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?