Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Mar 1961

Vol. 187 No. 5

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

The following motion was moved on 15th February, 1961, 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.)

I am resuming a debate that was interrupted on 16th February, 1961. This motion has been driven off the Order Paper of this House every day since then. Now on the 15th March I find myself resuming the debate on that motion and the Minister for Transport and Power is not in his place.

He is engaged in the Seanad.

I am glad to hear that he is engaged somewhere in this Oireachtas because I had suspected that he was disseminating his usual inaccurate information at some dinner around Dublin or somewhere else. Since speaking on this motion on 16th February, some matters have arisen to which I want to draw the attention of the House. One is the matter of the Taoiseach's speech on that very day. On that day the Taoiseach said:

I think I am entitled to assume from the terms of the trivial amendment moved by the Fine Gael Party, and the speech delivered in support of it by Deputy McGilligan, that, in fact, the Fine Gael Party, the principal Opposition Party in the House, has no serious complaint to make about transport policy as it is now being administered and have, indeed, no objection to the closing of branch lines so long as local politicians are given adequate opportunity of blowing off steam on deputations to the C.I.E. Board.

That was a most disgraceful statement to make and even more disgraceful was the manner in which it was reported all over the country. It was reported by Radio Éireann on the 6.30 News Bulletin. Nothing else was reported in that News Bulletin except the paragraph that I quoted. The serious part of that is that from a semi-secret circular I have got of the census taken recently of how the news was heard by the people, it seems that 40 per cent. of them listen to the 6.30 News and to the 10.15 News. We got a fair report in "To-day in the Dáil" at 11.15 p.m. but only 10 per cent. of the people of Ireland listen to that.

I want to repeat that it is not for political purposes that we bring these matters in here. We come in here to protest against the policy of C.I.E. and especially against their policy of taking up the railway lines. We are compelled to come in here by the pressure of our constituents and of people of all shades of opinion. If we do not come in here and do that we are failing in our duty to the people whom we are supposed to be representing. When we have the Taoiseach making such a speech as that and when it is so widely reported I throw it back to the Taoiseach that we are not local politicians who are blowing off steam on deputations to the C.I.E. Board. In any case, the C.I.E. Board saw to it that nobody could blow off steam or say anything at all to them because, in their own dictatorial fashion, when they did agree to receive a deputation from the various authorities they would not allow them to speak about the railway lines they were tearing up.

That action, as I said when I was speaking on this motion on the last occasion, was going back on the undertaking that the Taoiseach solemnly gave to this House when the C.I.E. Bill was going through. Now we know, and we should have known then, that the solemn undertakings of the Taoiseach are worth nothing. The Taoiseach went on to say that he had got nothing but a niggling speech from the spokesman of the Opposition and he went on to speak of the complaints that had been made by the various constituencies in which the C.I.E. Board were tearing up the lines and blowing up bridges.

He went on to say as reported at Column 604:

It has been suggested that the roads of these areas will be given an amount of additional traffic which they are unsuitable to bear. The figures given earlier today by the Minister for Transport and Power go a long way towards demolishing that contention. It is, however, the policy of the Government to assist local authorities to maintain the roads in their areas in a state suitable for the traffic using them. If we get from these areas realistic proposals for the bringing of roads up to that standard, they will be very carefully considered. But it is not helpful, either to the consideration of the problem or to the interest of these areas, to have fantastic estimates of costs prepared on a propagandist basis and publicised in the press.

Hear, hear.

It is all right for a Donegal Deputy to say that when you stuck the people for £350,000 for the old railway taken up there.

We had no C.I.E. in Donegal.

The Taoiseach spoke of realistic proposals and a Deputy who supports Fianna Fáil applauded him as if the only realistic proposals were those put up from Donegal. The proposal put up from Waterford was put up by two competent engineers of high integrity, men who could stand over their proposals. It will be proved when the time comes, and I shall say it in this House, that the Minister for Transport and Power has given wrong figures again. The proposals put up by the engineers of the Waterford County Council and the Waterford City Council were realistic proposals put up by competent engineers. Why should we have to put up with this policy of C.I.E. and this policy of Fianna Fáil for the destruction of the railways?

We find the Road Fund practically raided to drag large sums of money into a county that the Minister for Local Government happens to come from. We were told there was £75,000 of special railway grants being given to Donegal to make good the loss of the railways. Now it is £75,000 for five years which will cost the people who pay road tax on their cars £375,000.

How many miles. of railway have we closed? About 150 miles.

If the Deputy wants to interrupt me and have this dirty, I can make it as dirty as he likes to have it. I have listened to the Minister and the Taoiseach belying the situation. I think Deputy Loughman on the back seat had better go to the Department of Local Government to have his own constituency gerrymandered so as to make sure he comes back.

The Deputy should look after himself.

This Deputy will look after himself. The Taoiseach also said during this debate that C.I.E. had gone to merchants in another area outside my constituency and asked them how much extra traffic they were prepared to give the railways if the railways were continued, and they did not get satisfactory answers. Deputy Michael Pat Murphy in reply said this was a gross misrepresentation. I asked how many merchants were approached in Waterford and Tramore and the Taoiseach, in his usual sidestepping manner, did not answer that question at all. The Waterford and Tramore railway with which I am concerned does not carry very much traffic or goods. It is passengers it carries.

The Taoiseach mentioned the accurate figures that would be given by the Minister for Transport and Power. The Minister for Transport and Power in his address to the House at column 537 of the Official Report of 16th February last said that the Waterford-Tramore service would have three buses and one lorry plus appropriate trailers and containers. "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."

That is a very well-informed Minister giving us accurate information. He said there would be three buses on the usual service and there would be two more, five buses. I can show the figures which will indicate that 2,000 people could be carried to Tramore by train. When I was on this famous deputation to C.I.E. the General Manager of C.I.E. told the Mayor of Waterford that he would have 20 buses on the road. The Minister for Transport and Power comes in and tells us there will be six. It is there on the record.

In the pronouncement that was issued by C.I.E. to the various areas where it was intended to close the railways the people concerned were told that when the railway lines were removed an adequate service would be substituted. The phrase "adequate service" used by C.I.E. is a Fianna Fáil habit. They did not say that that service would be as cheap. What do we find now? We find, of course, there is no bus service at all to Tramore except the private bus service the Tramore workers organised. We find that the bus service when it is running will cost the people much more. The adult day return fare was 1/9d.; child, 11d. return, and 11d. return for a pram. The bus will take the adult for 2/6d. return, the child for 1/3d. and the pram for 3/- That is the blessing the Minister for Transport and Power has conferred on the mothers of Waterford who want to take their children to the seaside.

It is a disappointment to me that a Tipperary man should interrupt when I was speaking about the Tramore railway because even before the Tramore railway was built Kickham mentioned that Tramore was a place where most of the people in Tipperary first saw the sea, and he wrote a magnificent chapter on it. I have the figures for 1959. In the month of July, 1959, 5,813 people were taken on an excursion from Tipperary, Clonmel and New Ross to Waterford and thence to Tramore on the Tramore railway. There were also excursions from Kildare, from Thurles and again from New Ross; excursions from Abbeylaois, Portlaoise, and Tipperary again. On the following Sunday in July there were excursions from Thurles, New Ross and Tipperary; 377 people from Tipperary and 287 from New Ross. On the days of Tramore races the following passenger figures are recorded in respect of the train services: on 12th August, 1959, 2,506; on 13th August, 1,060; on 14th August, 1,386, and on 15th August, 3,680. It would be marvellous on the next 15th August to be watching all these people storming around trying to get to Tramore if there were only the six buses and the special lorry the Minister for Transport and Power is providing. If there were 20 buses there it would be a nice sight on the Tramore road.

This was a railway service which was supposed to be losing £3,000. Then it was losing £6,000, then they told us it was £9,000. Never did they use any vision. Next they sent the efficiency experts, the dictators. When the old "dodderers" were running the railway they were able to have £30,000 in their reserves. That was when they were using an old line and an old-fashioned brass engine. But in those days it used to be baskets of coal, shovelled in by what the experts called an inefficient fireman.

So they fired him.

Yes, but they had to keep him on as a railway porter. Then they sent us a diesel. It was supposed to be the wonder of the world. What would it not do for the Tramore line? In the old days we were able to do the journey in twenty minutes. But this new diesel, this masterpiece, would do it in fifteen minutes and would take 600 people. At one stage I said that the old train could carry 1,500 people. Soon afterwards I got a storm of letters of protest saying that I was wrong. I was wrong, the letters said, because the old train could take 2,000 people instead of 1,500 and, I was told, when the old train was running there were no queues of people left waiting on the platform.

However, we had to concede to the dictators, the men with the cold eyes who could not see anybody, reason with anybody, talk to anybody. They gave us their efficiency. They sacked our fireman. And then they said they could not run the railway any more. Immediately before that decision, we expected, of course, that we would be consulted. We were depending on the word of the Taoiseach, Deputy Seán Lemass, and now we and the people of West Cork and West Clare know what the word of the Taoiseach is worth—nothing better than that of a thimble-rigger.

Keep away from Clare.

I have to listen to what the Deputy from Galway says but I despise his audacity, and that of his Party, in asking us to keep going an industry which should never have been started. They spent our money to start it at the docks in Galway and the next minute it was closed down.

We ought to keep on the railway line.

Unfortunately the lines are being torn up.

Let us keep on the track, then.

I hope the Deputy from the Galway allows me to mention that it was the Minister for Transport and Power, who should be here in the House, who shut down the Galway fish factory and who had a marvellous fish supper in order to do it. I suppose it was the fish they eat that helped close the place down. I must say again that I despite the audacity of the Galway Deputy who keeps interrupting us here on such an important motion. I think I am perfectly entitled to continue without interruption, coming as I do from a city where 4,000 people have bought single tickets for Britain in one year and where we have no special benefits or grants towards the foundation of new industries.

The Taoiseach said the Tramore railway line was not economically important. That is what I call the Dublin mentality about such things. But it was very important in the summer months when thousands of mothers from Waterford were able to bring their children out of the city on Sundays to the seaside in Tramore in speed, comfort and what we call efficiency. No accident ever occurred on that line, but the Taoiseach says it was not economically important. I suppose if some Germans, Japanese or Chinese gentlemen came along and got us to stick in thousands of pounds belonging to the "Tá Sés" it would be economically important although it would not cost this House one brass farthing. I suppose it was economically important to call for such speed in the tearing up of the tracks when, on a wet day, the workmen came along, minutes after the close down order, and tore down the bridge and then began to tear up the line. Andrews was able to do that in a few hours. And then we had these audacious interruptions from the Galway Deputy.

The Deputy will get it now.

Neither do I see why a Donegal Deputy can come in here and interrupt us when we are talking about a small matter of a £3,000 loss and when we see the burdens his Party have thrown on the country. I wonder how many of them will have the audacity to go down the country in a few months' time? I wonder how many of them would have the guts to go down to Tramore and consult even members of their own Party on the matter of this railway line and the manner in which the whole matter has been treated by the Minister for Transport and Power?

When this matter became known to Deputies early in November last it was impossible to get a reply from the Minister for Transport and Power. He could tell us nothing about it; it was a matter for C.I.E.; it was not his function. When it came to the day that I put down a motion we had no less a person than the Taoiseach coming in challenging the right of a Deputy to put down a motion. The Taoiseach is referred to here in the Report on the 7th December, 1960 as saying that he was not refusing to provide time for a motion which he thought the Dáil could properly discuss but in his view this motion was so framed that it was objectionable. That motion was submitted to the Chair and had been accepted and with no disrespect to the Taoiseach I suggest he had "a neck" to say that. That is what Parliament is here for and what he is here for—to provide time.

He staved it off. He wanted to make sure he would stave it off until the bridges were down and the rails torn up. Then the C.I.E. motion was brought into the House by the Minister for Transport and Power, a Minister who was mute through all this agitation by myself, by Deputies from Cork and by one Deputy from Clare, Deputy William Murphy. I say that with all respect because there is another Deputy from Clare in the House that I am sure the Chair knows about and who would not be in a position to say anything about the matter. There is another Deputy, a Member of Fianna Fáil and a Minister and probably one of the nicest people over there, but he would be precluded from saying anything about it.

Biodh ciall agat.

I must do what I seldom if ever I did in this House. I must apologise to Deputy Kelly. During all the time of this agitation the Minister for Transport and Power sat mute of malice. He would not speak or answer questions; he would not take any action; he could do nothing about it and would do nothing about it. The busmen served notice that they were going on strike and another Minister——

I shall not allow any discussion on the strike.

I am not going to discuss the strike but the fact that a Minister from the Fianna Fáil benches could summon the chief of C.I.E.——

That impinges very closely on the strike and I would ask the Deputy not to follow that track.

A Deputy

Deputy Lynch is going off the rails.

That is not funny at all. The rails are not there. The rails are in Czechoslavakia or over with the German——

The Deputy has sufficient matter to discuss without impinging on the strike.

I shall not impinge on it. It was possible for that Minister to pull this man out of his office and I am just making a comparison and saying, would it not have been possible for the Minister for Transport and Power to have sent for the Chairman of C.I.E. and asked him to meet the deputation led by the Mayor of Waterford and to discuss this matter and let him then give a ruling on it? He would not do that. He refused to do it; refused to speak of it and refused to meet anybody about it. As a matter of fact one could not meet him at all at that time. He was like the Scarlet Pimpernel, rushing from one Chamber of Commerce dinner to another, making extraordinary statements about some never-never land that was enjoying enormous prosperity. We could never find out where this Innisfáil was that he was talking about.

I got so many letters and protests that, as a matter of fact, they include some from very staunch Fianna Fáil supporters who, I am sure, will still vote Fianna Fáil but who were loud in their anger not alone at the fact that this railway was being destroyed but at the manner in which C.I.E. did it.

Now I want to come down to the small man, somebody that Fianna Fáil Deputies may laugh about, such as the fireman. With the Deputies opposite it is always funny for a man to lose his job. There are a couple of forgotten people in this case. There are two employees of C.I.E. who live in Tramore, not actually working on the Tramore section of C.I.E. but at Waterford-North. They travelled in every morning, on a privilege ticket that railmen get, to their work and they paid 9/9d. a month for the ticket. Now, with the Minister's magnificent "adequate service" they will pay 11/9d. a week. These men will never have income tax worries or P.A.Y.E. worries. One of them is married and has four children and he takes home £6 13s. a week from C.I.E. The other man has twice as many children and he takes home £6 18s. a week. His travel bill comes to £2 7s. a month— it used to be 9/9d. a month.

I would ask the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to take note of that and hand it to the Minister for Transport and Power and ask him what he is going to do about it or can he do anything about it, or would he be afraid to give a direction to the satraps of C.I.E.

They are tearing up these lines and have come along from what is called the Metal Bridge and they are approaching Carriglong Bridge now. They may have it down tonight. But it is not too late yet. I think the Minister should show his teeth, if he has any, by sending a direction to the Board of C.I.E. telling them to relay the rails and operate the railway in the coming Summer. If it loses money I will be the first to come in here and say: "Mea culpa.” I do not think now that I shall have to do that. I think, too, it will be a miracle if the Minister responds to my request. Let me tell him it would be the kind of gesture which would make him a really great man and demonstrate to the Deputies of this House that the direction of a Minister of Dáil Éireann carries some weight. It would also rehabilitate the Taoiseach, for he has broken his word and broken the undertaking he gave here. It would be a great day's work for the Minister for Transport and Power to restore this fine service, a service which gave such pleasure to such large numbers of ordinary people. Above all, such restoration would rehabilitate the Taoiseach in the eyes of the people of Tramore and Waterford.

There are a few other points I want to mention. There are certain items which do not appear in these accounts. C.I.E. have a Gestapo travelling around the fairs and marts. These Gestapo travel in cars. They are constantly changing. They behave like the meanest informers. They act as agents provocateurs, going into bars trying to find out is any farmer carrying home a beast for a neighbour and getting a few bob for doing so. I should like to know how much that service is costing C.I.E. What does it cost to maintain these cars? What is the cost of depreciation on them? What does it cost to pay the salaries of the people who do this work?

In conclusion, I should like again to ask the Minister for Transport and Power to make some statement in reference to what the Taoiseach said about the engineers in the employment of Waterford County Council, Waterford City Council and Cork County Council. That was a scandalous reference and there should be some explanation given. I hope there will be, though I doubt it. I have never known the people on the other side of this House ever to admit they were wrong. I have never seen them do the proper thing. I have never yet experienced any number of this Government getting up and saying that he did not mean what he said in the terms in which he was reported and that it was not his intention to make any attack on particular people. I hope some statements on those lines will be made now. But I doubt it.

I am in a more favourable position to speak here this evening than the previous speaker, Deputy Lynch, because our railway in West Cork is still running. I have had representations from every organisation in West Cork, from people from the West Cork area and from all over the world asking us to ensure that this railway will continue in operation. We describe it as the lifeline of West Cork. If we lose it we will lose a very valuable asset, an asset the loss of which will sever us from the direct route to Dublin.

We are told that long haulage is the most economical and the most suitable. The railway line from Bantry to Dublin is the longest rail service in the whole of Ireland. The main line from Cork to Bantry is 62 miles. There are 30 miles of branch lines, making 92 miles in all. We do not regard the line from Cork to Bantry as a small line or as a branch line. We regard it as a main line, with branch lines at Timoleague, Courtmacsherry, Skibbereen, Baltimore, and various other small stations.

I want to impress on the Minister— let us hope he will be impressed—the importance of this area to the whole economic structure not only of West Cork but of C.I.E. itself. The railway line of West Cork has contributed its share to the workings of C.I.E. Looking at the report, I am very pleased to see that the financial position of C.I.E. is improving notwithstanding the fact that the railway is still running in West Cork. I am glad to see that in the railway section the loss of £1,247,489 for the year ended 31st March, 1959, was reduced to £558,614 for the year ending 31st March, 1960. A total loss of £558,614 for the whole country is not a very huge sum.

There was an operating profit on the road passenger service of £868,480 as compared with £783,415 in the preceding year. That goes to show that C.I.E. is improving its position. Over 300,000,000 passengers were carried, more passengers than were ever carried before on this system. That shows the importance of the service we have. I wonder do we appreciate the service as much as we should. I believe it is a better service and a better system than any substitute which could be put on the road. I believe it is more economical than any substitute.

The present Taoiseach, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, agreed in 1957 that it was far more economic for C.I.E. to keep on the rail services than to change over to road services. I believe that the same position obtains in this country to-day, that if they change over to road services it will cost this country a colossal amount of money. Wear and tear will be far greater. I know that in West Cork alone the first thing C.I.E. will need to do is to buy about 100 new lorries to cater for the requirements of that area and they must put two men on each of those lorries, which makes 200 men and 100 lorries.

I am basing that on the trade of the area. We, in West Cork, can produce probably 100,000 tons of beet and that must be transported in 100 days. That means that from our area, which is now on the point of closing down its railway, we must transport 1,000 tons of beet a day. That involves 100 lorries a day travelling over the roads of that area for beet alone. In addition to the beet traffic we have the fairs and traffic from the fairs at that particular time of year, when the beet trade is in full swing, is at its heaviest. We know that the traffic from fairs varies from 30 to 70 wagons in addition to lorry transport and if the 100 lorries of beet and 50 or 60 wagons and lorries of cattle are on the road, in addition to the trade of the area with the various merchants, I do not for the life of me know how the roads can carry that traffic.

Great industrial development is taking place in West Cork at the moment. There are, as we are informed by the Taoiseach, new factories building which I am very well aware of— three new factories going up and applications for four more and, in the words of the Taoiseach when he spoke here in this debate, the outlook for West Cork was never brighter. The Taoiseach also said that the demand for industrial development in that area was unprecedented. I think if the outlook is so good and with our present business going on as it is in the cattle and the beet trade this is the wrong time to close the railway. The decision to close the railway was taken I believe four years ago. I have here before me the Beddy Report and also the map which they outlined in that report. In that map they cut off every line from Cork West and the next line they meet is that from Cork to Tralee via Killarney.

Times have changed considerably in those four years. We have, I am glad to say, made progress. The Taoiseach knows we have made progress in those four years. I agree we have made progress and I hope we continue to make progress. We intend to expand also in the tourist development of the area and we are grateful to Bord Fáilte for the interest they are taking in that development. But it certainly will be detrimental to the area if what we started last year with the aid of Bord Fáilte is to be curtailed now. We started package deals last year and attracted tourists to the area from Dublin who travelled by train down to West Cork. Is that to be sabotaged now because the railway is to be taken from us? It was only a start but it is a business that was going to grow to great dimensions— the tourist industry of the area.

I believe that a rail service to West Cork is as important as a rail service to Killarney and, indeed, Glengarriff can rival Killarney for scenery and attractions. Instead of closing the line from Bantry to Cork, I would make a very strong appeal to extend the line further west from Bantry to Glengarriff because that is going to be of great benefit to the tourist industry. The people of that area depend solely on tourism for their livelihood. There is a tremendous interest at the present time in the development of tourism in West Cork. We have inquiries from all over Europe and from America and Australia and there will be a great influx of tourists to West Cork.

It is only now that the people have really discovered the south. We were forgotten and lost long enough but they have discovered us now. The Germans have discovered us; the Dutch have discovered us and the Yanks have discovered us. They are all interested in us. Why, in the name of heaven, are the only people not interested in us here in Dublin? Why would they not do something practical to keep the railway going? I would not make a case to keep the railway going if I felt it was not justified, but I believe that the railway is essential for development both from the agricultural, industrial and tourist development points of view. The Tourist Board agreed when they submitted their recommendations to the Beddy Board in 1957 that it would be detrimental to close it. The same argument holds good to-day.

Some people may not realise that the President of America has many relations in West Cork, on his mother's side—the Fitzgeralds of Skibbereen— and when American people, who are taking a great interest in President Kennedy's ancestors and the place of their birth, come to Cobh, they certainly will be very pleased to be transported in a decent railway carriage pulled by the excellent diesel trains which we have, rather than to be rattled about in C.I.E. buses, which may lead to illness on the way down. If we are to develop tourism as it should be developed, we must retain the railway line to West Cork. I believe common sense will prevail and that we will succeed in keeping this lifeline.

I note here in this Report that the Board closed seven lines last year but they do not know yet what savings will be effected as a result. It would be good policy for the Board to stay their hand. They admit they do not know whether the result has been a saving or a loss. I believe the closing of the West Cork line would result in a very serious loss, whereas both the people of West Cork and C.I.E. would benefit if the line were kept open.

I also notice this Report states that:

...a Suggestions Committee was set up and is in permanent being to deal with suggestions from the staff and from the general public.

I wonder where that Suggestions Committee have their headquarters? For several months we in Cork County Council have been trying to get an interview with somebody in order to make suggestions. When the announcement was made of the closing of the railway line, the Cork County Council immediately formed a representative deputation comprised of the highest in Church and State in Cork county, men quite capable of making suggestions to anyone interested in receiving them. But we could not get a receiver for the huge volume of suggestions we wished to put forward to improve the railway system in West Cork. I can assure the Minister that we had on that deputation men who could put forward constructive views and suggestions to the responsible authorities in Dublin. I do not know what this Suggestions Committee have been doing. Are they being paid? I think we should find out a little bit more about them?

One of the suggestions which that deputation was going to put forward was made already in the Beddy Report. It was the suggestion that C.I.E. could run their business economically and efficiently with 30 per cent. fewer staff than what they have at present and that they could carry on the same amount of business. I knew that was a fact. I knew there was no necessity whatever to close down completely the line to West Cork. A good case could be made for closing down certain stations where very little trade was being done. I would approve of closing down some of the stations and dispensing with some of the stationmasters, porters, and others who were doing nothing. Indeed, I feel that some of the stationmasters who were doing nothing could have been put to better use trying to get some trade for C.I.E.

That is just one of the suggestions made in the Beddy Report which was never implemented. If that suggestion had been implemented during the past four years and there had been a cutting down of staff by 30 per cent. all over the country, C.I.E. would have become a paying proposition overnight and there would be no necessity to close any railway line. But I suppose the powers that be in Dublin had greater influence than the people in Cork and were able to retain a 100 per cent. staff in some areas while the employees in West Cork were wiped out 100 per cent. That is most unfair and unjust, to wipe out 100 per cent. in one section and retain 100 per cent. in other sections carrying the same amount of traffic as the West Cork line.

I have a volume of correspondence to convince me that there are many lines in Ireland carrying much less traffic than our line. I am informed there is a line from Drogheda to Oldcastle, 40 miles, on which there is one goods train daily and no passenger service.

Does the Deputy suggest it should be closed?

I am not making that suggestion at all. I am claiming our line is carrying more passengers and more goods and has a better right to be kept going than this line with one goods train daily and no passenger service.

That line is for an export business entirely.

There is another line from Clonsilla to Kingscourt, 15 miles, on which there is a goods train on two days of the week only. There has been no passenger service there since 1947. I have got these figures by post and I am giving them for the benefit of the House. There is another line from Clara to Banagher, 18 miles, with only one goods train daily. There is a line from Portlaoise to Mount-mellick, seven miles, with one beet train daily from October to January. It is closed for the remainder of the year.

When I get letters like that pointing out the injustice being done to West Cork, I think I have a duty to my people to fight, whether we win or lose. I have correspondence even from the city of Dublin pressing me to keep up the fight to the end. It comes from people in Greystones who tell me of the difficulties they have experienced since some of their services were curtailed. This is what the letter says:

We wish you every success in your fight to save the railways. As you probably know, we here in South County Dublin were very active and have averted a complete closedown.

They must have been more active than we have been in West Cork because we have not succeeded in doing that yet. The letter goes on:

However, there is at present great dissatisfaction with the bus service to Dún Laoghaire and Dalkey. The difficulties now existing are due to the closing of the railway stations and the curtailment of train services.

The Minister for Transport and Power informed this House that there were no complaints subsequent to the closing of the railway. I have evidence here from residents in Dublin, Greystones and Dalkey that within the bounds of Dublin there are complaints since the Harcourt Street railway line was closed.

We also know that in Kenmare there were complaints when cattle were left overnight after a fair. I appreciate that it would be almost impossible for C.I.E. to estimate the number of cattle at a fair and that it would be frightfully expensive for them to cater for a fair because in one fair there might be 60 wagons of cattle whereas in another fair there might be only 30 wagons of cattle. In the rail system a train with two men could carry the 60 or 70 wagons. At no extra cost the engine pulls 60 or 70 wagons to the town where the fair is held. If the train is taken from that area, will C.I.E. send 30 lorries or 60 lorries or will they take the chance that there may be 70 lorries of cattle at a fair? Will they send down all those lorries and employ the necessary number of men on the speculation that there will be so many cattle at a fair? It would be impossible, impracticable. Chaos will be caused in the cattle industry in the area in West Cork which is going to lose the train.

In our case if the railway is closed, the roads must be improved. I sincerely hope that it will not be necessary to go ahead with road improvement. I hope that commonsense will prevail and that the railway service will continue to operate. Should the railwayline be closed, a colossal amount of money must be spent on the roads serving the towns which are now being served by the railway. The roads are narrow and winding. There are approximately 100 bridges and level-crossings in that whole railway-line, all of which would have to be improved. I accept our county engineer's report as being factual. I have known our county engineer over a long number of years. I have never known him to be out in his estimates. He is a conscientious, hardworking man. I regret that the Taoiseach saw fit to criticise in any way our county engineer's report on the road requirements of West Cork consequent on the closing down of the railway. I know it was a very modest report and the amount he specified would not bring the entire road up to the required standard. Each bridge and level-crossing will cost approximately £2,000. That means £200,000 at the outset to level the bridges and level-crossings for the traffic which will come on the roads. If we were to get £75,000 a year for five years, the first £200,000 would go on straightening bridges and level-crossings and all that would be left to improve the roads would be £175,000. I know that is not sufficient because in my experience of road-making it costs from £10,000 to £15,000 a mile to bring a road up to main road standard and there are 113 miles of road to be brought up to that standard. As the engineer said at the end of his report, there is no use making an estimate on that basis because the sum would be prohibitive, running into millions of pounds.

I do not think the people in Dublin realise the seriousness of the position. I should like to impress on them the great disadvantage it will be for the people of the area if the line closes and the fact that the country generally will lose a great deal more than it will gain. In the event of an emergency we would have no mode of transport. It is absolutely necessary to keep the railway going.

I do not accept the figures produced by C.I.E. in respect of losses in West Cork, West Clare or Tramore. I reject them on very good grounds. There was never a breakdown of the figures. I think Dr. Andrews stated that he could not segregate the figures. At best, the estimate of a loss of £56,000 was a shot in the dark.

To justify my case, may I say that in 1957 there were 22 branch lines in this country losing £100,000. How can three lines be losing over £80,000 in 1960? It does not sound sensible to me. Neither does it sound sensible that the West Cork line is losing £56,000. Even if it was losing £56,000 there were plenty of ways and means at the disposal of C.I.E. to remedy that situation and to improve the position if they had any ambition to do so. They allowed the position to go from bad to worse without making a genuine effort to remedy it. The only conclusion the people can come to is that C.I.E. were biding their time until the position got so bad that a good case could be made for closing the lines.

I have discussed the position with merchants in West Cork since the decision to close the line was taken. I asked them if they would give their trade to C.I.E. They informed me that they would do so if C.I.E. were competitive in their charges.

I got the charges at which they could get their goods delivered and I got the rates which C.I.E. were charging. There was a difference of 10/- a ton. I think it would be hardly fair to expect the traders of West Cork to support C.I.E. while that difference obtained. They could get their goods delivered by the private haulier into their stores at 10/- a ton cheaper than C.I.E. would bring it to the station for them. At that time the C.I.E. men were practically idle, both the freight men and the men at the station so that the whole thing must have been mismanaged.

The claim that the people of West Cork did not support the railway line is not supported by the facts. How could they be expected to support it when the charges were prohibitive, so as far as the carriage of goods was concerned? C.I.E. should have become competitive. I believe they were competitive in other areas, and that they made package deals with firms. I know that they made no package deals in West Cork except the one deal in connection with the tourist development of the area. If that development had been carried a little stage further, it would benefit C.I.E. and it would benefit the whole area. It is wrong then to claim that the people of West Cork did not support the railway. C.I.E. was to blame. If there was something wrong in the whole set-up then the matter was well worthy of discussion. This suggestions committee must have been very lax in their duty when they did not attempt to discuss the matter with the people of West Cork. When they saw their business going down, they must have realised that something was very wrong.

As regards the transport of cattle, I know that the rail service is the most satisfactory and economical for the long haul. Buyers come from the midlands and Northern Ireland to West Cork and they send their cattle back by the long haul. The rates for that long haul were very reasonable indeed, much more reasonable than the rates by lorry. A wagon of cattle from the fair in Bantry to the midlands or to Dublin would cost about £18. I discussed the matter with some of the lorrymen and their charges would be from £45 to £50. That should give an idea of what the people of West Cork are in for when the rail service ceases. Will C.I.E. give the same service as the lorrymen and at the same rate that they have been giving for the long haul? If they do I am afraid they will not be long in business. The lorrymen who are doing it at the moment have to charge from £45 to £50. The rail service is the most suitable for the long haul and the longest haul in Ireland is from Bantry to Dublin. It is one that should be maintained at all costs.

In addition to the Board of C.I.E. we have other State-sponsored bodies operating in West Cork. I wonder is there any co-operation at all between those State-sponsored bodies? We have the Dairy Disposal Board there. It was stated that the co-ops. did not support C.I.E. but here is the State-sponsored body, the Dairy Disposal Board, which operates over the whole area and I wonder if they support C.I.E.? We also have An Bord Iascaigh Mhara which does substantial business in the area. That is a State-sponsored body and I wonder does it contribute to the trade of C.I.E.? We have the E.S.B. and Bord na Móna operating in West Cork. They are State-sponsored bodies doing substantial business in the area and if they gave their freight to C.I.E. it would amount to a considerable volume of business.

We are, at the moment, contemplating the development of Castletownbere as a major fishery harbour. I mentioned the advisability of extending the line from Bantry to Glengarriff. That would bring it much nearer to Castletownbere where we are considering this development. I want to impress on the Minister the importance of having a railway near such an important development. In the Beddy Report, they stated that such an important development should be within 25 miles of the nearest railway. If we extend the line from Bantry to Glengarriff the town of Castletownbere will be approximately 25 miles from the station.

There are other villages 10 or 12 miles further on so that even after extending the line to Glengarriff there will be areas of West Cork still 35 miles from a railway. I consider that it is absolutely necessary to extend the line to bring it nearer to the people of that peninsula, to bring it nearer to the major fishery harbour of Castletownbere where hundreds of thousands of pounds are to be expended on the development of the fishing industry.

Between that major development and the major development of tourism for which Bord Fáilte are giving us substantial sums at the present time, and with other local developments we hope to spend over £200,000. I hold that all that money will be wasted if we are to lose the railway line on account of the few pounds supposed to have been lost on it in the last year. I want to make the best case I can for holding on to our railway lines. I am doing it on the instructions of the people of West Cork. The people of Dublin have not shown any great anxiety to keep the service going. The Board of C.I.E. are not very interested. Those who spoke so far in this debate, mostly from Dublin, seem to be very anxious to close down our lines. The most unkindest cut of all was to find even Deputy Sherwin throwing his weight behind the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport and Power.

I do not know what grievance the people of Dublin have against us. Many a West Cork man took a single ticket to Dublin and has contributed to every development that has taken place since the foundation of the State in building up this magnificent city. They contributed in the industrial sphere. Housing estates went up. Factories and airports were built. Dublin would not be the beautiful city it is today were it not for the people of rural Ireland and were it not for agriculture, our major industry.

It is shortsighted on the part of Dublin people to adopt this attitude towards an area which in the past was forgotten but which, I am glad to say, is about to turn the corner. We often hear it said in this House: "We have turned the corner. We have beaten the crisis." We in West Cork have reached the corner, and we were about to beat the crisis which has been confronting us for the past 30 years.

The Deputy seems to be getting away from the railway question.

I will get back on the rails again. We have reached the corner. We do not want to turn back. We want to march forward and we ask the co-operation of the people of Dublin, Limerick and the rest of Ireland. If we do lose a few thousand pounds on the railways we shall make it up in other ways. We shall make it up by means of the people who take the single ticket to Dublin and contribute to the management of the city's affairs. If the people of Dublin were as efficient as the people who came from Cork to run affairs in Dublin, there would be no necessity to close the West Cork line.

Buying a return ticket would have helped the railways better.

This proposed close down of the West Cork line reminds me of something I read in Chesterton's The Omnipotent State in which he described how the elephant travelled through the forest one day, and came by a nest of eggs which had been abandoned by the mother. Looking down at the eggs, he wept over them with pity and compassion and, in that moment of pity and compassion for the eggs that had been abandoned, he decided he would sit on them himself. I am afraid Dr. Andrews, when he discovered West Cork late in life, wept with pity and compassion over the people there and, like the elephant and the eggs, decided he would sit on us. The people of West Cork are not and never were people to be sat upon. They are not taking this lying down. They have a hard battle to fight but they are waging it honourably in defence of their own territory. We have suffered enough in the past through emigration and it is high time we turned the corner and started to improve our position.

I am sure the Minister for Transport and Power, when he is replying, will try to put it across that it is a step forward to put extra buses and extra lorries on the road. However, that is not recognised in any other country in the world. There is no other country abandoning its railway system in this manner. Every country is holding on to its railways to the greatest extent possible as a vital necessity in building up its economy. I am sorry the Minister for Transport and Power is not here to listen to a final appeal from me tonight. When he was Minister for Lands he took a great interest in fisheries in West Cork. He went down there and discussed the problems with the people concerned. He wined and dined with the fishermen in Schull and Castletownberehaven.

The actions of the Minister for Lands do not seem to arise on this motion.

The present Minister for Transport and Power was then Minister for Lands and Fisheries.

And his actions as Minister for Lands are not relevant to this debate.

I am talking only about the deep interest he took in West Cork. We appreciated the work he did for the fisheries of that area.

But it has nothing to do with the present motion.

I want only to appeal to him to continue the same interest in the transport and power of West Cork as he did in the fishery industry when he was Minister for Lands. I believe if he does, he will immediately bring pressure to bear on Dr. Andrews and his board to change their mind. Dáil Éireann is still supreme and, if the Minister for Transport and Power wants to do so, he can do it with the help of the Taoiseach and the help and blessing of this House.

This matter has been very badly handled from the start. It was a pity that the deputation appointed at the outset was not received so that their views could be heard and digested before any action was taken. I know the Taoiseach did approve of such a course because he said in this House that Dr. Andrews might well have received that deputation. Is it too late now for common sense to prevail, for Dr. Andrews and his board to receive this deputation and to hear their views?

Let the Minister for Transport and Power and Dr. Andrews and his board bury their pride. It takes big men to admit they made a mistake. The mistake they made in not hearing the views of the deputation has been recognised by even the Taoiseach. From the point of view of the development of West Cork, I say this is the wrong time to close this railway. That is the only black spot on the map as far as we are concerned. It is a blot that could easily be wiped out overnight. I feel sure some Deputies are bored stiff with West Cork and its railway. I was often bored myself, but when the shoe pinches one must make allowances.

The shoe is pinching that particular area just now, and I feel Deputies not directly interested might allow us a little leeway. Dr. Andrews is not being asked to accept the views of the deputation. All he is being asked is to hear them. It might do him and his Board some good. It is essential in all business that the goodwill of the customers is retained. C.I.E. and their attitude to problems of this kind have done nothing to keep the goodwill of their customers. They should change their attitude if they are to survive at all.

There is a long history attached to the West Cork Railway. If I gave that history I am sure Deputies Loughman and Geoghegan would be really stiff before I had finished. The railway has been there over a hundred years. It was built by the people of West Cork, at great expense, and the people of the area invested their money in it. It broke many of them. C.I.E. have not the moral right to do what they are doing—to kill the life effort of so many people in West Cork.

That railway was at one time the Cork-Bandon and South Coast railway, run by local people, but once it became a national effort it got top heavy and inefficient and the closing of the line is the price we pay for this little piece of nationalisation and centralisation. I have here a letter from the Save the Railways Committee of West Cork which says that their efforts to save the line were non-political, that the members of that Committee are drawn from all political parties——

I think the Deputy referred to this earlier in his statement.

That is another letter that I have not referred to. It is a quotation from "Save the Railways" of West Cork. The other was from "Save the Railways" in Dublin. In addition we had the Teachers Organisation, recognised as a very learned body of men, who, when the decision to close the line was made, passed a resolution boycotting C.I.E. in future in the road transport section——

All of them had motor cars.

——not for themselves but for the children's tours from the schools. This shows the resentment in every section, in church, business, professional and farming circles and in every other circle.

C.I.E. are getting £1,000,000 a year for five years from the Exchequer. I presume this is to tide them over the transition period in which they are expected to improve their position and build up trade. The 1958 Act was passed through this House. Nobody opposed it but it would be wrong to suggest that we gave full power to Dr. Andrews and his Board to close down whatever line they choose at their own discretion. On the contrary we gave them £1,000,000 a year to build up their business and show by their efficiency and good management that they could do the necessary work of making the railway services a profitable business in five years. One very prominent man in West Cork, at one of the meetings to which I was invited, said: "Any fool could close the railways but it would take a man of great ability to make them pay."

He had a motor car?

I imagine he had a car. During this period when C.I.E. are getting £1,000,000 a year the people of West Cork, West Clare and Waterford and the rest of Ireland are contributing their share of that £1,000,000. In fairness to them they are as much entitled to the service as the people of any other area and while that £1,000,000 is being paid they should at least get the railway service to keep the business going and develop it further if at all possible. There is room for development in West Cork; it is only now development is taking place.

The Deputy said that already.

It has started already. We have just beaten the crisis——

The Deputy is repeating himself. He has already said that.

I shall conclude with a final appeal to the Minister for Transport and Power to do something big in the immediate future to rectify the damage that has been done and arrange for Dr. Andrews and his Board to receive the deputation to discuss the future development of this vast area, over 100 miles long, where there is wealth for all only to exploit it. We have English, American, Canadian and German firms there at present exploiting the area. Some of them deal in minerals. There are two mines, one at Allihies and the other in Clonakilty. The railway is essential at the moment; never before was it so essential for the development of the area. I ask the Minister to arrange to discuss with the people of West Cork the future development of the area. If there is no future for the area. Dr. Andrews and his Board are perfectly right but I am one of the optimists who believe there is a future for West Cork and a future for the railways also.

Undoubtedly Deputy Wycherley is a very fluent orator but the odd thing about his speech is that he had very little to say which was relevant, in my opinion, to this motion. He had very little argument to put forward in favour of continuing the railway in West Cork. As far as I could judge, his best argument was the tremendous development in West Cork at present but the extraordinary fact is that it all began after it was decided to close the West Cork line.

That is not so. That should not be said.

I am pretty certain that the industrialists concerned would have taken that into consideration if they were anxious about it. If the railway was an essential part of their investing in these industries they would try to have the railway continued.

I shall come back to the speech of Deputy Wycherley. I listened for three-quarters of an hour to Deputy Lynch and I gather he rather resented a person from Tipperary talking about the Tramore railway line. I can inform Deputy Lynch that the people of Tipperary have a tremendous interest in the journey between Waterford railway station and Tramore and I can assure him they would welcome very much the change which will take place when the new bus system starts because henceforward they will get into a bus when they get out of the train in Waterford and will be saved a journey of practically two miles across the city before coming to the station for Tramore.

Deputy Lynch spoke of 2,000 people travelling on the train to Tramore. That number may travel but certainly not 2,000 Waterford people as he suggested. I am pretty certain that three-quarters of these came from Counties Wexford and Kilkenny and even further away, people who went there on excursions practically every Sunday. I go to Tramore frequently and one of the amazing things about it is the enormous number of people who travel there in cars. In fact during the summer period it is practically impossible to get parking space for a car down even into the sand at the end of the promenade.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn