone up the C.I.E. and give them information at the time. I call it deliberate sabotage.

This year, the gross tonnage of beet delivered to the four factories was 1,157,000. Of that, you can take 80 per cent. to be catered for by public transport. What effort have C.I.E. made to hold that traffic? The position is this: If the farmer gets a loading docket and if he does not load his beet on the wagon that day, according to our agreement with the Sugar Company, he is liable to be deprived of his contract the following year. The service provided by C.I.E. from Youghal to Cork this year for that transport was to throw a wagon in at three or four o'clock in the evening which had then to be loaded up. That is the manner in which C.I.E., a public transport company, are endeavouring to hold their grip.

You have a line of C.I.E. lorries travelling down to Duhallow, Ballymacoda and Ballycotton, drawing beet direct and passing the local railway stations out to Mallow on the ratepayers' road. That is a general run with them now. If C.I.E. were anxious to keep their lines economic, one would think they would afford the lorry service to bring in the beet four, five or six miles and, in the case of Duhallow, nine miles, into Midleton station. No effort has been made in that direction. It was only this year, as a result of repeated appeals, that they put in, in Midleton, Mogeely and Killeagh, three loading ramps at a cost of £50 each.

There is not one on the West Cork line.

The Deputy did not keep the squeeze on them as I did. These ramps enable a lorry to come down, back right in, have its load put in and go off. C.I.E. are not interested in that. The next step they took in the gradual process of endeavouring to close down the Cork to Youghal line was in respect of a train which used to arrive in Cork each morning at a quarter to nine. It was known as the school train and the workers' train. In that train, which arrived in every morning at a quarter to nine, the ordinary worker coming up to business in Cork, who had to be inside in his office or at work at nine o'clock, had an opportunity of a quarter of an hour to go from the train to his place of business. The 70 or 80 children travelling every morning to school had the same opportunity to be in school before nine o'clock. On two occasions within the past two months, the train leaving for Dublin at 9 o'clock had to wait for me coming up in that train. For a long period, that train never arrived in Cork until 9 o'clock or five minutes past nine. That was the position and while I was waiting at Cobh Junction station for the up-train, there were at least three buses flying past on the road. That is deliberate sabotage on the part of C.I.E. I can put no other interpretation on it.

I want to be reasonable if I can. When I experienced a second dose, I put a letter in the public press. That letter was published a fortnight ago and during the past fortnight that train can always be inside Cork station at a quarter to nine. Why could it not be in Cork station for the past six months at a quarter to nine, having regard to the fact that it can be there for the past fortnight? Those are the means adopted at present for the closing down of another railway line.

They made a third move to which the Minister alluded today. Failing in two moves, they reduced the bus fares. It is cheaper now to get a weekly ticket from Carrigtwohill to Cork by bus than it is to get a weekly ticket by rail. That is deliberate sabotage. There is no other description for what they are endeavouring to do. I gave a figure here a moment ago — 1,157,000 tons of beef carried of which 80 per cent. is represented by carriage by public transport. You can add to that 200,000 tons of beet pulp. How can we remedy the mistake or blunder made by the Deputy who sent all the beet up the spout a few years ago? He succeeded in compelling Britain to recognise and make amends for the breach of Article 5 of the Trade Agreement.

That does not arise on the motion.

I will show how it arises. There are an extra 35,000 acres of beet which makes 175,000 tons more beet to be added to the monopoly that C.I.E. can enjoy if they are prepared to give some service and take some steps in the matter. There are altogether 1,682,000 tons of stuff which, if we close down the railway lines, will be driven on to the ratepayer's roads. It is all being driven on the ratepayer's roads.

As far as I can see, the only people C.I.E. are catering for today are the bunch of tramps who are misnamed tourists and those who have business in Cork or in Dublin. Even on our main line from Cork to Dublin, if I have business in the town of Thurles, for example, as I had on a few occasions recently, and I want to arrive for a meeting at 2 p.m. I have to catch the 7.45 a.m. train from Cork. In other days when C.I.E. were civilized people and when a man could have a joke with the stationmaster and when the stationmaster was prepared to be what one would call co-operative, he would have no objection to stopping the train——

That was sentimental.

In order that tourists and business people may have a short three hour trip from Cork to Dublin, the rest of the people can go to the "dickens". They get no service and no consideration. I have endeavoured to be as brief as I could. I believe prevention is better than cure and I believe in giving the facts here on what is occurring on another line and the means being taken to hasten the day of execution——

"Amputation" is the word.

Yes. It is an extraordinary thing when you compare two of those business geniuses, one with the other. We have the general manager of the Irish Sugar Company, Lieutenant-General Costello, who took over three factories and one which was not paying, which was Tuam. He kept going at that factory until he made it economic. The genius on the other side believes in nothing but amputation and the trunk is supposed to operate from one end to the other with no middle in it.

I have here the report from our county engineer on the cost of this work. I should like to say that I deprecate the innuendo that was made here today that this document was brought out for any political reason.

Hear, Hear!

I know the man and I have the utmost confidence in him. I do not believe he would put in a wrong figure to save his life. In his statement, he says that the main effect of the closure of the main West Cork railway line and branches will be an increase in heavy traffic on the roads serving the West Cork area. Such traffic will eventually gravitate to the main roads radiating from Bandon to West Cork and the main road from Cork to Bandon. He says that 113 miles of main road will be affected. He also says that a preliminary estimate of the cost of reconstructing these roads in accordance with Department standards would be from £10,000 to £15,000 per mile, that is, £1,130,000 odd. He goes on to tell us the grants that were given in the other counties. A grant of £375,000 was given in your county, Sir, by the Department of Local Government to compensate for the loss of the railway.

Which has less than half the total mileage of Cork.

He gives those figures as reason why we cannot hope to get the £1,130,000 and why the difference between that and the £375,000 would probably fall on the ratepayers. I cannot see any justification for the closing of the West Cork line. I firmly believe that if the general manager had consented to receive the representatives of Cork County, there would be no occasion for this. We would have convinced him as we convinced C.I.E. in regard to the Youghal line, when we convinced them that the steps they were taking were foolish steps and were wrong, even financially.

There is no doubt that the acreage of beet in West Cork, judging by the applications we have received, when the mess with the British in regard to the sugar levy is cleared up, will present no difficulty and that that tonnage will be increased from 100,000, as at present, to 150,000. It must be remembered that the distance there is very long and that the freight rate must be well over £1 per ton. The closing of that line was uncalled for and the policy being adopted by C.I.E. in these matters is a policy of deliberate sabotage. I can put no other name on it.

Reference was made here today to the fact that there was no prior knowledge of these things. I invite the members of this House to come down to my constituency, and I invite the Minister himself to come down, and have a look at the road improvements being carried out between Carrigtwohill and my place. There is a wide road there and an enormous amount of money has been spent on it from Carrigtwohill up to 150 yards of Killacloyne Bridge, a railway bridge. The work has been stopped there for the past 12 months waiting for C.I.E. to close the line so that they can run the new road across the bridge. I invite any Deputy to come down and see what is being done and the preparations that have been made for the execution.

I am prepared to be as reasonable as any man and I am more reasonable than most. The refusal to receive the elected representatives of the people was a very great mistake on the part of any official paid out of taxpayers' money. It was a great insult and will not encourage the granting of such powers as were given to C.I.E. to any other jokers who may come in here and think that they can be little Hitlers.

I am anxious, as I say, to be as reasonable as any man, but even if there were a loss of £56,000, as is alleged, on the West Cork railway, I am not prepared to put £75,000 a year on the ratepayers of Cork to pay for it. I am not prepared to take that line and I do not think we would be justified in doing so.

I suggest to the Minister that it is not too late yet. The railway has not been closed. I suggest seriously to him that he should come down with Mr. Andrews, meet the representatives of the ratepayers of Cork County and see the figures we are prepared to put before him and judge for himself then. He would be doing a much more reasonable thing. Unfortunately, most of these matters are decided in other places and we hear only the results. A C.I.E. bus station was opened in Cork a couple of months ago and I guarantee that there were people gathered in that bus station that day who never travelled in a bus in their lifetime.

If we are to move agricultural produce to the factories, we have no hope of shifting it by C.I.E. All that we can guarantee to the farmers is that we will put transport at their disposal that will not be C.I.E. transport. The Beet Growers' Association is big and strong enough to put transport at their disposal to take their beet to the factory. If we start on that, we will take manures as well. There are enough co-operative societies in Cork county to cover the county in that respect. If there is to be a war, there will be a war. I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not call attention in time to the steps being taken by C.I.E. for another amputation, and that an amputation of the Cork to Youghal line.

The rural point of view has been put forward since the debate began but the people of Dublin have also a point of view which should be expressed. I can understand rural Deputies fighting. That is their job. It is what they were sent here to do.

You got it talked out before also.

When one takes the overall picture, one sees things differently. We in Dublin have a complaint that we are keeping up the country; we are being held to ransom. The 1957 report states that there was a profit on the Dublin passenger service of £330,000. There has been a substantial increase in that profit every year. We, who are making the profit for C.I.E., are being fleeced in higher bus fares to keep ghost lines in the country. That is our objection. So long as there are huge losses on these lines, somebody must pay for them and it is the Dubliner who is paying for them.

There was no justification for the four increases in bus fares since 1957, in view of the fact that there is an enormous profit on the Dublin passenger service. In order to keep up the railways, the Dublin bus passengers are being fleeced and they are threatened with a further increase. They were told only recently that if bus conductors get an extra few shillings a week, it will mean that fares will go up again. There is an enormous profit on the Dublin bus service and C.I.E. could give the conductors a few shillings without having to increase the fares, were it not for the fact that these white elephants around the country have to be kept going. As a Dublin representative, I am entitled to complain. C.I.E. are doing nothing more than their duty. I was speaking to a rural Deputy today who told me on the quiet that he knew there was no choice but that he was from the country and would be rubbed out if he said that. That is the position.

The cat is out of the bag.

I can see the local point of view and the overall point of view. It is one thing to say that there is a loss and there should be a subsidy, as in the case of butter and other commodities. There is a reason for the subsidisation of butter. It has to do with the balance of payments. There is a loss on the railways and a prospect of continuing loss. C.I.E. must come to grips with the situation some time and realise that this service will never pay and that, if it is to "go bust" it might as well "go bust" now as later. C.I.E. have to face the situation and it is up to the local people to do what they are asked to do, to get together and save their railways by putting business in the way of the railways. It is no use saying that it should not be done now, that we have five years. That would be too late from the point of view of C.I.E.

I am not throwing bouquets at C.I.E. because I know they are a dictatorship, but up to a point I do not mind dictatorships so long as we can call them to book. My main objection was that we were denied that right. Dictatorships can bring efficiency and solve problems quickly. As to meeting local people in order to talk with them the figures are there for all to see. The worst feature of politicians is that they can praise God but they can also praise the devil, if they want to. They can praise anything. I do not know that any purpose would be served by meeting the local people. It is up to them to put their position right.

I object to Dubliners being fleeced in the matter of bus fares in order to keep the country going. There are 40,000 families in Dublin living in Corporation dwellings. The majority of average weekly bus fare for the head of the family is 15/-. That does not take into account the bus fares paid by his wife and children, which might bring the total of bus fares paid by the family to £2 per week. If the country services were paying their way, Dubliners would be saved, at least one-third of their bus fares.

I support the Government on this point on the grounds that if a thing is not going to pay, we will have to find some other way. I am speaking from the point of view of my own constituents.

I have been waiting a long time. I wanted to speak on this matter three months ago and I was denied the opportunity by the Taoiseach and by the Minister for Transport and Power who is here now. When I asked Questions in this House I was brushed aside by the Minister for Transport and Power. He said he had no functions in matters of administration. He was appealed to in every possible way. No Minister of State had any function as far as C.I.E. was concerned. A Minister of State, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, has a function now and he invited the brass hats of C.I.E. to meet the unions and they came. If the Minister for Transport and Power were worth his salt he would have done the same thing. He would have asked these brass hats to meet the representatives of the City of Waterford, of the people of Tramore, of the county council of Waterford and the Waterford Chamber of Commerce, and he would have done his Party well by doing that because he would have justified his Taoiseach in the eyes of the country.

The Taoiseach gave a guarantee before this House—it is on the records of this House—that there would be no lines closed without consultation. He said we did not need to put it into the Act. He got the Bill passed with the same chicanery as he came into office.

I do not think the charge of chicanery should be made against any Member of the House.

I consider that it is not what we would call straight shooting to tell wives to vote for Fianna Fáil, put their husbands to work, and that there were 100,000 jobs in the offing. This is another thing on the same lines, I quote from Column 1683, Volume 167, of the Dáil Debates of the 8th May, 1958:

In cases of decisions to close down a branch railway line, the Bill says two month's notice must be given. I do not think we need to write in there——

said the Taoiseach

——that during these two months the Board will have to hear the deputation from the local council of the town losing the railway service or meet the representations of the trade unions who may have a point of view. Of course, they will do it. Indeed, the whole purpose of the requirement to give two months' notice was to provide a statutory period during which these inevitable representations could be entertained. It is far better to let our knowledge of what will happen guide our judgement in this matter than to be seeking to write into the Bill a rigid statutory safeguard.

What did we get out of all this? The Mayor of Waterford wrote to C.I.E. and got his first brush-off. Then after more correspondence this letter was sent from the office of the General Manager, Kingsbridge Station, Dublin, to James Power, Esq., Mayor of Waterford:

Dear Mayor,

I refer to your letter of the 18th instant addressed to my Chairman and note that you are calling together representatives of local interests to compose their submissions, and that you will write again on the subject of a conference.

In regard to the submissions, might I refer to the Chairman's letter to you of the 7th October, when he said that, if it was agreeable to you, he would arrange for the senior officers of the Board to meet you and explain to you what is proposed by way of substitute services, and that we would be very glad to discuss these services with you.

I think I should remind you that the discussion we will have will be confined to the substitute road services and any suggestions you may have to make in connection with them, but that it will not be possible for the officers of the Board to consider any suggestions for retention of the railway line or for deferring its closure, as the decision of the Board to substitute road for rail services in the area is an irrevocable one....

This is the most blackguardly thing that was ever done.

The Deputy gave C.I.E. authority to say that himself.

On the undertaking of the Minister's Leader that there was no need for a safeguard to be written in, that they would meet us to discuss the matter in full. Will I read it again for the Minister?

We have it off by heart.

Deputy Sherwin referred to these ghost lines. I want to say something about this ghost Tramore railway line. This was a private company that was able to stand on its own feet until it was swallowed up in the maw of the railway take-over. When it was swallowed up, it had £30,000 in the bank. They made money because in the busy time of the year they did not try to profiteer. They reduced their fares and they tempted people in Waterford to go out to Tramore, whether they cared about going out that evening or not. This policy was suggested to this wind-bag in C.I.E., and wind-bag it is. They priced the Tramore railway out of existence.

The Minister spoke about the wind of change that was blowing and he made an interjection about the efficiency of C.I.E., the efficiency of these wonderful transport merchants as against this old-fashioned steam railway in Tramore. This Tramore railway was able to take 1,500 people in one train to Tramore in 20 minutes. Then we had to get diesels. The wind of change! "We will show you how to blow them out to Tramore." The diesels were able to take 600 people —giving the advantage of standing room as I did with the first figure— to Tramore in 15 minutes. There is efficiency for you. Deputy Sherwin referred to these moneys that have been lost and said that the Dublin people have been "soaked" in regard to bus fares. When this matter arose first there were these protests from Waterford and ways and means were gone into before the last decision could be taken.

Coming near the end of it my colleague, Deputy Tom Kyne, joined me in sending a telegram to the Chairman of C.I.E., Dr. Todd Andrews, asking him to stay his hand and stating that as far as the £3,000 figure in losses that he gave us for 1959 was concerned, we would recoup it in part; £1,000 would be recouped from the Waterford County Council and £1,000 from the Waterford Corporation. The Minister might say we had no right to do that but the way we worded it was that we would put down a motion for the next meeting of our council which was on the following Monday and we would ask the council to give this money, that the money would be made available. It was made available by the Waterford Corporation and the Waterford County Council.

I want to show the House and the country that it was not so much an effort to save money that was involved but that they had their minds made up that they were going to wreck this railway. That was the whole idea behind it. Nothing we could do in this House would move the Minister or the Taoiseach and they would not meet us when we put down Parliamentary Questions and tried to get a discussion on the Adjournment. It is strange to find the Minister is now meeting us.

I want to go back on the history of this and the alleged efficiency. The only evidence of efficiency I ever saw on the part of Dr. Todd Andrews was in the way they smashed this line. They closed it on a Saturday evening and if there was an invasion from Tramore and if they had an efficient military machine in operation, they would not have taken the bridge down as fast as it was taken down on the following Monday morning. It was done with the most indecent haste I ever saw. Any goodwill that C.I.E. had in Waterford—and they had plenty of it—has been lost. The Minister's colleague, Deputy Corry, told him this evening that he would see to it that whatever influence he had with the beet growers would be used to get them to have their own lorries available to draw beet, beet pulp and manure. I am seldom on the side of Deputy Corry but I say: "More power to his elbow."

I am glad to see that the people of Tramore established a contract bus service of their own and it will take at least £2,000 or £3,000 a year out of C.I.E. coffers, so far as their Waterford-Tramore bus service is concerned. I shall exhort Waterford people who have motor cars, when going to Tramore in the Summer, to lift as many people as they can and leave those C.I.E. buses standing there.

This is a case of road against rail, an old Lemass policy to smash the railway at all costs, to reduce bus fares and drag the people out of the trains, if they could. I was at Fethard fair when it was possible to get two or three wagons of cattle out of it but there were 35 wagons at the station. Whether you wanted to do it or not, you had to put the cattle into the Matadors. That was how they pounded the railway to pieces. The policy was consistent and it still is, no matter who is in the chair in C.I.E.

The Minister says that C.I.E. are the national transport authority and the only body in possession of all the necessary experience and "knowhow". He says they are satisfied that they can provide substitute road services which will be at least as efficient as, and probably more satisfactory than, the rail services being terminated. Will they be as cheap? I want the Minister to answer that question. The bus service to Tramore is now dearer than the train was. As regards servants of C.I.E., this wonderful service that the Minister has put there for us means that C.I.E. staff living in Tramore and working in Waterford who could previously come in on the train at the privilege rate of 9/9 per month now pay a weekly rate of 11/9, an increase of £1 17s. on men earning £7 or less per week. That is how the workers are being treated.

The figure for losses given to us in Waterford was a figure of £3,000 that was afterwards stretched to £8,000 and then to £9,000 and it was taken for the year 1959. This is one thing we should have liked to tell the Minister in front of the C.I.E. authorities—that the year 1959 could not be classed as a good year from the point of view of people going from a local centre of population to the seaside because it was the wettest year in living memory.

Does the Deputy mean 1959-60?

1959 was a wonderful year.

Yes, 1960. What we are asking the Minister is: will he produce figures over five years for the Tramore railway? We have not been able to get those figures from C.I.E. We have seen expenditure on Tramore railway; we, the local people, who, in the opinion of the Minister and of C.I.E. would have no idea of public transport, have noted the cost of the new diesel trains which were put on. We have seen camping coaches put up there and taken down the following year. We have seen new sanitary services put in at the site of the camping coaches and taken down again. We want to know were these moneys included in the losses?

We know that the roads will not be able to take the traffic that will travel on them when there is no railway to take a large number of people to Tramore. When anybody could start a bus service and when two or three such services were competing on the Tramore route, the Tramore railway company of that time reduced fares to 4d., filled every train every day and brought the buses to a standstill until the present Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, saved the busmen's skins by buying out their buses. We did not get the figures for that year to show how Tramore railway fared. It made plenty of money that year.

The Minister has been going to various dinners and spreading inaccurate information. Will he say if this is accurate? C.I.E. have indicated that the following numbers of vehicles will cater for the additional traffic to be carried by the Board's substitute road services following the closing of the branch lines: Waterford-Tramore —three buses; one lorry plus appropriate trailers, containers and special bodies required for various kinds of traffic. I am not interested in West Clare and West Cork railways. Listening here today, I was almost sick of West Cork because I heard so much of it.

The Deputy will hear more of it, I can assure him.

There was a deputation received at Kingsbridge—the deputation which was not allowed to talk about the Tramore railway; they were permitted to talk only about the bus service. I am sorry some of my colleagues are not here because they were witnesses. The Minister says that some additional vehicles will, of course, be required for peak traffic; for example, two additional buses will be required for the Waterford-Tramore service during the holiday season. Two additional buses! Mr. Frank Lemass told us that he was putting 20 buses on the route during peak periods. The Minister comes in here and says "two". I want to know who is right?

He was trying to prove that would be an efficient service.

That would be an efficient service. The Taoiseach said that the Waterford-Tramore railway was not important. I gather there are an awful lot of things which are not important to the Taoiseach and his colleagues. They have given Waterford some butchering in their time, both in regard to existing industries which were taken out of it and industries that should have been established there and were not established there. The Waterford-Tramore railway may not be important economically. It was built as a pleasure line to give the people of Tipperary, Kilkenny and Laois an opportunity of visiting Waterford by rail and going out to Tramore by rail. Special trains ran to Waterford and Tramore. The function of the Tramore line was to bring people to the seaside.

We had a statement made from the Fianna Fáil brief by Deputy O'Malley this evening that merchants were approached in these areas to find out what support they were prepared to give to this railway. I asked him to name one merchant in Waterford or Tramore who had been approached. That was so much more of the Fianna Fáil claptrap. There was virtually never any commercial traffic on the Waterford-Tramore line, not even in its best days. Even though I, in the opinion of the gentleman in Kingsbridge have no experience of public transport I have certainly had experience of travelling to Tramore. Apropos experience of public transport, I might as well say it—the Chairman of C.I.E. is not so long in public transport himself. I repeat the Tramore railway is not of great economic importance. It is of no account.

Who said that?

Seán Lemass said it the other evening.

The Taoiseach. He said also that everybody was asked, if the line was maintained, would it get more traffic? That question was not put to us. There was no question of the line being kept open. The decision was irrevocable. The Minister would have served himself, the Taoiseach, his Party and the country well if he had listened to us and had called C.I.E. to his office —they are his servants—and the deputation led by the Mayor of Waterford to discuss this matter. That is what the Minister should have done. He was entitled to do that. I had some hopes for the Minister when he was Minister for Lands. Now he is transposed to this footling Ministry. He could make a success of it if he wanted to. He had his opportunity and he refused to take it.

We had the Taoiseach coming in here today and getting even more hot under the collar than I am over the taking of the railway lines out of Cork. He said that, as a result of taking the railway lines out of Cork, more industries were going into Cork. It would almost make one think that taking up railway lines would bring industries into an area. All these factories may be going into Cork, but there are no factories going into my constituency.

The Deputy has not enough railway tracks to dig up.

That is the new industry. I was told by the Minister for Industry and Commerce recently— I want to put it on the record—that out of 104 new projects there was one for Waterford city and county. I asked him later what that one was and I was told it was an extension to Marchant Quin, Limited, of Tramore. That is a small but a very good factory. I should think the extension will not mean more than the employment of two, three or four people. That is the kind of claptrap one gets.

I wonder will the taking up of the Tramore railway line bring a whole horde of industrialists into Waterford now. The rails are being torn up at the moment in case there might be any change. They are being torn up with almost indecent haste. The only efficiency C.I.E. display is in wrecking railways. They are tearing up these tracks to sell them to Czechoslovakia, whence they will be transported in some of the Costa Rican ships. They will not give any Irish manufacturer a chance of buying these tracks. They are being priced off and sold outside the country.

Behind the Iron Curtain.

There are Irish firms which erect farm buildings. They thought they would have had a chance of buying some of these tracks. Not at all. They are all being shipped out of Cork. The item will look well in the balance of payments. The new export from Ireland-rails. The item will look well in the C.I.E. balance sheet-scrap iron. We are not in the red any longer. We are in the black. They ought to put a black border all round the balance sheet. They ought to put it into mourning.

There are still railways in Waterford. There are about 200 miles of railways in Waterford. Waterford has not lost its railways.

Mr. Lynch

And no thanks to C.I.E. Waterford men were pioneer promoters of railway building in this country.

The Deputy should not exaggerate.

I am not exaggerating. It is no exaggeration to say that the line was closed on Saturday. A bridge was taken down on Monday and they were digging up the tracks on Monday. Everything was ready. That is the kind of efficiency C.I.E. shows. It was a shameful and blackguardly act and it will be remembered for C.I.E. and every man on its Board by the people of Waterford. C.I.E. had made up their minds they would close the railway. They priced it out of existence. The obvious way to run that railway would have been to have put people in charge of it who knew something about public transport and who were not just pulled into it overnight.

Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 22nd February, 1961.
Barr
Roinn