I said on the last occasion that I had no intention of speaking at all on this measure until I heard the Minister's statement. I want to assure the Minister that any criticism I make will be constructive. I always like to be positive in these matters and not to adopt a negative attitude. The Minister should bear that in mind. The Minister said I was exaggerating and I would therefore refer to the report on Internal Transport by the Beddy Committee on page 44 of which there is a summary of the Committee's findings on CIE rail transport. Paragraph (1) says:
Since 1938 there has been a heavy fall in the number of passenger journeys but the fall has been almost entirely on the Dublin-Greystones suburban routes and has been due largely to CIE road services rather than to private car transport.
That should be sufficient proof to the Minister that my statement was correct, to the effect that bus transport is in competition with rail transport. The report says, at paragraph (4) on the same page:
Relatively high rates were charged in 1925 when the railway had a virtual monopoly which is evidence that road transport competition has operated as a brake on rising rail charges.
That also proves that road transport is in competition with rail services. On the following page, the report says, at paragraph (11):
Rail staffs whose remuneration accounts for the greater part of expenditure have been reduced in recent years and are now slightly below the 1938 level.
When we reduce the number of employed people in any area, whether it be a village or a rural area, we reduce to some extent the income from their wages to the local shopkeeper, to the church and, indirectly, to the Government through loss in direct and indirect taxation. Men who smoke cigarettes or pipes or who drink a bottle or a pint of stout or a ball of malt pay indirect taxation to the Government. If those people are not employed here, it represents a loss because they emigrate and help to raise money for the Governments of other countries.
For that reason, I submit that for the present, and until things improve, the railways should be regarded as a social service. We have faith in this country. We are a young country with only 40 years of self-government. Even though the ancient enemy cut off our industrial potential lest we be in competition with them, we can hope to see a rising population. The Government are bringing industries to rural areas and when they do this in more comprehensive form, our people will be able to afford a system of public transport that will pay its way.
I reiterate that anything I say here is not to be taken as criticism of CIE or their Chairman. They have a job of work to do. I can quite understand their desire to make the railways pay before 1964. If they find they cannot make the railways pay because of higher expenses, they have a duty to come to the Minister and to the House and inform them of the exact position before tearing up the lines, thereby injuring the country. That should be the attitude of the CIE Board. Recently I heard a conversation between two of the plain people of Ireland. They were discussing the railways and one said that CIE were killing the patient to cure the disease—in other words, to get rid of the losses, they were killing the railways.
Mind you, quite a number of the plain people are sensible people with sensible ideas and when one hears such statements from these people, apparently there is something wrong.
The Minister referred to the uncongested condition of our roads and how much they were appreciated by tourists. Naturally we want tourists, but the roads of Ireland are first for the Irish people. We want our own people to be able to enjoy our roads. We should do anything in our power to keep our people at home, to keep them in employment, so that whatever Government are in power here will reap the benefit of their residence, through direct and indirect taxation. Accordingly, treatment of the railways as a social service is of great importance because it will help to keep our people from emigrating.
I would suggest that CIE restrict lorries as to weight and distance, if it is possible for them to do so. I would suggest that they encourage the use of containers on railways and also that they use rail buses on sections of the railways where there is light or, perhaps, seasonal traffic. They should also integrate the bus and railway services. If that were done, we could save a number of our railways. The Minister referred to double handling. I have no doubt that the Board of CIE could cut this down to a minimum.
I suggest also that instead of tearing up the railways, if CIE close a line, they should leave it there for the day when it may be possible to use it again. I would, therefore, ask that this activity be suspended for a short time. It is a very well-known fact that during the next 20 or 25 years, this part of the country will be industrialised and that will mean increased population. Therefore, I say that we ought not to tear up the railways. It would not cost so much to keep them in an adequate state of repair, if they were not being used. They cost millions of pounds. Why should we destroy them? My suggestion is that the operation of the Act be suspended.
I want to point out to the Minister that I am well acquainted with the Beddy Report and with the recommendations set out in paragraphs 389 to 391. The Minister need not allege that I did not read it. I noticed that there was to be no railway from Mallow to Waterford or from Portlaoise to Kilkenny. I do not know so much about the latter line but it is not fair to close the railway line from Mallow to Waterford. I suggest that this matter be left to a free vote of the House. As I said, I am not concerned because there is no railway in my area but there are quite a number of Deputies from counties where the local people do not want the railways to be done away with. I think that in fairness to them and, indeed, to Deputies on all sides of the House, the Whip should be taken off and a free vote of the House permitted.
