On a point of order, when this discussion began, we were told we were discussing the Estimate, the Labour motion and the Fine Gael motion. I spoke on these motions. Since then, Deputy Dunne has asked that his motion be considered with the Estimate and he was told that he could speak on his motion but no vote would be taken until the end of the discussion. Can I speak again on Deputy Dunne's motion when it is put to the House? I was not aware that Deputy Dunne's motion was being discussed and I should like to say a few words on it.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 45—Transport and Power (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy D. Costello.)
The Deputy's request will be considered and the Chair will communicate with him in the matter.
I am in favour of Deputy Dunne's motion. I am against the others. That is why I should like to say a few words on this motion.
When I reported progress, I was making some points with regard to CIE. I said the axe had not as yet fallen on any branch line in my constituency but, nevertheless, a number of problems have been created there. In the locomotive works at Limerick, there has been considerable redundancy in recent months because of the change over to dieselisation. I made representations to the Minister, asking him if it would be possible to provide any alternative work at Limerick for those rendered redundant. I suggested that perhaps wagon-building might be an alternative. My reason for making that suggestion was that some years before, when wagon-building was carried on in Limerick, the output compared more than favourably with other areas. The Minister informed me that it would not be possible to divert some wagon-building work to Limerick because that would create redundancy at Inchicore and other places. Something in the region of 29 workers have been rendered redundant. They had under three years' service and they were paid off. They did not qualify for compensation. Perhaps, even at this stage, it might be possible to provide some alternative work or put the buildings which housed the locomotive workers to some alternative use to provide employment for those rendered redundant.
I should like to raise my voice now in support of one section of our transport workers who have been scandalously treated. I refer to CIE pensioners. Most other sections of the community have received increases to enable them to cope with the rising cost of living. CIE pensioners have received no increase since 1956 and we have a situation now in which 1,725 pensioners are in receipt of only 12/- per week and about 1,000 others are in receipt of £1. There is no need for me to make the case that these people are entitled to a decent pension in respect of the service they have given during their working years.
I suggest to the Minister that these people could be given an increase without any serious loss to the pension fund, without even seeking any increased contributions, and without any cost to the State. There is a substantial pension fund. I understand it is £3,250,000. I have been informed that this money is invested at something like 4¼ per cent. Perhaps it might be possible to explore ways and means of investing this pension fund in something which would yield a return of six per cent.? That would enable justice to be done to this badly treated section of the community. These CIE pensioners were the generation of men who did a great deal for the national cause in their young days. I think they deserve better. I appeal to the Minister to explore every possible way in order, even at this late stage, to mete out some justice to this deserving section of the community.
Before I conclude, I want to say how much I deplore the manner in which the Minister endeavoured at an earlier stage of this debate to put me at a political disadvantage. When I was trying, consciously and genuinely, and as a result of considerable work over the past three or four weeks, to remedy difficulties at Shannon and to suggest ways and means by which they might be overcome, the Minister interrupted, accused me of double talk, and being against Shannon Airport. That type of interruption is, I think, unworthy of a Minister in our national Parliament. It is downright mean and contemptible, and something one might meet at a school debating society.
The Deputy would not meet it there either.
It is something I deplore and condemn.
I suppose it is inevitable that practically the entire debate on the Estimate for the Minister's Department should be dominated by a discussion on transport, with particular, indeed heavy, stress on CIE. Whilst the emphasis in this debate has been on CIE, and particularly on the closing of the railway lines, I do not think we should disregard the other semi-State bodies for which the Minister has control.
I should hate to see a situation arise in which semi-State and State-promoted bodies would be more or less bundled in with CIE and condemned as being either inefficient or failures. Despite any criticism that might be made about such bodies as Aer Lingus, Irish Shipping, Bord na Móna and the ESB—I think they are the ones for which the Minister has responsibility—we can be pretty well pleased with their progress, and certainly pleased with their efficiency. They are an example of the promotion—some do not like to use the word "establishment"—of industry by the State and the way in which it has been successful. The situation in regard to the railways and CIE generally has not been so happy. It must be remembered in respect of CIE that, when it was taken over in form in 1943 or 1944, it was not a paying proposition. It was not regarded as being a success financially. Everything that has been done since has been an effort to make it successful in efficiency and of course financially.
I want to say straight away, in case anybody might be under any misapprehension that our motion which suggests a reduction in the Minister's salary, is a Parliamentary device in order to extend the scope of the debate and to allow us to debate the whole question of transport in a very general way or, should I say, in a very detailed way. That has been done by members of my Party and by various other members of the House. I do not propose to go into it in any great detail, but to make some comments which represent the views of my Party and of the trade union movement affected by the closure of certain of the railway lines.
I want to say that as far as the Ministry is concerned, we do not feel that the Minister has the free scope that we believed he might have when the new Ministry was created here some years ago. We envisaged that, when the Ministry of Transport and Power was being established, the Minister would have wider powers and would in fact be responsible to Dáil Éireann for transport extending to the road system. His Ministry could quite well have taken on that job and taken it away from the Minister for Local Government, because in view of the emphasis which now seems to be laid on road transport it appears rather ridiculous that the Minister, described as the Minister for Transport and Power, has no function about matters of roads and no responsibility for them.
The Minister and the Government ought to appreciate this in respect of the semi-State companies for which the Minister is responsible. No matter what the Acts of Parliament say, the ordinary people, when they think about Aer Lingus, CIE, Bord na Móna or any other semi-State bodies, believe that the Government and the Minister and the members of Dáil Éireann have some responsibility for them and should be able to ask Questions here in the House, to give a certain amount of information to the public, and to be in a position to make complaints, particularly about the general policy which those semi-State companies are pursuing and even to make complaints, not about day-to-day administration but on the affairs generally of those semi-State bodies.
For that reason, the Labour Party, not today or yesterday but many years ago, advocated the establishment from members of the Dáil and Seanad of committees that would be empowered to discuss general policy with the officers of these semi-State bodies, and to make complaints in committees of the House which would comprise members of, say, the CIE Board and its officers, the Dáil and of the Seanad. There would be more public confidence in the semi-State bodies if such a method were adopted.
It is very difficult for us to appreciate the role of the Minister for Transport and Power in respect of the ESB, CIE, Bord na Móna, Aer Lingus, Irish Shipping, etc. I personally find it very difficult to understand what his role is, because it seems that when the Minister has to make a speech outside this House—and he has occasion to make very many speeches—he seems to be able to tell his listeners very much more about CIE, about tourism, about Bord na Móna or these other semi-State companies than he seems to be able to tell us here in Dáil Éireann. I do not think anybody wants to badger the Minister, and certainly nobody wants to badger Deputy Childers as such, with petty questions as to why there was such-and-such a charge on such-as-such a route or why a particular man was sacked by CIE, Aer Lingus or any other company. But it is not unreasonable, even when the Minister disclaims a certain amount of responsibility for day-to-day administration, that, when a Deputy asks him a Question in this House, he should be able to get the information through his officials from the officials of the semi-State companies and be prepared to give it here in this House.
I do not say he is discourteous when he refuses to do that, but it would appear more courteous if he were to answer these Questions that are tabled from time to time in the Dáil, because the public do not understand when they make a complaint to a Deputy and he in turn raises the matter in the Dáil, if the Deputy is not able to get an answer or the Minister refuses to give an answer on the basis of his not being responsible for the administration or what is sometimes described as the day-to-day policy of Aer Lingus, CIE and the rest.
We have a similar situation in respect of Telefís Éireann and Radio Éireann. We know and admit that the legislation says that the Minister has no power to interfere in the policy which this particular State company pursues, but the public would have greater confidence and much greater respect for these semi-State bodies if the Minister for Transport and Power, and in the case which I have mentioned, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, would transmit the information sought by Deputies which he could readily get from those semi-State bodies.
Over and above all that, again, to ensure greater public confidence, the Minister or at least the Government— because the Minister is not the Minister for all the semi-State bodies —should seriously consider the idea of the establishment of House Committees that would be in a position to question the members of the board of directors or officials from these semi-State bodies. Such a committee should act in somewhat the same manner as the Committee on Public Accounts, which is regarded as one of the most valuable committees in the House, and regarded by its members and by Deputies who are not members as an admirable way to check on the administration of the various departments by the elected representatives. It is very difficult for the ordinary man in the street to understand why he cannot get information from a Minister about these semi-State companies when, on the other hand, he as a taxpayer is expected to pay any losses that may be incurred or to pay through taxes subsidies that may be given from time to time by the Government to the various semi-State companies.
Again I find very difficult to understand—and I trust the Minister will clear it up in his speech—the statement of his in the debate last week in reply to, I think, Deputy Lynch as to who was responsible for the policy that was being pursued by CIE. The Deputy had occasion to mention the name of the Chairman of CIE, Dr. Andrews. I hope that I do not have occasion to mention his name in my short speech, but the Minister ought to appreciate, and I am sure Dr. Andrews himself appreciates, that if his name comes up here in this House, and if there appears to be severe criticism, it is not criticism of Dr. Andrews as a person, but as the person who is pursuing the policy with which a Deputy disagrees.
I do not think those in charge of semi-State companies should be above criticism. I would deplore any scurrilous attack on those people. I would deplore any allegations to the effect that they were doing this, that or the other with some ulterior motive. I do not say this by way of criticism, but I think those in charge of semi-State companies, who have pretty substantial salaries judging by our standards in any case, accepted responsibility. Theirs are public appointments and I think any criticism of them is valid and should not be regarded by them— I know that most of them do not—or by the Minister or any member of the Government, as unfair criticism. If they are pursuing a policy they should be prepared to accept responsibility for it.
The Deputy will appreciate that the Minister is in charge of, and has responsibility for the Department, and that the officials the Deputy mentioned are unable to reply for themselves.
I was going to clarify my remarks by saying that I appreciate they cannot reply, that they have no method of replying, but if this committee to which I have referred were established—I do not know whether it would be decided to have its meetings held in private; that is something that could be considered— they could reply to the various criticisms which are made of them from time to time. However, I do not think they should be above criticism. Knowing some of them, as I do, I do not think they regard much of this criticism as being unfair—although it has been described as unfair in some cases by the Minister and other members of the House.
I take responsibility for Dr. Andrews' conduct of the 1958 Act. If he were to start a balloon service instead of a railway service, I would have to stop him, although, under the Act, he could do it. That is what I meant to say. If the Act were, in my opinion, being badly administered, I would stop him. I hope I have made that clear to the Deputy.
What the Minister said last week and now is reasonably clear but difficult to reconcile with the activities of CIE. If the Board are responsible for pursuing a policy, I take it the Board are pursuing a policy of the Minister's, or should I say, the Minister approves of the policy the Board are pursuing?
The Minister is making sure an Act of this Oireachtas is being administered in such a way that there is no harm or damage to the economy so far as he can see. If there were he would have to bring proposals for the suspension of the legislation.
I take it the Minister does not initiate policy?
No, not details.
He does not act unless he believes the policy which is being pursued is contrary to the legislation, and within the legislation the board of directors can do anything. That seems to me to be the position. As the Minister has said, if he believes that the policy which is being pursued is wrong—it does not necessarliy have to be wrong: the Minister says that if it is not in accordance with the legislation—he acts.
They have pretty wide terms of reference under the 1958 Act. That is the reason why there is so much criticism of what they have done in closing branch lines and rendering a certain number of men redundant. That is permissible within the Act, but what we are trying to say on this side of the House is that what they have done generally seems to be far-reaching and undesirable, has disrupted the transport services in various parts of the country, and has certainly caused a certain amount of redundancy.
I should like to tell the Minister that there is a great feeling of fear and uncertainty amongst the transport workers of this country generally. The board of directors and the Chairman of CIE have been charged with doing a certain job. They were told that they must, in effect, make CIE a paying proposition within a period of five years. I have no hesitation in saying that that legislation was generally supported in this House. It was supported by the Labour Party and by the trade union movement. I do not remember what the Fine Gael attitude was.
If that was the view of the House in 1958, I do not think it could be described as unreasonable if the Minister or anyone else decided in the middle of that period that the method by which that undertaking was to be achieved was too ruthless and damaging, that the legislation should be amended to provide for a date later than 1st April, 1964, and that what is being done by the Board of CIE is too drastic.
The 1958 legislation was passed on the assumption that a subsidy of £1,175,000 would be paid for the five years and after that period CIE would, so to speak, break even. The latest figures that have been disclosed show that there was a deficit of £1,696,000 for the year ending 31st March, 1962. We were told, of course, that the deficit reached such proportions because of the eighth round of wage increases and the readjustment of the hours of employment of railway workers. Someone said—I do not know whether it was the Minister—that the deficit for the present year is expected to be something the same as it was for the previous financial year, that is, something like £1¾ million.
It is very difficult to believe that CIE will break even by the 31st March, 1964, when one remembers the amount of their deficit last year and when one considers what it appears their deficit will be for the present year. Therefore I believe the five year period was much too optimistic in 1958. I suppose it did not appear optimistic when we discussed it in 1958. Now, with the clamour there is —and in some cases it is justified— about the closing of railway lines and the amount of redundancy, we should have second thoughts and decide to extend the period by a number of years. It has just occurred to me that at 7.10 p.m. we voted that that would not be the case, so I suppose there is no point in pursuing it any longer.
Deputy Norton asked a very pertinent question: could CIE ever be self-supporting? He went on to say that very few, if any, transport systems in western Europe were self-supporting. Therefore, I think we should regard transport as a service and certainly we should regard the railways as a service, perhaps in the nature of a social service. We have many social services that do not pay in many respects in many of their branches and yet no one decides that those uneconomic branches should be cut off. No one suggests, for example, that a postman who has to go twice a week perhaps up a mountain for a distance of three or four miles should be sacked. It is uneconomic for him to deliver a postcard with a 2d. stamp three or four miles away, but it is regarded as an essential service in the community. Other parts of the country have to subsidise that service and perhaps there is also a subsidy by way of direct taxation.
I think the Post Office balances at the moment.
That service, where the postman goes every day to a remote part of the country with a twopenny postcard, cannot be regarded as an economic one.
CIE will always lose on a great many services, even if they do balance.
It is over the degree of loss that we differ. I have not yet had experience of railway closures in my constituency, but I assume that will happen. Deputies are frustrated because they cannot get information to convince them that a line should be closed down. I have listened for months to Deputies Lynch, Kyne and Corry. Their sources of information have been very limited indeed and they have yet to be convinced that certain lines in their constituencies should be closed down. Indeed, Deputy Corry purported to produce evidence that one of the branch lines in his constituency which it is proposed to close down was actually a paying proposition.
I do not know if CIE have bad public relations but they have not got a very good reputation recently. I am not referring to the guards, ticket collectors and so on. But the officials who administer the affairs of CIE at Kingsbridge appear, from what I have heard, to be people not prepared to co-operate to any great extent with the public when it comes to providing information as to whether a branch line was run at a profit or a loss. The Board and officers of CIE should implement the promise which was certainly made by the Taoiseach when, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, he said that before a branch line was closed, there should be full consultation. That certainly did not happen when the Waterford-Tramore line was closed down. There was a softening when it was announced recently that further branch lines were to be closed, but by and large consultation has not appeared to be satisfactory and the deputations always appeared to be presented with a fait accompli. They get a nominal hearing and no more. CIE should have a better system of public relations so that the public will have a little more confidence in Kingsbridge.
I would say—and I speak again from information supplied to me by the trade union movement—that some of the appointments in CIE, where the appointees had to deal with the workers, were not very happy ones. We had some unofficial strikes in CIE. I have no hesitation in saying that unofficial strikes in any circumstances are to be deplored. Unfortunately, men are human and these unofficial strikes did occur. I am informed it was because of the attitude of certain CIE officials, newly-appointed men. I would therefore suggest to the Minister that if he is responsible for the policy of CIE, he should advise the Chairman and responsible officials to be extra careful in the selection of men who have day-to-day dealings with the public or, as in this case, with the workers.
I do not know whether the Minister will agree with me or not—he has much more information than I have— but my information is that CIE has become a happy hunting ground for industrial consultants. Despite the fact that hundreds of minor workers have been rendered redundant over the past three years, there are now more on the clerical staff of CIE than there were two or three years ago. It is difficult, unless the Minister has a satisfactory explanation, to reconcile that with the redundancy that has occurred.
I had occasion here at Question Time to deny vehemently to the Minister that there had been consultation in two cases of redundancy in Dublin and Cork. I am afraid I was wrong. I want to confess that. My information was wrong. I was not entirely wrong, however. Let us say that I was half wrong and that the Minister was half wrong also in his allegation to me. I said there had been no consultation whatsoever. In fact, there was consultation with the constituent unions of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions but there was no consultation with the body originally consulted when it was suggested there would be redundancy in CIE, that is, the executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Therefore, I suggested by way of Question that the Minister should ensure that in all cases of redundancy—and the cases to which I referred were major cases of redundancy—there should be consultation with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, if the Minister and the Board of CIE are to have the confidence of trade unions generally. It is not sufficient merely to consult with a group. It is necessary to have consultation with the body originally consulted in 1958 or 1959 when redundancy was mentioned and rates of redundancy compensation were discussed and agreed.
Deputy Norton raised another point here. I should like again to demonstrate its importance, as far as trade unions are concerned. I mention it again to make sure I will get a reply. There is a statutory obligation in respect of compensation for redundancy or worsening of conditions up to the end of July, 1963. Is it intended that, as the legislation suggests, there will be no such thing as compensation for redundancy after July, 1963, or does the Minister contemplate amending legislation to ensure that those who will be rendered redundant after that period will get compensation?
Would the Minister be able to tell me whether the ESB have any obligation to provide a certain amount of power to users of electricity? Apart from the fact that the ESB generally seem to get away with murder, we regard them as being pretty efficient. They may be ruthlessly efficient. This description could be applied to many of the other semi-State organisations as well. The ESB were established in 1926 or 1927 and the Minister should ensure that they fulfil their obligations to the public. When it comes to paying bills, erecting poles on farmers' lands and that sort of thing, they are the kingpins. They can do what they like. The people of this country are required to pay their bills promptly. I would say that there are very few bad debts, as far as the ESB are concerned.
What do we do in a situation where they give very weak power to users of the ESB? I assume that the voltage that should be supplied, say, to an ordinary house is in the region of from 220 amps or volts to 230 or 250 amps or volts. So I am told. We have a situation where it goes down to 200. There is very little, if any, power. One cannot use the ordinary electrical gadgets if the voltage goes down to 200 as it does. I know it from experience. You just cannot get a television picture. It is not even sufficient to work an electric razor. That has gone on in the area in which I live—I do not mind confessing it is my area— for weeks and months. Therefore, if the users of the ESB are required to fulfil their obligations as far as prompt payment and that sort of thing is concerned, I think that the ESB in turn have also a responsibility to provide normal power.
There was very little discussion, I think, on tourism. There is only one aspect of that which I want to mention and maybe it was already mentioned in the debate. I refer to the extension of the tourist season. The extension is meant to embrace the ordinary folk in this country. Without talking about the matter at length, I wonder if the Minister has anything to tell us with regard to the extension of the school holidays? There is no use talking to an Irish farmer about an extension of the tourist season, so long as his children have to remain in school, as they do in most cases, until the first week in July or the last two weeks in June. I do not know whether the Minister has discussed this problem with the Minister for Education. It is futile and silly to talk about an extension of the tourist season in the first part of the year, unless there is some change in the matter of school holidays.
And the weather.
We will have to live with that. The Minister is going to have quite an amount to reply to in his speech. I know it is not possible for him to deal with local matters but what I want to talk about now is a local matter of some importance. It concerns the fate of Rosslare harbour. I deliberately refrained from mentioning in the past few weeks the rumours that have been going around about the possibility of the closure of Rosslare harbour by the British Railways Commission—I think that is what they call it. Personally, I do not want to wake up some morning to get the newspaper and discover that Rosslare harbour is closed. I am informed that an order to close it would need legislation in the British Houses of Parliament and legislation in this Parliament. I should be very pleased to have that confirmed. I took an opportunity of mentioning the matter to the Minister in private one time and he did say that to me but it sounds better to get that information in the House. Perhaps the Minister would, therefore, spend 30 or 60 seconds in refuting these rumours because, again, there is a feeling of insecurity among the workers and the people of Rosslare harbour generally. I should be satisfied if the Minister would tell us that he knows nothing about it or, better still, that he has made inquiries and such is not the case.
Deputy Lynch and some other Deputy referred to what appeared to be a lack of facilities on the Rosslare-Fishguard service and the danger there is to passengers by reason of overcrowding. I made inquiries and I was assured by the agents of British Railways in Rosslare harbour that they sail strictly under the British Board of Trade regulations. These regulations provide that the ship shall carry only so many. If there are abuses on this line, it is the bounden duty of the Minister for Transport and Power to have them investigated. It is the duty of the British Minister for Transport also to have them investigated but, as Rosslare happens to be in my constituency, I should like the Minister to make some comment on the matter. If there are abuses, they should be corrected; if there are not, the allegation should be denied.
My intervention in this debate will be of very short duration. Since I came into the House 12 months ago, I have put down a few questions concerning CIE. I was informed that they were not the responsibility of the Minister. I should like to refer to the failure of CIE to provide adequate road transport for the carriage of livestock. In my constituency where there are cattle marts, CIE have failed utterly to provide adequate transport for the farmers. In some cases, farmers require to get their cattle to the mart by 11 or 12 o'clock. The mart generally starts at 12 o'clock. In some cases, the CIE truck arrived at 5 or 6 o'clock in the evening when the sale was almost over and when all the buyers were gone. I tabled a Question recently about this. In his reply, the Minister said he did not hear of any complaints and that he would be surprised if my statements were correct. I presume that most of the complaints received by the Department were put in the wastepaper basket. Some of them were referred back to the local office and, of course, they replied that they fulfilled their obligations as best they could.
There have been several complaints regarding this. I have a few here. In one case where there was a prosecution because a man employed a private haulier, an unlicensed carrier, he said that on previous occasions he engaged CIE to transport cattle to the mart but he always found the service unsatisfactory. In fact, on one occasion CIE had arranged to collect the cattle at 11 a.m. and instead their truck did not arrive until 6 p.m., with the result that he was unable to dispose of the cattle in the mart that day. That meant he had the added expense of bringing them in on another day.
I appeal to the Minister to remove all restrictions on private hauliers for the transport of livestock, especially to cattle marts. It occurs only on one day per week and it is understandable that CIE could not provide adequate transport to bring in 1,000 cattle when they have only two or three trucks.
In case the Deputy is not in the House when I am replying, would he send me full particulars of these cases of cattle transportation that were not done efficiently and I shall make inquiries?
I shall certainly do that, and plenty of them. Yet, the Department of Local Government will not refuse taxation from those carriers.
Some CIE pensioners are living on 12/- per week while more, who are lucky, get 51/3 per week but, at the age of 70, that sum is reduced 20/-. I do not know why and I should like the Minister to refer to that when replying. Those pensioners have served CIE over many years, some for over 40 years, starting at 1/- and working their way up to 3/6 a week. It seems to be a grave injustice to reduce their pension to 21/6 when they reach 70 when this pension is something they have paid into all along. I should also like the Minister to state how much is in the pension fund, as I am told it is quite substantial.
The Minister stated some time ago that the bottled gas subsidy would be paid to people who installed bottled gas because of the exorbitant special service charge imposed by the ESB. He said the subsidy would be paid to anybody who installed this gas since 1st April, 1962, I think. I ask the Minister to consider the people who installed bottled gas prior to that date. They were forced to do so because of the excessive special charges by the ESB.
The only other matter to which I wish to refer is the subsidisation of luxury hotels by Bord Fáilte. Very large grants are given for those hotels while the charges for meals and refreshments in those places are prohibitive for most people. They generally cater for tourists but 95 per cent. of our tourists are our own people who have been forced to emigrate to England and elsewhere and they return here for holidays. In conclusion, I should particularly like the Minister, when replying, to deal with the CIE pensioners and the subsidy on bottled gas.
As the House knows, CIE in the course of the last week published their intention to close down the Ballaghaderreen-Kilfree branch line. The company alleged in their statement that this decision had been taken after consultation with local bodies. I have made inquiries of all organised bodies and I am satisfied those consultations did not take place. The second aspect of this decision to which I want to refer concerns a proposal by a German industrialist to establish a factory near Ballaghaderreen. Before I add anything in regard to the factory, perhaps I should make my own position clear in regard to the branch line.
I am aware, and the public are aware, that this line has been mentioned by CIE for quite some time past as one likely to be closed. I realise that CIE have a statutory duty so to prune the railway system as to ensure, if possible, that it will at least break even in 1964. I share the doubts of previous speakers as to the possibility of CIE achieving that objective in 1964 or even later. I also realise that the decision to close down many branch lines has been due to lack of local support for the railway and that, in regard to Ballaghaderreen, the accusation that local traders, with some notable exceptions, did not support the line sufficiently, justly lies. Like Deputy Corish and many other speakers, the people of that area in which I live, and I as their representative, feel absolutely entitled to know how CIE established that this particular branch line has incurred a loss of £9,000 in the past year.
It must be perfectly obvious to the Minister now that all sides of the House are dissatisfied, not that CIE have a job to do and must do it as best they can, but that the justice of their decision has not been made manifest to the people and to the representatives of the people concerned.
Hear, hear.
In connection with the Ballinrobe closure, some time ago, I wrote to CIE and asked them to receive a deputation of representatives from South Mayo. I stated that we would like to have available to us at the meeting a breakdown of the figure given by CIE in justification of their decision. I was told that if I did not withdraw the request for a breakdown of the figures, we would not be granted an interview at all. I think that is appalling——
Appalling.
To treat public representatives in this fashion makes nonsense of democracy——
Hear, hear.
——and makes nonsense of the function a Deputy is supposed to fulfil, and is in duty bound to fulfil, as representative of his people. Subsequently, Parliamentary questions were put down and the Minister replied to them. I asked the Minister here if he approved of the attitude of CIE in regard to this request of mine and he said that he did. If there is a reason that can stand examination, I have yet to be told of it and I am most anxious to be given it even now, two years afterwards.
It may be perfectly true that the Ballaghaderreen-Kilfree line has lost £9,000 in the past 12 months but on the basis of the figure which CIE have furnished, the local people are in no way satisfied as to the manner in which this figure was calculated. I am told——
The figure was given.
That is the figure given to me. I am told from inquiries made locally that that is the figure which was given to the Development Association. I am also told that the income officially given by CIE for the branch line in respect of that period is not much over £1,000. Again, if this figure is accurate, some explanation must be forthcoming to show why one firm alone, which during that period paid close on £4,000 to CIE, should not be given value for that.
The Deputy evidently has not read my speech. I made it perfectly clear in my speech on the Transport Bill. He should read my speech before he comes in here and makes these statements. I gave a full explanation of the difference in figures.
The Minister should not jump to conclusions. I am not saying that the Minister has not given an explanation. What I am saying, and what I now repeat, is that CIE should give to the representatives of the people involved wherever a branch line is being closed, clear and unequivocal evidence to show how they arrived at this——
They have given it.
They have not. They did not give it to us in the case of the Waterford-Tramore line.
If the Minister is correct in saying that they have done so, how is it that CIE were allowed to get away with the attitude they adopted some time ago with regard to the closure of the Ballinrobe-Claremorris line? These are the things which very much agitate the public mind and again I repeat that local people, in the main, realise that CIE have a duty to perform and realise perfectly well that, if CIE are not sufficiently supported by local interests, the branch lines must go.
The difference between the situation with regard to the Ballaghaderreen-Kilfree line and other branch lines is that one of the considerations which led the German promoter of the factory in question to decide on Ballaghaderreen was the presence of the branch line. At the time he communicated his decision to the local Town Development Association, the Association asked the Industrial Development Authority to be kind enough to advise CIE of the position and ask them not to take any action which would prejudice the chances of Ballaghaderreen getting the factory.
It may be that the closure of the branch line will have no effect whatever on our chances of getting the factory but we do not know that as yet and I am not sure that CIE know it either. Our immediate request is, and will be, that until such time as this question is resolved, CIE should not close down the line altogether and should at least maintain a freight service between the town and the junction. I believe they could do that more economically than by continuing the present service which I personally accept is not fully economic at the moment. Whether it would be sufficiently economic to justify its remaining as a freight service only is a question that we would like to go into with CIE and be satisfied with their decision.
In the meantime, as I say, we do not know what the effect of this decision will be on the chances of the locality obtaining this much-needed factory. If the decision of CIE to close it down—and mark you, the promoter has said that he would send all of his produce, which would be 500 to 1,000 tons per week at full production, by rail—adversely affects Ballaghaderreen, which is already a depressed area, CIE will have, in effect, dealt a mortal blow to the locality.
It is a modest enough request—perhaps I should say too modest a request —first, that the figure given by the company should be shown to be accurate, and secondly, that the vital interests, social or otherwise, of the locality should not be prejudiced until such time as the picture is absolutely clear with regard to this industrial project.
My main purpose in intervening this evening was to mention this matter. I propose to deal with only one other matter and that concerns the recent steep rise in hotel charges throughout the country. I hope the Minister will bend his efforts to have Bord Fáilte concentrate in the next few years on family type hotels rather than on luxury palaces. I believe in at least one town there are already three luxury hotels too many. It is a mistake to cater for the five per cent. and the ten per cent. trade and not concentrate more on the family type hotel from which we can hope for the real expansion in our tourist industry in years to come.
Recently in another country, I stayed in a hotel in a very large room with a large lounge and a private bath at a cost of 23/- a night. In first-class restaurants in the same city, there was no item on the menu which costs more than 7/6d. We should aim at keeping down the cost to the very minimum and in concentrating on luxury type hotels, we are not going to achieve that. Some of the bills which I saw given to people last summer who stayed at first-class, grade A hotels, shocked me to the core. I accept that there are plenty of people who can afford to pay these accounts, but they are not the people on whom the future of the tourist industry in this country depends.
We have heard a lot during the course of this debate about the obligation imposed on CIE to pay their way by 1964. I have no great objection in principle but I have the strongest objection to CIE paying their way at the expense of the Dublin workers. Once again this year, it is necessary to protest in this House against the inadequacy of the services provided by CIE in Dublin city and the extremely high fares they are charging for these inadequate services. There is no justification for this state of affairs. CIE are making excessive profits by the operation of the road passenger services in the city of Dublin.
We do not know exactly what those profits are. For the year ended 31st March last, CIE made £511,000 on the operation of road passenger services over the whole country. In the year prior to that, CIE made £764,000 and in 1960, CIE made almost £1 million, actually £868,000, on the operation of its road passenger services. We all know that in many parts of the country rural bus services are running empty 90 per cent. of the time and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the profit made in Dublin city is in excess of the total road passenger profits shown by CIE.
The Minister, if he wishes to refute that accusation, must disclose to the House what profits CIE are making on the operation of the road passenger services in Dublin. Today, in answer to a Parliamentary Question put down by me, he refused to disclose that basic and fundamental piece of information. He cannot say that he does not know it and, if he does not know it, he should know it. The Chairman of CIE has also refused to disclose this information which is available to him when he wrote to me on 8th March stating that he was sure I would understand that the form of CIE accounts which is published was the form required by Government Departments and that that form gave very full information. He added that he disliked very much to seem to stall on this question but hoped I would understand that the whole question at issue was that of the freedom of CIE to conduct their day-to-day operations.
What has the disclosure of their profits for Dublin city to do with the freedom of the day-to-day operations of CIE? There are too many complaints coming from Deputies on all sides of the House of their treatment in a high-handed and dictatorial manner by CIE. The Minister is responsible for the form of accounts presented by CIE. That form is laid down by the Minister and can be varied at his option under Section 34 of the Transport Act of 1950.
The services provided by CIE in Dublin city are consistently deteriorating. The fares charged by CIE in Dublin city are outlandish. Deputy Declan Costello was compelled to complain here last week that in a major housing estate in his constituency not one shelter was erected by CIE. That is in the vast housing area of Finglas. The same thing can be said of several parts of the city. The Corporation makes suggestions to CIE that they should run summertime services from outlying housing areas to the seaside. They are not listened to for a moment. When the request is made that concession fares should be made available to old age pensioners and people in receipt of social service benefits, as is done in Britain, the answer is that CIE have to pay their way by 1964 and that they cannot afford to provide these concessions.
There is many a Dublin worker paying 20/-, 25/- and 30/- a week to reach his place of employment. One of the most significant things about our outlying developments, from which the bus fare to the city can be 9d., 10d. and 11d., is that they are not self-contained. Not only have the workers to travel a considerable distance to their work but their children may have to travel considerable distances to school and their wives also have to travel considerable distances to do their shopping.
Between 1953 and the current year, bus fares in toto have increased by over 50 per cent and on many routes in Dublin city they have increased by much more. The manner in which CIE can fiddle the fare stages in order to ensure that the people travelling on the most popular parts of the service have to pay the most is a stratagem which has been closely studied by the experts of CIE.
The total receipts from the Dublin city services are disclosed in the annual report, although the profits are not. On page 39 of this year's report, the total receipts are shown to have increased by £260,000. Nine months ago, when the workers of CIE obtained their wage increases, we were told in the Press, and I was told by the Chairman in writing, that to implement those wage increases for the Dublin city passenger services would cost the company £350,000. We were further told that the fare increases which were being made would fall short of providing that by a small amount. Then we come along and see the annual report and find that revenue, far from falling short of the amount necessary to meet the increased wages, has increased by £260,000.
In the period covered by that report, CIE had the benefit of the increase in fares for only three months. The report deals with the position in the year ending in March last and the fares were increased in January. It is pretty clear that unless there is another wage increase—and that is unlikely— the profit on the Dublin city passenger services will be substantially greater in the year ended 31st March next and we may then see the position which arose in 1960 repeated when the road passenger services yielded for the whole country a profit of £868,000.
This principle of subsidising the losses incurred in other sectors of CIE operations at the expense of the workers of this city is one against which any Dublin Deputy with half a conscience must protest. We hear all around us complaints from rural areas. It often seems to me that we Dublin Deputies are not nearly vocal enough in making demands on the Minister in this House. The problem of the branch lines is one on which I have no comment to offer, except to say that I strongly object to the losses on branch lines being met by the workers of Ballyfermot, Cabra, Donnycarney and Crumlin, for it is in fact the working people of this city who are making the fullest use of CIE services—those people who do not run their own private cars.
From the administrative point of view, it is surely most unsound to permit CIE to issue an annual report which, for all its gloomy appearance, contains such relatively meagre information. I wonder if the Minister has ever seen the annual report of the National Coal Board in Great Britain, the major State body in that country. I happened to see it recently, more by accident than anything else. I was amazed at the extent of the detailed information shown in that report.
We in this House represent shareholders in CIE. We are, as a speaker said here last week, entitled to expect from the Minister the same full accounting of his stewardship of CIE as would be given at the annual general meeting of the shareholders of any public company. A board of directors of public company which treated its shareholders in the manner in which the Board of CIE treat Deputies would not stay very long in office.
To enter a debate such as this on transport and power puts one in a very difficult situation. When we are discussing a subject such as transport and power, we should at least be supplied with the facts as we want them. That has not been the case. We have been deprived of information — that grievance has been voiced by members from every side of the House — which was absolutely necessary for our case and to enable us to make an intelligent contribution to this debate. That was our first difficulty.
Our second difficulty, which is the most important of all, to my mind, is the fact that we are dealing with a Minister who is ignorant of the situation as it exists in the country today. That was proved beyond yea or nay from his own benches last week by Deputy Corry. The Minister told us that a place was being serviced by a bus but Deputy Corry said that a bus had not been on that road for 20 years. In such a situation, how can we make a contribution and how can we help the people who sent us here to inquire into and to see that the business of each Department is run in the best interests of our people? We have to face that situation before we voice our opinions on this Estimate this evening.
Bearing these things in mind, there are a few matters which we have groped out of the darkness and out of the fog in the Minister's approach to the whole situation. First of all, I am convinced that unless the Minister had something to hide, he would let the whole question out into the open. Therefore, there is a reason for his depriving us of the facts. He cannot, because of the startling revelations that would be made, give us the facts and figures as we want them.
We are told in this House that people in CIE who become redundant will be compensated and that, miracle of miracles, CIE will be a paying proposition in 1964. There is one matter we must bear in mind. While these people are being compensated, it is the taxpayer on the street who is paying the compensation. If we cannot create the situation which the Minister has in mind, the situation where CIE will be paying their way in 1964— which they will not do—we must ensure that the money given by way of redundancy pensions will be offset against CIE and not against the man drinking his pint of stout or smoking his cigarette or eating his bread or against the unfortunate old age pensioner with his increase of 2/6d. a week.
Let us be fair and let the Minister be honest with us, as he is not being honest. We have heard a lot about the closure of branch lines. Thanks be to God, my constituency is half lucky in that respect. However, I am wondering what will be the next move and where it will be. I am wondering where we will come along with the one-man bus. What about the redundancy of the conductors, which he has in mind, and putting one man on each bus—a driver only and no conductor? I want the Minister to tell us the future policy of CIE with regard to the one-man buses.
There is another aspect of this transport question which I want to bring before the Minister. My information is that a one-man lorry, with trailer, is illegal in Britain and in Northern Ireland and that no one man can travel bearing a trailer behind his lorry. This is the position with CIE. The Minister says one day he is responsible and the next day says he has no function—and there we are chasing hares and rainbows and we just cannot run him to earth on this matter. On top of all that, what has he done? He has muzzled every stationmaster in the country. That cannot be denied by the Minister.
No public representative dare ask a stationmaster: "What is happening here with regard to your passenger or rail services?" There is the situation in which the Minister has put CIE as far as road and rail services are concerned. That situation would not be tolerated among boy scouts. The sooner the Minister realises the fact which has been stated from these benches and from the other benches that he is absolutely incompetent to run his Department, the better.
I shall now deal with tourism which also comes under the Minister's Department. The Minister got a brainwave that the season could be extended by a week in June by closing the schools and sending the children off to the seaside. Who ever heard such nonsense? If the Minister is serious about developing the tourist industry and extending the season and encouraging tourists to come here during valley periods, his first step should be to develop the attractions available during those periods. In the constituency I represent, in the south of Ireland, there are attractions during the winter and autumn seasons such as coarse fishing, excellent shooting and hunting. What enticements are offered to English people and what advertisement is there of these attractions? The publicity is absolutely negligible.
A fortnight ago, we discussed means of saving the Gaeltacht. I can speak from experience. I have been a constant visitor for the past 14 years to the Kerry Gaeltacht. I defy the Minister to come with me to that area and find men and women there between the ages of 18 and 50. They are not there. I ask him to come down there in the summer season and find what it is that is saving the Gaeltacht. The only thing that is saving the Gaeltacht today is the fact that emigrants return from England and America and spend their money there during the holidays and support their wives, their fathers and their mothers in the Gaeltacht while they themselves work in England and America.
There are luxury hotels going up all over Ireland. I do not know for whom they are intended to cater. There are German hotels, American hotels and all kinds of combines coming in to build these vast establishments which are completely unsuitable, completely unnecessary and absolutely extravagant. I want the Minister to bear in mind that some of the people who are running these hotels have unfortunate boys and girls working until the early hours of the morning—2 a.m. and 3 a.m.—doing 50, 55 and in some cases 60 hours a week for a meagre 10/-. Such conditions would not be tolerated in any Christian country. The Minister and his Tourist Board are standing by and letting these hotel owners amass money and make hay while the sun shines, at the expense of these unfortunate children. That is the situation. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind about it.
I now come to the ESB. The Minister has no function there either. Not so many months ago, I attended a lecture sponsored and organised by the Minister for Local Government. It was a very interesting and informative lecture. A gentleman from the Tourist Board attended. He whiled away the time—with emphasis on the "whiled away"—explaining how the scenic value of Ireland could be enhanced. He suggested better plans for petrol pumps and advertisements. He made one very significant statement. He charged the ESB with destroying the beauty of parts of the country by their overhead cables and the monstrosities they have built to carry those cables. He said that if there had been any organisation put into it, these cables would have been laid underground. We all agree with that but it is a case of one State body telling another State body that they made, not a hames of it, but a whole set of harness of the situation. It is all very well to joke, but now we find the ESB and the Minister telling unfortunate people who live at the top of a mountain that if they want electricity brought into their homes, they must pay so much a pole. It may cost them from £50 to £120 to get a supply of electricity. As an alternative, they are told that they will be given £10 and they can buy a bottle of calor gas. What good is calor gas to a man who wants to go out and draw water to his house?
It is a gas country.
A gas Minister, and the quicker he can be exploded, the better. What good is a calor gas container to a man on the top of a mountain who wants to pump water or to operate a milking machine? It is the most stupid approach on the part of a responsible Department. The Minister is the man responsible and he must take responsibility for treating these unfortunate people as he is doing. It is no wonder that people are emigrating.
There is an extraordinary position in regard to another item in the ESB account. In no place in the world is there a weir erected without a fishpass, except in one instance in the city of Limerick. The fish are jammed and caught. We are told that there is a percentage let up the river. I know what is let up. If the year is good, there may be a few fish let up but if the year is bad, none at all is let up. People who go up to Killaloe or the upper Shannon find there is nothing to catch, that the fish are not allowed up.
The next matter with which I want to deal is air transport. Certain people are given a licence and a monopoly in air transport. There are flights coming in to Shannon Airport from America. The planes touch down at Shannon to disembark ten or 20 passengers out of their complement of 100 or whatever may be on board. The plane is held for over half an hour on the tarmac. The passengers who are continuing the flight are imprisoned inside, not allowed out even for half an hour, to come and spend money in the catering and sales departments at Shannon Airport. Last month, for instance, a plane came in at 7.40 and did not leave until 8.30. The passengers had to remain in the plane whereas they could have come into the airport building and could have spent money on food or presents. That situation should not be allowed to arise. Ninety people from the sales and catering department left there last week, and yet we talk about providing work for single persons. If our single boys and girls leave, they do so for good. There will be no coming back for them.
We have been told that in the first six months of this year the sales and catering department at Shannon lost £18,000. That may be so, but will the Minister tell the House, and the people of Limerick, how much profit that department made in the years since it was established and where that profit went? The answer to that simple question should be very interesting. We have an industrial development company at Shannon. I admit it is doing good work. We all want to see Shannon's position retained and improved, if possible, but we have a certain number of managers in that company and I now want to know the number of managers at top and middle management level employed there. I also want the Minister to tell me what their remuneration is and what their expenses are.
He will not tell the Deputy.
I know damn well he will not. It would be too revealing. We are never told those things. I also want him to tell me how and by whom they were appointed, how many graduates hold such positions and what are their qualifications. I want the Minister to realise that not only members of my Party but also members of Fine Gael and of his own Party are convinced that the Minister's position is above him, that this motion on the Order Paper is no cod. When we ask questions here, the Minister replies: "I have no function". He is the Minister without function and my concluding remarks here will be that the Minister is not fit to run a second-hand bicycle shop.
I intervene in this debate merely to make a few remarks on the operation of the ESB in rural areas. As a rural Deputy, I have come across a number of grievances against the ESB in the matter of rural electrification. They leave pockets behind them and after four or five years, the people in these pockets endeavour to get current installed. One person contacted the ESB within the past month with this in mind and I have here the reply from the ESB, dated 18th November, 1962. That was after the recent subsidy was granted to the ESB. The person in question had a basic rent of £17s. 9d. in respect of a four-roomed house and he has been told that, because he lives a few hundred yards from the electric cable, he will have to pay a special service charge of £4 15s. 3d., which would bring his rent up to £6 3s. Would anybody expect a man of that kind to accept ESB current on those terms? I do not think the Minister was sincere when he made the announcement that the granting of the recent subsidy to the ESB would help to wind up rural electrification.
I know of a similar case where a householder's basic rent was 16/- and the special service charge sought was £3 18s., bringing that man's basic rent up to £4 14s. These are the things we have against the ESB in rural areas and probably Deputies in city constituencies are not aware of them. The Minister is a sensible man, despite what has been said against him here, and I would ask him to advise the ESB to devise some more equitable system for people wishing to avail of rural electrification. The ESB might develop some kind of scheme under which they would charge, say, a sum of £50 and spread it over a period of two, three or four years so the people would know that at the end of that period, they would have paid off the charge. I hope the Minister will consider these arguments and do something for the people in backward rural areas.
I do not wish to delay the House and shall confine my remarks to a few points. I would, first of all, draw the Minister's attention to the need for developing the airstrip at Oranmore near Galway. Galway is one of the major tourist centres. We do not demand for Oranmore the millions that have been spent on Shannon and Dublin Airports. We do not even ask for the £750,000 that has been spent on Cork Airport. All we ask is a small sum that will render this airstrip usable. There is no doubt it would improve the tourist business in the area. People in my constituency have been vitally interested in the recent sanctioning of the Galway harbour development scheme. The question had been hanging fire for 13 years. It was like a game of ping-pong between the Harbour Commissioners in Galway and the Minister's office, and had become somewhat of a joke.
I am disappointed in my colleague from another part of the county who attended a protest meeting in Loughrea that he has not been vocal here in protesting against the closing of the Loughrea line. The same Deputy had a good point at that meeting when he said that, in view of the fact that the Tynagh mines were now about to open, it would be a retrograde step to close that line. I feel the occasion should not be allowed to pass without referring to it. It is not my constituency but it is in my county and the economy of the whole country is bound up with it.
I should like to pay a compliment to the staffs of Aer Lingus. If there is any measure of success, I think compliments can be extended for that success to both the ground and air staffs of Aer Lingus. I have seen them at their work and I can say that it is not in the boardroom alone that success is gained.
I want to assure the House that my intervention tonight will be momentary. A few weeks ago I was making an appeal on another motion in this House to the Minister to hasten slowly in regard to the proposed closure of the branch railway lines. I reiterate my appeal to him to hasten slowly, having heard so much since that he had not heard before.
My main reason for rising tonight is to make an appeal to him on behalf of a very few people—I want to emphasise "a very few people". These are very old people, mostly retired workmen of CIE. As the House knows, under their conditions, the retired worker and his wife have free travel vouchers from the nearest railhead to them. Now that the railways have closed, I want to make this appeal to the Minister in good time to ensure that these very few people will have those facilities left to them when travelling by bus. Up to now, it is clear they have no such facility on the CIE buses. When the workman dies, the privilege goes to his wife. I want the Minister and his Department to ensure that this privilege will be retained by those workers of CIE who are today living on a mere pittance of a pension. I implore him to ensure that in any legislation or any regulations he makes, these people will be thought of in the way they deserve to be thought of.
I shall be brief on this occasion. If I had been called on before Deputy Seán Flanagan had spoken, my intervention would be somewhat longer but Deputy Flanagan said what I intended to say, I am sure, with much better effect than any remarks of mine would have upon the Minister. He expressed in identical terms the feelings that I hold so strongly in the part of the country I represent. It would appear that the policy of the Minister and the policy of CIE are uniform in their complete ignoring of local opinion in the areas affected by rail closure.
On this Estimate, there is a wide field of discussion in which the House could fruitfully engage itself ranging over tourism and many other aspects important to the life of the country. Like most Deputies who have spoken, we are compelled practically to concentrate our attention on the operation of the affairs of CIE, which means that time and attention are not available for the close examination that is desirable of all the other aspects of the Minister's administration of his Department.
Some time ago, the railways in the south of Ireland extending from Waterford to Tramore, the entire railway system of West Cork and the entire railway system of West Clare were closed by action of CIE. It was indicated clearly at that time that the consequences of this closure would be such that no more branch lines would be closed. That was an unequivocal statement, that these lines were being sacrificed with the objective of making CIE pay their way. We find, however, this year, a regrettable report in relation to the finances of the company, despite the sacrifices that were made. I want to deal briefly with what the consequences have been in those areas. Like Deputy Seán Flanagan, we do know that industrialists are still interested in rail transport.
To help the Deputy, may I say it would be impossible for me to close the debate tonight if I am to reply to the innumerable questions Deputies have put. The Deputy does not have to hurry himself.
I appreciate the Minister's intervention but there are other reasons why the contributions of some Deputies are abbreviated. We have given up the ghost. We have had so many opportunities of voicing our opinions in this matter that we rise again only because of the continued representations that are made to us by the people in the affected areas and we only hope at some time to break down this wall that has arisen between the Minister, CIE and the interested people in the country. There is no Department of State in which there is such a shocking state of public relations as there exists in relation to CIE.
How many people are saying to us that the time is overdue for a revision of the Transport Act? They ask us how we ever allowed that Act to go through the House in the form in which it was enacted. They are questioning us very closely about that. Of course, there is just the one explanation; the positive assurance given by the responsible Minister at that time, now the Taoiseach, that under no circumstances would branch lines be closed without full consultation, an express undertaking given with the full force of which the Taoiseach is capable when he expresses himself. The Transport Act, relieving CIE of having to face the inquiry which operated up to the time of the passing of that Act, was passed on that understanding. That undertaking and that promise has been broken.
Deputy Corry and Deputy Flanagan in the Minister's Party are, I am sure, merely the more courageous of his own backbenchers who feel as strongly as they do in relation to the flagrant breaking of that solemn assurance given by the Leader of that Party. The Minister was well and truly served by the members of his Party here and in local authorities who sought, in the initial stages of the closure of branch lines, to divert all attention from him on to the Chairman and Board of CIE. They were certainly diligent in their efforts to protect the Minister from even any modicum of criticism but the Minister, having come out so forthrightly in support of what is occurring, and having so vocally supported the present development, is now in the dock because of what is occurring.
He alleges that those who speak critically, here and elsewhere, of the closure of branch lines are railways hysterical. He actually used the word "hysteria". If the Minister were to attend any one of the meetings called by the Chairman of the Cork County Council, a colleague of his, a member of his Party, despite the Minister's statement that he is ashamed of him at the moment, and despite the poor opinion in which he is held by the Minister, he would find very little hysteria. The Deputy in question deserves recognition of his upholding of his responsible position. He was elected as the spokesman of a combined body that has been meeting regularly in an effort to make the case for the retention of the lines, with the solemn assurance given some time ago that full consultation would take place before closure. If the Minister were to attend one of these meetings, he would find very little hysteria.
Some time ago, he said in this House that a firm of international consultants had made certain recommendations to him and a breakdown of the figures for which Deputy Seán Flanagan asked tonight, and which so many of us sought on earlier occasions both inside and outside the House, would not be, according to the Minister, intelligible to the interested parties. That was the Minister's answer: they would not be intelligible. The men attending these meetings are professional men. They are the leaders of industry. They are the men who, tomorrow morning, will be called upon to face the competition of the Common Market. They are the men upon whom the country must rely to manage their concerns with such effect as to enable us to withstand the coming challenge, and we are told from every platform that they are capable of doing so. Yet the Minister says that a breakdown of simple figures in relation to a branch railway line would not be intelligible to them and, consequently, would not be given to them.
Since this debate started, one of the lines under discussion in Cork—it is no longer in my constituency—is being closed down. What is the history of that line? On the debate on the Transport Bill, the Minister stated that he was basing much of the activities of CIE at the moment on the Beddy Report. At that time, it was incumbent on CIE to set up a tribunal to give local people an opportunity of stating their case before closure was effected. The Chairman of the tribunal was Dr. Beddy himself. The other two members were, first, a prominent Fianna Fáil county councillor and, secondly, a former civil servant who, in a recent interview on the radio, was congratulatory and laudatory of Government colleagues of the Minister and it cannot, therefore, be alleged that any single member of that tribunal was biassed against economising by the closure of branch lines. I must say they did not journey to the location by rail. Furthermore, they did not deign to have their refreshments in the town affected. They journeyed by car some 20 miles to another town. However, that is beside the point.
At the end of five days' hearing, this tribunal reported that the line should not be closed. It is now alleged in the particular year upon which the Minister and the Board are basing their figures to justify closure, there was a loss of £1,300 odd. The merchants from that town have journeyed a very considerable distance to meet the Waterford representatives and they provided receipts for £8,000 in the year in question. Is it any wonder these people did not wish to come to Kingsbridge until they had more information, until they had a proper breakdown of the figures as presented to them?
It is now alleged also that a great deal of this must be charged to the main line system. The assumption that all this traffic obtained at branch railway stations will be delivered on to CIE vehicles at the railhead, after the lines are abandoned, is, of course, complete nonsense, particularly in relation to the transport of beet. If the Minister, or anybody else, has the idea that someone will load beet on to a lorry at the farm or at the roadside, transport it to Cork railway station, dump it out there and have it loaded again on to CIE wagons for Mallow, he will have to think again.
We cannot see that there is any point whatever in charging to the main lines any of the income derived from the transport of beet in particular. The effect on the Mallow factory of the closure of the West Cork line has been to create chaotic conditions. It is impossible to describe them. There were two intakes at the factory, one ex-rail and one ex-road. As a result of the closing of the line, lines of lorries are left waiting every night. The drivers have to stay in the town of Mallow until next morning because the intake ex-rail no longer exists.
The shifting of the transport of beet on to the road has had the effect of choking up the intake point, creating chaos and confusion, with consequential financial and other losses. Unfortunate drivers have to wait as long as 12 hours for admission to the factory. That is just one of the troubles resulting from the closure of that line. I referred on an earlier occasion to the fact that CIE are now engaged in taking up the line and nothing can now be done, so far as we are concerned in West Cork, to restore the rail services. There are extreme dangers in the present situation. The personnel from the various gates have been withdrawn. Many roads traverse this line. Unheralded and unscheduled, trains are using the line to take the sleepers and rails into Cork City. We are all keeping our fingers crossed so that there will not be a fatality because of the withdrawal of the personnel from the various gates. I hope this is the last time I shall have to refer to that situation. I hope steps will now be taken to remedy the situation.
One of the effects of the closure of the line has been the transfer of a considerable volume of traffic on to the roads. These roads were never built to carry this traffic. We have been assured that certain compensation will be forthcoming from the Department of Local Government to compensate in part, and in very small part, for the effect of the transfer of so much additional traffic on to our road system. The amount allocated in proportion to the mileage involved is only a fraction of what was given to the Minister for Local Government's county when the railways were removed there. There should be at least similar accommodation by way of road grant to compensate the people in Cork for the loss of the railways and for the fact that the roads must now carry a vastly increased volume of traffic.
There is no restriction apparently on the weight that may be launched upon our roads. We know instances of extremely heavy vehicles carrying fantastic weights. There is no doubt that this alleged saving effected by the closure of the branch lines will merely mean a transfer of the burden of rail upkeep to road upkeep. It will present increasing problems for our local authorities in the years to come.
If there is one Deputy who does not need to be defended, it is Deputy Corry, but I think it right to say that he was not deserving of the reprimand he received from the Minister for Transport and Power, saying that he was talking nonsense, that he was ashamed of him, and generally regarding him as a very small boy. In the remarks made in relation to this matter, if not for other matters on which Deputy Corry has spoken, he can receive support on this side, and this at least is one occasion on which we feel that the views expressed were those expressed to him by all those present at the public meetings that took place relative to the closure of the lines. There is grave concern at the fact that those instructions were issued to stationmasters to refrain from furnishing information which the local interested parties required, if they were to make the case that it was supposed that they would be allowed to make before any line was closed.
When the earlier closures were effected, there was no consultation whatsoever, but this time there was an indication from CIE that there was to be consultation in the interested areas. This consultation has been well described by Deputy Seán Flanagan in his intervention, and I do not think that anybody could improve upon it, because it is quite true that neither full nor partial consultation took place and we have signs of the interested parties not being permitted to get the information which they required, if they were to have an intelligent discussion with the directors of CIE.
Regarding substitute services, one of the assurances given, quite apart from having full consultation before closure, was that comparable services would be provided if a line were closed. For a long time, Deputies have been voicing their disapproval of the lack of effect of anything like Parliamentary intervention on the operations of CIE. We have the refusal of the Minister to provide information at Question Time and the general sign that they were a body apart, charged with doing a particular job, and that they were in no ways obliged to hearken to any inquiries or criticism from public representatives. In the instances I have mentioned there was an indication which had the desired effect regarding the provision of comparable services and it was accepted by the interested people, if not by those who gave the assurances, that there would be a degree of service no less comparable provided, and also in relation to charges.
In that respect, I know of the experience of at least one trader in the town of Bandon where I reside. He received goods at a particular price when they were delivered by rail, and later when they were delivered by road through the CIE road freight service, there was an extraordinary increase in the charge. At the time of the fresh agitation to retain the branch lines in Cork county, he was going to provide the committee with the evidence of this increase in charges when he had a visitation from a number of people in CIE who came and guaranteed to him that if he would surrender the evidence of the charges levied upon him, they would restore the charges to the level at which they were before the line was removed. Of course he parted with them and, having succeeded in getting his bill reduced, felt that he was coming pretty well out of it.
Would that have been done had it not been that he had indicated that if it were not done, it would be raised in this House? Should it be necessary for anybody in business in any town in Ireland to resort to that extreme before getting equity in relation to his business? The consequence has been that that finished him as far as CIE transport was concerned, and he now has his own transport and will no longer be subject to such treatment. These are the things that are causing such bitterness in the public mind in relation to the operations of this company, and it is very regrettable that they should occur.
Then we had the example given by Deputy Gallagher of a remarkable occurrence where a man's conscience would not allow him to continue his work in CIE because of the fact that they were only playing cards all day. Why blame the public for not supporting the company if that is the way in which they conduct their business, if employees were engaged and paid for work for the carriage of passengers and goods and that is what they were doing? I do not know if that is an isolated occurrence but nevertheless that is an aspect of CIE administration that should be straightened out before it is a question of closing down certain regions of service which we were informed would result in bringing the company to a happy financial position. Unfortunately that does not appear to be even on the horizon.
The Minister said that the Government were opposed to, and in fact never believed in, current operating losses, and this was one company which the Minister indicated must operate without a loss. This statement was made before he introduced this Estimate, but he indicated in his introductory speech that there were other transport companies which were not even breaking even. We all know, of course, that down through the years, there were many facets of our life that had to be assisted by way of tariffs, quotas and so on to enable them to operate successfully. Just as the public were paying for their subsidies, this was also a subsidy even if one could not indicate to anyone in those particular years the exact charge levied on the public to ensure that they carried on their business successfully. So to suggest that the Government never believed in current operating losses is something the Minister cannot stand over.
Again, Deputy Flanagan referred to the possibility of an industry in a part of his constituency affected by a threatened closure and said that closure of the line would have a detrimental effect on that industry. Deputies will recall that at one time the Taoiseach stated that in fact the greatest industrial progress was in regions where there were no branch lines. There was much note taken of this comment, and it was regarded as an extraordinary statement. If we were to carry that to its logical conclusion, we should wipe out all the railways and in that way have industrial development everywhere. I would make the comment that in one town in my constituency, a visiting industrialist did remark on the fact that there was available to him at that time a rail service, and that was later removed. Perhaps the Taoiseach will hearken now to what one of his own colleagues says on exactly the same point.
Regarding the tourist industry, I, too, agree with Deputy Flanagan in his criticism of the erection of luxury hotels. Figures were recently published of the contribution which such visitors to the country made to our entire revenue from tourism. The experience of those of us who stay overnight in Dublin has been that quite a number of these wealthy Americans stay in one of the luxury hotels for an extremely short time. They stay just long enough to look around for cheaper and less luxurious accommodation. I hope they represent for our tourist income as bright a future as the Minister indicates, but if he were to consult any shop girl in Killarney or in any other tourist resort, and ask her what type of tourist is leaving the most money in the resorts, she would say that she would prefer to see one returned emigrant or one British working-class tourist coming in than one of the tourists who come from the super hotels.
We have on our doorstep this vast potential made up of our own people who are resident in Britain and of British tourists. If we are to make any real effort to give them the type of holiday they want, at reasonable cost, we must concentrate more on providing accommodation for them rather than on the erection of the luxury hotels which we hope will be filled to capacity and be successful but about whose future we are sceptical.
There is resentment of the fact that the benefits available to hoteliers for improvements or extensions of their premises are not available to other people. Great work has been done by means of the loans and grants system to bring the country hotels and the city hotels up to proper standard and better size. People like to leave their hotels. They do not want to be tied inside a hotel all the time. They like to move out and meet people and mix with them in the local public house and discuss the affairs of the day. Therefore, it is desirable that we should bring up the standard of the public houses to such a level that we need not be ashamed of them, a level at which they would be comfortable and provide the ordinary civilised facilities.
It is true that money is available to hoteliers and guest house owners for renovations and improvements of their premises but there is no grant available to assist the proprietor of a licensed premises in a tourist resort, or in any town in the country, to provide a lounge or improved toilet facilities. Such improvements today would entail considerable expenditure. If the Tourist Board directed their attention to that matter, they could provide not only much more attractive places for visitors but comforts and facilities for our own people who must not be forgotten.
I would not have intervened in this debate except that I believe, like so many other Deputies who have spoken, that this is the only opportunity we have of expressing our opinions of or trying to get information about CIE. I put down a question for tomorrow's Order Paper in regard to the allocation of the engines which were recently debated in the House. My question was ruled out of order by the Ceann Comhairle because the Minister has no function in the matter. I have no option but to speak in this debate and ask the Minister questions which, in normal conditions, for the purpose of saving time, and with more satisfactory arrangements between Ministers and Deputies, I could have put down under the Parliamentary Questions system. I am debarred from doing that because the Minister will not answer questions.
Having listened to this extensive debate during the afternoon, I believe that nearly 50 per cent. of the speakers were moved to speak because they could not get an answer by other means from the Minister. When anybody puts down a Question relating to any matter concerning CIE, he is told that it is a matter of day to day administration and that the Minister has no function. That is pure unadulterated nonsense. The proof that it is nonsense is the criticism of CIE by Deputies on every side of the House. The Minister looks on himself to be the champion for the defence of this organisation, society, business, or whatever it is, of public transport.
It is quite obvious that practically everything possible that could be wrong with CIE is wrong. They have been given every opportunity that any company could have been given. Nearly five years ago all their debts were paid—I wish someone would pay my debts as theirs were paid, and I am sure other Deputies have the same view—and they were given a clean bill to start afresh. They were also given a considerable donation of money.
What is the sorry tale that faces the House today? They are losing money, and not only are they losing money but they are losing more and more every day. I believe it is the duty of the Minister to play ball with the House and give us the information we are seeking. Deputies do not get up here just for the sake of making a row or to get publicity. Every responsible Deputy wants to see our transport system running as well as it is possible for it to run. The way to have it running well is to let the people who are responsible for running it know that they will be exposed to the cold light of publicity and that they must pay attention to what Deputies and other public representatives say in regard to the wants and requirements of the public. It is idiotic for the Minister to think himself the last line of defence of the CIE organisation which is not giving a proper service to the country. If they were giving a proper service, Deputies from every side of the House would not be protesting here. If the Minister were to reply to all the criticism that has been levelled at CIE, we certainly would not adjourn on 13th December but would be here until the middle of January. The greater part of what I have heard said is true.
A couple of weeks ago, the Minister brought in a Bill asking for 6,000,000 dollars, which is about £2½ million, for CIE to buy in extra engines. We got no information about the contract. We were not told whether CIE looked for the engines from anyone else. We were not told whether they tried to get them cheaper anywhere else. The matter was discussed in the House and the Minister would not give information. I wanted to put down a question, as I am entitled to do as a representative of Wexford, in regard to the allocation of those engines. It was a perfectly reasonable question to ask because our engine has an unhappy penchant for breaking down and we were looking forward to a change, but I could not even get an answer. I want to ask the Minister now is the Rosslare line—which is an important line—getting a new engine. I gather there are six new engines. There are only a few railway lines left because most of them are being closed down. There are only three or four main lines left now. Are we getting an allocation or are we not? I do not know if the Minister knows. I do not even know if CIE will tell him if he asks them. We cannot find these things out because we cannot get answers to Parliamentary Questions.
I do not think the regulations under the Bill passed here in 1957 or 1958, when CIE were given a fresh start, are being carried out. One of the things I distinctly remember on that occasion, having spoken myself, was that we were to get information with regard to the closing down of lines. I think the words used by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, were that all interested parties would be consulted. What is the sorry story we have had over the past couple of years? The first one was the Waterford-Tramore line, when nobody was consulted and no delegation was received or would be received. There was no redress for this House. We could not even ask a Parliamentary Question about it because the Minister had no function in the matter. Apart from the local people not being asked, the very railway lines themselves were torn up and sold immediately, so that if they wanted to try to make their case, there was no use in their doing so because the railway lines were torn up and exported for the sake of our balance of payments with Nigeria or Ghana. In other words, it is simply bureaucracy. It means the ordinary parliamentary representative is being flouted here. That is the challenge I issue to the Minister. I can only come to the conclusion that bureaucracy is triumphant here and the parliamentary representative ceases to exist any longer.
I do not think anybody can be satisfied with the running of CIE. I admit they have any amount of difficulties, that every railway in the world is facing difficulties. I know that every railway in Europe is losing money or carrying a Government subsidy of some sort with the exception of the railways in Holland, where, for a reason I cannot discover, they are managing to pay their way. Even the French railways, which are perhaps the most efficient in Europe to-day are not paying. Yet they are always packed. No matter where you travel on a French main-line train, you must always engage a seat. Any time I have ever travelled on an express to any centre in France, I have found people standing in the corridors. Yet the French railways are not making money.
My criticism against CIE and the Minister, as their representative in the House, is not the fact they are losing money; it is the fact they refuse to take the public into their confidence. After all, what is our function? Our function is to provide the money to see that public transport is carried out. As public representatives, no matter from what Party we come, we have the right to have that information.
There is a very strong rumour in my part of the world that it is contemplated to close the Rosslare line. I do not know whether that is true or not. I suppose the first we will hear about it is that it is to be closed and then it will be closed. I know from my information, which of course is unofficial, that this is a line which is paying its way. It is a line which perhaps could be made to pay its way even more provided it got the necessary tourist publicity in the advertisements put out in the other countries concerned.
As I know the position, the Rosslare-Fishguard line, which is concerned with this railway, is a separate company. As I understand it, the position is that the Rosslare-Fishguard Steamship Co. is still in existence. It is a very old-established company, founded somewhere at the beginning of the century. It is a separate entity from the railway itself. The directors or owners of this company at the moment are a combination of British Railways and CIE. CIE are responsible for the harbour on this side and for the servicing of the company by the railway line. British Railways are responsible for the ships themselves and for the manning of the ships.
If there is any idea of closing down this line, which would have disastrous consequences for all that side of the country, there must be consultations, first, with British Railways and, secondly, within the company itself, and the company must have consultations with CIE. Since the company itself is an offshoot, under the control of the Minister for Transport and Power, it should be possible for the Minister to give the House a categorical assurance that there is no intention of closing this line.
If it were closed, it would be perhaps one of the most shattering blows at our tourist industry imaginable. Over the years, the inclination has been to bring all tourists in through the Dublin ports, Dún Laoghaire and the North Wall. It has often happened that people get to Dublin and never get any further. The advertisements right back over the years have been directed to that object of bringing them all in through the port of Dublin. It is only in recent years that people have been coming in through Rosslare.
At the moment it is the major entrance port for cars, and this has been a considerable asset to the tourist industry as a whole. A certain amount of money has been expended there. The Minister and I do not see eye to eye on the subject. I perhaps feel more money could be expended and the port expanded. In addition, we have a very bad road out of Rosslare Harbour. While this has nothing to do with the Minister at all, the fact is that his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, has stated categorically in this House that he sees no reason for improving or widening this road, although the strongest representations have been made to him by the very active Deputies who represent Wexford, as well as the other local representatives, to do something about it.
If the Minister were to close this line, the whole area would be virtually isolated because they have not got a proper road, and this would cut off a tourist potential which is growing all the time. Therefore, it would be satisfactory if the Minister felt able to give this categorical assurance to the House that this is one of the lines which will be left extant. I believe it is paying its way. I believe it could not only pay its way but could, by expansion and by free advertisement to which I will refer later, be made to pay its way very much better.
I return now to the argument of tourism vis-á-vis Dublin and rural Ireland, especially the southern part of the country. The suggestion has often been made that the advertisements could be put up in the United Kingdom whence the greatest number of tourists arrive. They should be encouraged to visit Ireland through Rosslare and through Cork, if necessary. We must be fair to everybody.
The Deputy need not worry about Cork.
They will look after themselves. They are vociferous enough here. Travelling in England, one can see at railway stations, especially London, the same old advertisements for the past 40 or 50 years. Great tributes were paid to Bord Fáilte who have done a certain amount of work. They could do with a few new ideas in regard to advertisements. We see advertisements which show you how to get to Ireland through Dublin, as if no other place existed in the country. You are asked to visit Donegal, Connemara and Killarney. Is there no imagination among those in Bord Fáilte who look after tourist advertising? They could mention places other than Donegal, Connemara and Killarney. As a young boy going to school, I can remember these advertisements. They are still the same.
As I am on the question of tourism, I think that Bord Fáilte are not very active in regard to publishing advertisements in connection with the opportunities that exist in Ireland. We in Ireland can offer that which no other country can offer today. The roads are comparatively free and there is peace and quiet. When city people or active business people go on a holiday, they do not want to go to first-class luxury hotels in the big centres. What they want is peace and quiet. They want to be able to travel in a car in peace along the roads, without having to travel bumper to bumper.
If the Minister has any doubts on these points, I can assure him that it has been said to me repeatedly by visitors to Ireland that they could not believe there could be such peace and tranquility in a country. You could not get that anywhere else. I was recently in a hotel outside Dublin having dinner. At the next table, three or four Germans were chatting. The whole theme of their conversation was the great enjoyment they had got from their holiday. They were able to take out their car and drive it without having to travel bumper to bumper. Those are the things we ought to stress. That brings me to the direct policy of Bord Fáilte.
We are to get a Hilton hotel in this country. Bord Fáilte will not be happy until we have a Hilton hotel. In every big city in the world, there is a Hilton hotel where if you go in with a £5 note and buy what you want, you come out without any change. That is not the sort of thing we want here. I agree with the Deputies who said that we want the better class guesthouses. The Spaniards, who find themselves in the bad books vis-á-vis Europe as a whole, for what reason I do not know, have developed a better type of guesthouse and secondary hotel, with the result that they have enormously increased their tourist industry. They confined the charges of their hoteliers so that there was no question of over-charging.
There is nobody so sensitive as the tourist to charges and particularly the rich tourist who is the last person to spend anything at all. He wants to get everything as cheaply as he can. I do not know for whom we are building these luxury hotels. I think it was Deputy O'Sullivan who said that these wealthy people come in and stay one or two nights at a hotel and then go somewhere else. It is for these people we are building the luxury hotels. These hotels are not likely to be full, but we have got to have a certain number of them. I am very proud of the fact that in my own constituency we have what is tantamount to a luxury hotel which gives first class service.
We do not want many luxury hotels. We want to cater for the ordinary person here. We have an enormous potentiality and the Minister could direct all his activities towards developing that tourist potential. In the first place, there should be a new approach. The Minister should get in contact with people who are good at designing attractive pictures and taking attractive photographs. One sees the most glorious photographs of places abroad. So attractive are they that you feel you can never get to these places soon enough. When you get there, you discover that the photographs exaggerate their beauty. Some years back, I saw a photograph of Rosslare strand issued by Bord Fáilte or, perhaps it was Fógra Fáilte. It was the most ghastly production I ever saw. Now, Rosslare has one of the finest strands in Ireland—at least what is left of it. We are awaiting the Coast Erosion Bill before it is washed away. From the photograph, one would imagine it was a place, where if you took off your shoes to paddle, you would have to walk on broken glass. That is an extreme case. I told Bord Fáilte about it and I am happy to tell the House that the photograph was withdrawn.
Nobody knows what good work you are doing at all.
I do not know what they would do without me.
The Deputy is hiding his light under a bushel.
The Minister should get a committee together and try to draft an overall picture of Irish tourist resorts. We should get away from the idea that we have only Connemara, Donegal and Killarney. There are other places which are more easily accessible. If a person comes to Ireland and if he gets beyond Dublin at all, he will probably head straight for Connemara, Donegal or Kerry. He does that because he does not know of any other place to go.
The weekly or monthly bulletin which the Tourist Board produce is good but I think it could be expanded. We could include in it more pictures and more stories about Ireland generally. It is one of the things which has certainly given some idea that there are places in Ireland other than Donegal, Connemara and Killarney. Perhaps the Minister would consider my suggestion and get his people together and stress in the advertisements the peaceful atmosphere that prevails here in which people can enjoy a real holiday. That is what most people are looking for in the world today, all trying to avoid coronary thrombosis.
I do not know what the position is in regard to electricity supplies in other parts of the country but, in my own area, people have been seriously disappointed. I made inquiries no later than today as to what the position is and apparently some sort of main line is being put up down by Arklow and County Wexford and that has absorbed all available manpower. In the last few days, I had representations from two people who showed me letters from the ESB saying they would have electricity in August. It is now December and they have not yet been connected. I immediately made inquiries and received a courteous reply from the ESB saying they would do their best to supply current as soon as possible.
On further inquiry, I found the reason for the delay is that the men are not available, as all available men are on this other job, and I gather they will be completely absorbed until February. The position of people who thought they were getting light in August can be appreciated. They had gone to the expense of having their houses wired and were possibly waiting to get television, and other electrical appliances. I know of a man who has sunk a well. If he has to wait until February to get power, it seems unreasonable, since the installation sought is probably only a matter of a few hours' work.
Perhaps the Minister would get in touch locally and find out what the position is? I want to absolve entirely the local officials. I believe they are not responsible, that they were put on to this heavy job without being aware it was coming and that is why they made promises.
I should not have spoken in this debate but for the fact that we cannot get answers to Parliamentary Questions. I advise the Minister to answer such questions. I do not expect I shall ever be a Minister, but if I were, I should answer them because otherwise I know I should only be laying up a store of trouble for myself. Having given the Minister that friendly advice, I sit down.
Mr. Belton
When Deputy Burke spoke, he said that the Minister had plenty of headaches. I agree with that. We realise the Minister is in charge of five semi-State bodies, only one of which is not in the red. I should first like to deal with the problems of the operation of Aer Lingus.
There is a great feeling of dissatisfaction among passengers from Dublin to London or any other cross-Channel airport in regard to bus charges and airport charges. I realise that the Minister has a problem here but there is a feeling that these charges should be included in the cost of the ticket purchased by the traveller. The traveller to London is faced with a landing charge of about 15/- Then he gets a bus to the air terminus and has to pay the bus fare.
Recently because of the change of the bus terminus from Cathal Brugha Street to Store Street, travellers have complained because they cannot leave their luggage at Store Street, have it transferred to the bus and have it collected at the airport. They must present themselves at Store Street and transfer their luggage to the bus going to the airport. This is a small matter but one with which I was concerned last week. I can assure the Minister that the staff at the bus station would like to see the system that operated in Cathal Brugha Street restored in Store Street.
I must compliment Aer Lingus and those concerned with the introduction of the car ferry service which, I understand, will operate from next spring. This fills a great want and should be very advantageous to our tourist trade.
I agree that a great case can be made for Government policy in regard to the curtailment of rail transport. It operates in many countries but I strongly suggest to the Minister that the curtailment is just a shade too soon here. I think the roads should be considerably improved before the railways are closed. I do not think we have sufficient roads, or sufficiently good roads, to carry the traffic that will be transferred from rail to road. The advances made in this respect in the Six Counties are very much appreciated by the public there and a line should be taken from the manner in which they are dealing with road improvements.
Coupled with this Estimate is a motion in the names of several Fine Gael Deputies. I should like to see the transport company making special workers' tickets available in Dublin to people domiciled in corporation housing schemes on the fringe of the city. The majority of these people work in the city centre and many of them have four bus trips a day—going to work in the mornings, coming home at lunchtime, going back to work and returning home in the evening. Their bus fares average about 8d per trip which adds up to 2/8 daily. If they work a five and a half day week, their bus fares can be added on to the rent of their houses and it is quite a heavy burden for them.
The passenger accommodation at, and the transport services to the B & I terminus at the North Wall are deplorable. The passenger accommodation is most primitive, something one would expect a hundred years ago and, I suggest, no better than it was one hundred years ago.
I agree with Deputy Norton's criticisms of the canals. We have one canal and I think it must have been 25 years since it was used, the Royal Canal, coming from Cross Guns Bridge down by the North Strand. It is really a dirty cesspool full of weeds, dirt, tin cans and, as Deputy Norton said, a cemetery for animals.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 5th December, 1962.