Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1966

Vol. 61 No. 18

Transport Bill, 1966 : Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed : "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

CIE have had under consideration for some time past the position in respect of the continuation of the services on the Waterford-Mallow railway line. Normally, CIE could proceed in a matter of this kind by giving notice of intention to close the line under the powers vested in the Board by section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958. Section 19 of that Act gave CIE full discretion in the closure of railway lines, subject to the Board, before terminating any service, satisfying themselves that the service is uneconomic and that there is no prospect that it could be operated economically within a reasonable period. I am advised, however, that a technical legal difficulty arises in relation to that part of the line between Waterford and Fermoy. While the services on the line are operated wholly by CIE and the lines and works are maintained wholly by them, they are only part owners of the section from Waterford to Fermoy. That section forms part of the undertaking of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company.

CIE and British Railways are part owners of the Fishguard and Rosslare Company. The undertaking is jointly worked, managed and maintained by CIE and British Railways under the provisions of certain old statutes dating back to 1898. CIE are responsible for the services on the Irish side and British Railways are responsible for the services on the British side, including the shipping service between Fishguard and Rosslare. In these circumstances, there is a legal doubt as to the applicability of section 19 of the Transport Act, 1958, to the Board's services on the lines of the Fishguard Company and it is considered necessary to remove that doubt.

In the course of my speech to the House on the second reading of the Transport Bill, 1964, I indicated that the Government had decided after very full consideration to preserve the railway system subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might prove practicable and desirable. CIE have now advised me that they have carried out a detailed analysis of the cost of operating the rail services on the Waterford-Mallow line. They have found that the services are seriously uneconomic and they are satisfied that there is a clear case for making at an early date a final decision on whether to close the line. This situation obtains despite the fact that operating costs had been reduced by dieselisation. CIE have had to order a number of replacement diesel locomotives this year and if the line remains open they will have to spend an extra £344,000 on additional replacenient locomotives. Apart from this capital saving, CIE estimate that a saving of £50,000 per annum would result from the withdrawal of rail services on the line and the provision of substitute road services where necessary.

Section 2 of the Bill is intended to provide the necessary statutory power to enable the termination of train services on the lines of the Fishguard Company in this country as if they were services on the CIE railway system. CIE will thus be empowered to terminate services on the Waterford-Mallow line if they so decide.

I would like to give Senators some details of the line and of the services. The Waterford-Mallow line is approximately 76 miles long, all single track, with 14 intermediate stations. The principal passenger service over the line is the Rosslare Express between Rosslare and Cork, which connects with the Fishguard/Rosslare passenger sailings. During the summer timetable the express operates twice daily from Cork on Mondays to Saturdays, twice daily from Rosslare Harbour on Tuesdays to Saturdays and once daily from Rosslare Harbour on Sundays and Mondays. During the winter the express operates each way on three days a week. In addition, there is one passenger service each way daily, except Sundays, between Waterford and Cork all the year round. This service also provides main line connections at Mallow and Waterford. For freight traffic there is one train each way daily between Waterford and Mallow. The number of passengers joining and alighting daily per intermediate station on the line has been found to average between eight and nine. The volume of freight traffic originating and terminating at these stations is relatively small and could be catered for by CIE with an addition to their road freight fleet of seven lorries and trailers.

CIE have advised me that if the final investigation clearly indicates the need to close the line, there would be no intention to withdraw the Rosslare Express service serving Waterford, Mallow and Cork. This service would be diverted via Limerick Junction with 20 minutes increase in overall time for through passengers, who will still have the benefit of a through service without change of trains. CIE are satisfied that this arrangement, together with the substitute road passenger services for the areas no longer served by rail, would provide an adequate substitute for the terminated services. Substitute road freight services, based on Waterford and Mallow, would be provided for intermediate station traffic, and through freight traffic, Waterford-Mallow-Cork, would be diverted by rail via Limerick Junction. CIE are satisfied that these measures would meet requirements adequately. The number of additional road vehicles required by CIE for the substitute road passenger services is five single-deck buses.

As Senators are aware, I have, in recent months, stressed many times that CIE must live within the annual subsidy of £2 million for which provision was made by the Transport Act, 1964. If the railway system is to be preserved even in attenuated form it is essential that CIE should continue to seek all possible ways and means of reducing losses. The Board's costs continue to rise steadily due mainly to increases in salaries and wages and there are definite limits to the extent to which they can recover these losses by increases in fares and rates. It is, therefore, clearly in the interests of the taxpayer and of the Board's employees and of the general public still relying on the Board's services that the Board should make a final decision on the possibility of cutting losses on uneconomic rail services which can readily be substituted by cheaper road services and, as in this particular case, by better utilisation of alternative railway lines.

When the Bill was published I received a deputation of Senators and Deputies from the counties concerned. I have requested the Chairman of CIE to arrange for one representative deputation to be received in order that the Board may hear the case for the retention of the line. I should make it clear that in my experience over many years there is always a protest at almost any change made of this and other types but the Board of CIE will be able to make their final decision having evaluated the two conflicting sets of arguments.

It has been CIE's general experience that people in areas affected by rail closures have found that the alternative road services provided have proved a satisfactory substitute for the former rail services and over seven years I have had very few complaints of substance.

I wish to make it clear that when CIE receive a deputation on the matter there is one argument which I as Minister cannot accept. I do not believe that a minor branch railway line whose major traffic can be carried on a parallel line has any prestige value whatever in a rural area.

If the line were to be closed provision would be made for redundant staff either by transfers of personnel or by payment of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Transport Acts.

I will now deal with other matters covered by the Bill. While, as I have already indicated, CIE have a statutory obligation to work, manage and maintain that portion of the Fishguard Company's undertaking within the State, the undertaking still remains vested in the Fishguard Company. It will be necessary to provide for the abandonment of the Waterford-Fermoy section of railway line by the Fishguard Company if the line is closed and the purpose of section 3 of the Bill is to give the company the same powers of abandonment as apply in the case of CIE.

Section 4 of the Bill is designed to facilitate the disposal of the land of any abandoned railway line. It will enable CIE to sell by private treaty cottages and land forming part of an abandoned railway system to the tenants of such property. It will also enable CIE to include in the sale, where convenient, some additional land of the abandoned line in order, for example, to make the tenant's holding more attractive. It will be noted that it is the intention that section 4 will be deemed to have come into operation on the 9th day of July, 1963. The reason for this is that certain sales of this kind have already been made on the assumption that the position was covered by the powers given under section 18 (2) of the Transport Act, 1963, whereas in fact that section was not adequate for the purpose.

The purpose of section 5 of the Bill is to provide for the more expeditious handling of disputes arising in regard to claims for redundancy compensation under transport legislation and so to avoid inconvenience to claimants. As some Senators may be aware there has already been delay in dealing with a number of claims. I have considered how best to remedy this situation and I am advised that the most effective and expeditious remedy is to give claimants the right to apply to the Circuit Court to have their claims heard and determined. Section 5 accordingly provides that claims, which have already been submitted to arbitration and which are not decided within three months of the passing of the Act, may be referred by either party to the dispute to the Circuit Court. In the case of future claims the applicant will have the option of referring his case either to the arbitrator or to the Circuit Court.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I regret that I must demur from the recommendation the Minister has put to us in relation to this Bill. We have an unhappy history in our activities in relation to the closure of branch railway lines. The proposal is one to permit the closure of a particular line and the proposal would not be before us at all, were it not for the question of the legality of some of the operations which have already taken place. As the Minister has informed us, certain sales have been made on the assumption that the Minister had the necessary power, which, in fact, he had not. It is in consequence of this that the Oireachtas now have an opportunity of examining the situation.

I do not know whether it is because of this discovery or of a change of heart consequent on the retirement of the outgoing Chairman of CIE that some form of consultation is being permitted by public representatives and interested parties in relation to proposed closures. At least we welcome the change. We can all recall the manner in which people representing substantial interests in the community were treated in the past by the dictatorial attitude of the retired Chairman who denied any consultations to parties affected by closures despite undertakings and promises given during the passage of the Transport Bill by the Taoiseach, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, that no railway line would be closed without adequate consultation.

That was completely discarded subsequently when it came to particular closures. It is a very sore point, particularly in relation to the West Cork area where we are now devoid of any railway system west of Cork city. The Minister has made certain claims in relation to alternative systems of transport, both passenger and freight. He claimed that he has had very few complaints in this respect. There is one very good reason why he has had such a limited number of complaints. What is the alternative now? The lines are being used in the continent of Africa and what good would it do to advance criticism of the alternative system of transport provided?

We know what the impact is on the local authorities in the increased maintenance costs of roadways because of the abandonment of the railway lines. In the course of his opening statement, the Minister referred to economies and to the prospect that this line could not be made to operate economically within a reasonable time. I do not know what he had in mind as to "a reasonable time." Which railway line is economical and is it not a fact that the people throughout the State are contributing by way of subsidies to the maintenance of the railway system? Are they not entitled therefore to some claim to services since they are paying for them? The day is gone when we are naive enough to think that we could ever succeed in making our lines economical. It is a question of the degree of the economy involved and the effect a closure will have on the local community.

In relation to the present case, the Minister says a saving of £50,000 will be made but we must put against that saving the extra cost involved for local authorities in the maintenance of roadways. We know that the customary pattern will recur in this case as regards compensation. There will be capital compensation for the improvement of roadways but there is no provision here, never has been and never will be, for the increased cost of maintenance of roadways.

Mr. Ahern

That is happening already. It has been happening during the past ten years. The sum of £50,000 is a saving, anyhow.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

The saving of £50,000 is to CIE activities. There is no provision in regard to the increased cost involved in the maintenance of roadways as a result of increased traffic. The Senator is more directly involved in this than I am and he should have more briefing from the residents concerned.

Mr. O'Quigley

Senator Ahern apparently favours it.

Mr. Ahern

I did not beg for anything.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

Nobody suggested you should go and beg for anything. No doubt the Senator is well briefed on the case he will make.

Mr. Ahern

I shall speak for myself and my area. I was not briefed by anybody.

An Cathaoirleach

May I ask Senators to conduct the debate through the medium of the Chair?

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I have been drawn into this by Senator Ahern's interjection.

Mr. Ahern

I am sorry for you.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

We can take past experiences as a guide line for the people who will be concerned by this closure. I do not know of any firm undertaking by the Minister in his presentation of the Bill that the road freight services to be provided by CIE will be equal in cost to the services that will be abandoned. This possibly is the result of a lesson learned. Suggestions were made before and they did not stand up to investigation. We know of the very heavy additional cost imposed on private firms, on business people, for the delivery of goods that were formerly ex-rail. There has been a substantial increase in charges for the delivery of machinery and heavy goods by comparison with the former rail charges. This is an important question, particularly in view of the exhortation to keep our production costs low in order that we may compete effectively in the modern world. These increased costs will have to be transferred to the shoulders of the agricultural community in affected areas and to business people in the towns.

We must also consider the position in towns and in the country where CIE have failed to provide reasonable passenger services as an alternative to train services. Various submissions have been made to CIE to provide shelters for schoolgoing children and other persons affected by the abandonment of railway stations. There have been complaints of people having to stand for long periods in bad weather. School children have to wait for bus services, and while waiting, they engage in many pranks and there have been complaints about this from business people and others outside whose buildings children have to wait because of the failure of CIE to provide shelters for bus passengers.

Alternative accommodation to the closed railway stations has not been provided. Surely it is not too much to expect that the buildings vacated because of rail closures could be converted and made available, particularly in towns, to provide shelters? I speak particularly of the town of Bandon in this respect. We understand from communications we have received that it is not the intention of CIE to provide such shelters outside the town. That is a very poor show on the part of our national transport undertaking.

As I say, the objections I have to the rail closures are the cost involved to the people who have to pay higher charges for the transport of goods, the fact that the local authorities have to bear the brunt of the increased cost of maintaining our roads—and all Members of the Seanad appreciate the increased traffic there is on our roads —and the fact that we are now adding to the problem of increased traffic on our roads. It may be said truthfully that it is not substantial, but it is an addition and it exacerbates a situation which is developing fast.

The Minister states that there will not be a complete withdrawal of the Rosslare Express serving Waterford, Mallow and Cork and that this service will be diverted via Limerick Junction, adding 20 minutes to the overall travelling time for through passengers. I do not think we can accept with equanimity an increase of 20 minutes in the train time between Rosslare and Cork. People who have travelled already are feeling tired enough and are anxious to get to their destination, particularly people travelling with young children. It is regrettable that so much extra time must now be spent in travelling.

The Minister says this closure is clearly in the interests of taxpayers, and he refers to cheaper road services. I should like to think it was true but I have doubts about it. At any rate, we do not think that satisfactory substitutes for former rail services have been provided, and we are disturbed by the economies that have been effected, not overall but for the benefit of one sector of our community at the expense of other sectors who have to pay for the substitute services provided.

As I said at the outset, there is a change of heart in regard to consultations, and I am sure the members of the Oireachtas who represent the interests of the community concerned in this proposed closure will have a well-documented case to make against the closure of the line. Knowing that a deputation is to be received, we think they are privileged people when we consider the treatment meted out to the people in the part of the county from which I come, who were denied any opportunity whatever of making a case in regard to the serious effects of the closure of the West Cork railway line.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think that in this debate we are considering the closure of a branch line. We all subscribed to the 1958 legislation. It was supported by all Parties in the Dáil and in the Seanad, and there was a certain agreement or understanding as to our approach to the problems of public transport. The desire was that the railways would be maintained, and there would be, of necessity, pruning of uneconomic branch lines. The trade unions were asked by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, now the Taoiseach, during a debate on the Beddy Report in November, 1957, to face up to the realities of the situation. The Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, was putting it to the trade union leaders that there was a problem in regard to those railways, that in regard to redundancy, they should co-operate in reducing the overall labour content in the railways so as to make the employment of the remainder more certain.

The trade unions accepted that invitation. They co-operated, and there has been a great measure of redundancy of CIE employees, particularly on the rail side. The compensation provided in the 1958 legislation was reasonably adequate, but, apart from the people who benefited by this compensation, there were scores, possibly hundreds, of railway employees who suffered by reason of transfer from one area to another in this general reorganisation. I have a feeling—and anything the Minister has been saying or doing does not reassure me in this respect—the Minister is completely overlooking this invitation by the Taoiseach, the co-operation which was extended in the reorganisation of CIE, the suffering which CIE railway employees bore in the intervening years, and is now proceeding to depart from the general understanding behind the 1958 legislation.

If I could be satisfied that the Minister's approach to this matter was still in conformity with that general understanding in regard to the 1958 legislation, then I and, I think, railway people generally would be prepared to continue co-operation in order to achieve the maximum economies, in order to ease the burden on the taxpayer by way of subsidy and to provide the best possible service to the community. However, there is a general feeling that in spite of all the sacrifices, in spite of all the co-operation extended, the Minister is going to sell the railwaymen down the line.

I wonder would the Minister look at the problem which lies there because if his approach, as we understand it to be, continues, then, quite obviously, the approach of railway employees affected by this and other closures must be simply to hold on, not to co-operate, to stick as hard and as long as they can to what they have and forget about economies, forget about co-operation and forget anything but trying to cling on to their particular corner. That is a very human and understandable reaction if we are now to have a situation in which the general approach to the 1958 legislation is gone overboard with this Minister. Because we have had a change of Minister, we have a different approach to the problem and all that has gone before is wiped out and the railwaymen are to be sold down the river.

As I said, we are not dealing with a minor branch line. We are dealing with a relatively long stretch of line which serves a relatively important area, as has been demonstrated in recent years. The Minister, last winter or autumn, was at Mallow to open a new marshalling yard and new offices and there was a general improvement of the facilities available at Mallow. A week or so afterwards he was at the other end of the line, namely, in Waterford, to open new offices there. There was also an expenditure of money on the improvement of the loading facilities in Waterford. These are the two major points connected by this line but in between there are important towns which, if this line is closed, will no longer have any rail service or any rail connection. They are Fermoy, Dungarvan, Cappoquin and others not quite as big or as important.

That area of West Waterford and East Cork will be without any rail service if this line is closed but, perhaps, that is not the most important aspect of the matter. We have had the report of the NIEC, which has been accepted by the Government, about development centres. It is recommended by the NIEC and agreed by the Government that Waterford should be designated as a growth centre. I have seen recently in the Press advertisements inviting tenders for the building of roads approaching the general basic facilities for the establishment of factory sites in Waterford city. In this measure it is proposed to close a line which will directly connect Waterford. Mallow and Cork. This is rather foolish if we are really serious in believing that we can develop our economy. If Waterford is to be a growth centre and industrial area where there will be a concentration and a growth of factories and industry generally, it is essential that there should be maintained, at least until we see the result, the existing rail facilities serving that important and growing industrial centre.

Also involved in this is the fact that the line we are talking about is part of the Fishguard-Rosslare railway line, built by the company, which was 50 per cent owned by the British interests and 50 per cent by one of the old companies, possibly the Great Southern and Western Railways. It was built along this route because of the facilities which it was designed to offer. British Railways were lectured over many years—the Minister was in the Seanad years ago on this matter—in regard to the facilities they provided between Britain and Ireland, and it was urged on British Railways the importance to us and to our economy of providing adequate services, particularly for our tourist industry for which the Minister also has responsibility. We have seen in recent years a development of the services provided by British Railways, after many years of complaints. We all know now that the facilities are good. There has been a vast improvement in the last year or eighteen months and we have attached importance to this because of the value to our economy of the tourist industry. Now we are proposing to close part of the Rosslare-Fishguard Railway Company line. If British Railways, in turn, decide that they will close the line serving Fishguard, how can we complain? They could equally argue that the line into Fishguard is uneconomic, that the services to Fishguard could be provided by a few buses and lorries. It is not simply Fishguard. It is part of the whole line, the whole service linking South Wales, Southern England, London, to the southern part of the 26 Counties. This is the direct route. Here we are proposing to close a line which was built in order to service this route and in which British interests were involved at the time and in which British Railways, I think, still have a 50 per cent interest. We would look very foolish if we started complaining later on if British Railways were to close the line on their side, namely, the line into Fishguard.

The Minister may well say that there is an alternative route into Cork, a route which would follow the line from Rosslare to Waterford, then up to Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel, and so on, into Limerick Junction and then south to Mallow and Cork again but that, of course, leaves out the important area I have referred to, the West Waterford-East Cork area, and it would close one of the remaining railway links into Waterford city. We have already closed one of them, a line which ran from Kilkenny, from the main line. That is closed already. Now the Minister, in this Bill, is proposing to give CIE authority to close another railway line serving the important area of Waterford. If traffic is now to go via South Tipperary, around Clonmel into Limerick Junction would the Minister say if he is prepared to agree that the large amount of money necessary should be spent properly to develop Limerick Junction? Those of us who travel know that Limerick Junction is a particularly difficult centre in regard to traffic operations. There is the backing in of trains to the main platform—an island platform. A great deal of money would be necessary in order to make that a proper junction so that trains could get through quickly and avoid all the loss of money and time involved in the present arrangement. Now the Minister is proposing that more traffic should be routed through Limerick Junction. That will lead to further delays and difficulties. I wonder has he looked at the problem and is prepared to agree that the money should be spent in order properly to develop Limerick Junction?

I am opposed to the Bill, not so much for what is involved in this particular line but rather in opposition to what I interpret the Minister's policy to be, namely, a change from the policy advocated by Deputy Lemass when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce and accepted and supported by all Parties at that time.

Mr. O'Quigley

This Bill causes another wave of regret among most Members of this House because, here again, we have decided that another serious surgical operation on CIE is necessary. To me, it is always a source of the greatest regret, not based upon any romantic conception of railways but upon hard, practical considerations, that branch lines are being closed down for whatever reason. I quite well remember when the Taoiseach was here as Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1958. He gave us the most positive assurances that when the Transport Bill, 1958, was passed and under the new and vigorous management which was about to take over, and when the necessary moneys were provided for the then ensuing five years, all would be well-but all is not well. It does not look as if there will be any great improvement so long as matters are allowed to go on in the way they have been proceeding for so many years back.

We have now got away from the mood enshrined in section 7 of the 1958 Act that it was possible to provide reasonable, efficient and economic transport services, and so on, and that the Board would become solvent within five years. I remember that many Members of this House at that time protested against the nonsense of incorporating a provision of that kind in legislation when it was clear that it was only a piece of pietistic nonsense, as it was then described. Notwithstanding that, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce—the present Taoiseach—gave us all these solemn assurances, very few of which were realised in practice.

I have said before, and I continue to say, that I do not believe the authorities in CIE—the Chairman, the General Manager, people who have the power of control, people who can make large changes—know what is going on. I do not think the Minister for Transport and Power knows what is going on. He has assured us that he has travelled upon railways and is au fait with what is going on—what passengers have to put up with, the kind of services provided. Every time I travel on a train I could sit down and write a note to CIE telling them the kinds of things that ought not be allowed to happen and the kinds of changes they ought to make. It is always a source of the greatest surprise to me that CIE permit the obvious deficiencies that result from bad management and indifference of approach on the part of the people in authority.

We will get nowhere with our transport problems until we make up our mind that our railways are a necessary service which the community will have to provide for. It is as necessary a service as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We all accept the subsidisation of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We have to pay large sums of money out of taxation for the upkeep and maintenance of the roads, in addition to what is provided by people who use the roads. To fix at £2 million the subsidy to be granted to CIE as the absolute maximum is again the same kind of thing as was done in 1958 when it was said that the Board should become economically viable within five years from the passing of that Bill. So long as that kind of Sword of Damocles is held over the employees of CIE and over the managers in CIE, we shall not have the right approach. People think they are working in a firm that is condemned to be contracted, that they are working against a financial limit, that they will not get the kind of co-operation necessary to make CIE a going concern which, indeed, a transport system ought very much to be.

I am surprised at the failure of CIE to advertise their good wares. They provide some excellent services. Recently, I travelled to Limerick on a Sunday and I retain happy memories of that Journey. Unfortunately, I got a lift back as I should have preferred to come home by train. The cost was only 18/- or 26/- which is superb value in these days. I was not aware that such good value was available from CIE. It was purely accidental that I had to go to Limerick on that Sunday by train, as it was arranged that I should go by car. We must all agree that it is very good value to travel 240 miles for 18/- or 26/—I forget the correct figure. Consider the cost in terms of driving— the cost of petrol, wear and tear, and so on. CIE provide superb value in that way and one would not get better value for his money these days, no matter how else lie employed it. I am quite certain that equally good services are provided by CIE but that they do not tell people about them.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

The Senator might have been lucky that he did not travel back by train.

Mr. O'Quigley

The train was not overcrowded. I am quite satisfied that if I had come back by train that evening, it would not have been overcrowded.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

The Senator might have had some nice company.

Mr. O'Quigley

I was travelling second-class. If it is a question of rowdyism, there are ways and means of dealing with it. I recollect that, when we re-established CIE and thought we were putting them on their feet, in 1958, there was a great reorganisation within CIE. I have here the telephone directory and it is festooned——

Mr. Childers

On a point of order, I am quite prepared, if the Chair declares it to be necessary, to have a general debate on the whole working of CIE. The Seanad, in its wisdom, might be here for two or three days. We are not discussing the Transport Bill, 1964, or the new Transport Bill, 1969. I am at the disposal of the Seanad. Senator O'Quigley is carrying this debate into realms far beyond the purpose of the Bill. Perhaps the Chair would like to give some direction because we shall be here for a very long time, once the debate extends into the general administration of CIE.

An Cathaoirleach

The Chair is watching the debate.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am glad I am not yet quite out of order.

Mr. Childers

That is all right.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a Bill to make further provision in relation to transport. We are entitled to talk fairly widely upon the subject of CIE. In the course of his speech, the Minister referred to efforts by CIE to reduce their losses. I am trying to give the Minister, and, through him, CIE, some help in trying to reduce their losses.

Mr. Murphy

Travel by rail, so.

Mr. O'Quigley

I do not travel by rail as often as I should like. One way in which CIE can help to reduce their losses is by advertising to greater effect the services which they provide. As I say, I think they have very few lights and, such as they have, they appear to hide under a bushel. It seems to me Córas Iompair Éireann will continue to decline and we shall have more Bills of this kind if they do not look into some of the fundamentals involved in the running of any transport system. One of the fundamentals is that there should be punctuality. I do not think CIE err to any great extent under that heading, but there are ancillary services which CIE fail to provide. Certainly the catering services as far as the western area is concerned are wholly inadequate. I have complained before against this physiological directive to passengers travelling west of the Shannon that, when they enter Mayo, they shall cease to have stomachs and appetites, cease to be hungry or thirsty. CIE say that, after Athlone, all people going into Mayo must not be hungry or thirsty and small children and babies must not require bottles heated, or anything of that kind.

An Cathaoirleach

We will now come to the other section.

Mr. O'Quigley

So long as CIE do that kind of thing, there is great danger that what is now happening in Fermoy will very shortly happen in Mayo and we shall find CIE cutting off the Mayo line in the same way as they are cutting off the line from Rosslare to Cork. There is nobody in a better position to oppose this kind of thing than the Minister for Transport and Power. He can put a stop to what is being sought to be done by CIE through the agency of this Bill.

The Minister is in charge of a Department which is, in my opinion, one of the most important in the State. He is also in charge of tourism. It is hardly necessary to point out that if a longer route to one's destination is provided, it will not encourage tourism. More important, this country at the moment is a haven for British motorists and for people coming from the crowded streets of English cities and the crowded roads of the English rural areas. The more buses that are put on the roads, the more of these horrible lorries, the less attractive we will make the country from the point of view of tourists. It is regrettable that we should be diverting more and more traffic to the roads at a time when we should be trying to preserve the things that make this country so attractive from the point of view of the enormous tourist potential from the British Isles.

The Minister tells us there will be five single-deck buses in substitution for this service which will be dispensed with under this Bill. Córas Iompair Éireann have an obligation to provide proper services at different points along the route on which this bus service will be substituted. CIE are also under obligation to provide proper amenities in substitution for those normally to be found at railway stations. In some of the areas in which branch lines have been closed down, people are compelled to hang around in the open waiting to catch buses or meet passengers coming off buses. There are absolutely no amenities, no heated waiting rooms, no lighting, and no toilet facilities of any kind. In my opinion, CIE should provide suitable waiting accommodation at points along the route to serve the public in the same way as the railway stations served the public so that people will have some degree of comfort and hygiene. The taproom of a public house is not a suitable place in which to ask people to wait for buses. In wintry weather the streets are not suitable places in which to require people to wait for buses; neither is the outside of shops. There are people who do not frequent public houses. There are young boys and girls going to or coming from school; they cannot wait in public houses. Since CIE are doing away with the railway stations, there is an obligation on them to provide suitable alternative waiting accommodation.

The Minister has referred to the fact that there will be an increase of 20 minutes in the alternative route. I do not suppose that will make a tremendous difference but it is rather a pity that it is not a shorter route of shorter duration. Will there be an increase in fares because of the longer distance to be travelled and the longer time involved?

There is, too, the problem of abandoned railway lines. A good example of what happens is that of the line from Harcourt Street to Bray. Sections of that line have been sold to adjoining landowners. That may be a good thing from the point of view of providing some much needed capital for CIE but I wonder whether it is good policy in the long run. These lines could be turned into one-way highways, thereby relieving congestion on the roads. The number of cars is increasing and such alternative roads could prove a valuable asset in helping to reduce traffic congestion on the roads. The danger is that, if these sections of abandoned line are sold, some time in the future they may have to be bought back again or compulsorily acquired and the owners compensated. That is an aspect that should be considered by the Minister, his Department and Córas Iompair Éireann in conjunction with the Minister for Local Government and the relevant local authorities.

There is no provision in the Bill with regard to redundancy. It may be that there will be no redundancy. If there is redundancy, there is no reason whatever for giving less favourable treatment to those rendered redundant under this Bill than was accorded under other pieces of transport legislation up to this. There may be some provision in the Bill under which those who may become redundant will automatically be entitled to the same compensation as the people were in 1958, but I have been unable to discover it. I should like the Minister to clear up that point.

There is a point in regard to section 5 which I can take up on Committee Stage. However, I do want to say that it is with the greatest reluctance that I would assent to the passing of this Bill, which, as Senator O'Sullivan pointed out, comes before us only as a legal technicality. The Minister and the Government should reorganise their thinking about railways and realise that rail transport in this country inevitably falls into the same category as postal services and road services which have to be subsidised regularly out of public funds.

Mr. Honan

Much has been said about the closing of railways and one can be quite sure that when anybody says anything about closing a railway line, one will see many crocodile tears being shed and will see displays of histrionics. I am sure that when the Minister has to decide to close a line he has very good reasons for even considering it. Most of the reasons stem from the fact that the people themselves abandon the railway lines. Most of the people who engage in the greatest protests at the time of a closing are those who are responsible for the closing by virtue of the fact that they have traffic which they could offer to the line but do not do so. We had the same situation in Clare over the West Clare line. Deputations came from all over West Clare composed of important persons who had traffic to give but would not give it. It was traffic which would have remunerated the line, but instead they gave it the traffic which would not be carried by anybody else.

If anybody came along now and asked to have the West Clare line reinstated and the present road system withdrawn, the howl would be heard from one end of the country to the other because the people know that now they have a much better service provided by the road section than they could ever hope to get from the railway system. Anybody who wants to look at the thing sensibly knows that the railways were built at a time when economic conditions demanded a particular service and the best that could be done at the time was to provide the railway system. Railway stations were often located at places determined by the route taken by the system and in most cases they are to be found in the most inconvenient locations.

I do not think anybody could make a good case for some of the redundant lines because private concerns, if they can afford to do so, are providing their own transport. In other cases they are engaging people who can offer these services. Thus they have neglected and walked away from the railways for good, sound economic reasons. So far as the employees are concerned, my experience is that the people who were made redundant were so well treated by CIE that there was great jealousy among the people who are not re-dupdant and who tried to get influence used to have themselves made redundant. I do not think that the employees suffered in any way. Generally, the people have got a better service, the roads have improved very considerably, to the advantage of the motorist who is always using them, and I do not think the people would want to go back.

Mr. McDonald

I regret that it has been necessary to introduce this Bill because while it is easy to close down a service and tear up a system, it is a different matter to provide replacements. I have had some experience of this because in my own county the line between Portarlington and Kilkenny was closed some years ago. The effect of that closure was to burden the county council with the removal of a number of obsolete railway bridges, and we have been left with many derelict sites in the shape of railway stations, and the railway line itself is in a disused condition. This certainly is not in accord with the Minister's responsibility in regard to tidy towns. What the country needs at present is not a new Dr. Andrews to continue on the present queer system of CIE but a new Percy French who will whip up public opinion and get those in charge of CIE to tackle this problem realistically.

Senator Honan outlined the reasons why people are not using the CIE services. I assure the Minister and the House that the reason is purely one of economics. CIE charges are high, and if transport is opened again to private enterprise, the public will have a much more efficient and cheaper transport system. I cannot understand how private individuals can equip themselves with buses and run services which are not in competition with CIE, except in regard to tours: I know of private buses which are being used to service routes which CIE would deem uneconomic.

The Minister said that the number of fares taken up on the 76 miles of railway line, serving 14 intermediate stations, was an average of eight or nine per day. In order to cater for these eight or nine people, CIE find it necessary to purchase five new single-deck buses and seven lorries and trailers. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to have so much equipment to transport nine or ten people. Surely there is something inconsistent in the Minister's figures and perhaps he would explain them in his reply.

CIE appear to put very little thought into their decisions. Last year the railway station at Geesala, on the Athlone line, was closed down. There is a single track there and while they closed the station, it was necessary to retain the services of two men, the stationmaster and another man, because trains were forced to pull in to allow other trains to pass. Residents from that area who wish to avail of the CIE services had to travel 12 miles to Tullamore to get a train. The train then came back to their own station before continuing on its journey. Surely in a case like that, where the staff have to be maintained for shunting and other purposes, we could devise a system of a one-man station where one officer would be able to act as ticket seller and the lot, especially for the convenience of the public.

CIE forget they are giving a public service. They have had a monopoly of that service and like many other services it has not been paying its way. The public know that. People living in rural Ireland have as much right to expect some service from the public services, to which the taxpayers are subscribing generally, as anybody else in any other part of the country. I would use the CIE train service entirely if it suited me but it does not suit my particular business. The speed and efficiency of the service from Portlaoise to Dublin are very good. That is the part of the rail system with which I am quite familiar. I feel it is second to none. As Senator O'Quigley said, it is a most reasonable and cheap service.

At the present time with the increase in taxation on motor cars, and the increase on petrol I feel that many cars will go off the road. Therefore, it is regrettable that the Government should deprive the people of the transport service. I would have preferred to see CIE endeavouring to sell their services in a much better way. A couple of years ago they did that to quite an extent in their advertising on Telefís Éireann. Perhaps the Minister would indicate whether or not the money the Board spent on advertising paid any dividends at all. It is a pity to see this great State concern go. Several reasons are given for this but it should be within the competence of CIE to correct them.

It is bad that those at the top in CIE in Dublin are completely out of touch with what is happening down the country. The rules and regulations of CIE should be a little bit more flexible. CIE should be able to suit their clients' wants. I should also like to refer to the exorbitant charges which CIE make for cattle and livestock haulage. This is something which should be looked into. In many cases where people want to transport a prize animal to a show CIE could do a little more to bring their charges to some reasonable figure.

If the Minister insists on closing the Southern railway line, he should as an experiment hand the region over completely to private enterprise and see if private hauliers and bus owners could provide as good a service to the public at a much cheaper rate. I believe they could provide it at a much cheaper rate than CIE are at present able to do.

We are told that it costs up to £100,000 a mile to lay down a new dual carriageway. I am not overawed by the Minister's figure of £334,000 for new rolling stock should the railway line remain open. I should like to know the cost of a new locomotive, also the cost of the new single-deck buses and lorries which are necessary to provide a service for the dozen or so people whom the Minister states are the only people using the railway lines in question at the present time.

The public relations aspect of CIE, and especially of the Minister's own Department, needs to be overhauled. That is something to which the Minister could devote a little more time than he does. I know that the Minister has been criticised in the past for his disowning of CIE when any problems arise. If there were better public relations, especially where Members of the Dáil ask questions of local importance and if the Minister adopted a different attitude and endeavoured to meet Deputies' queries in this regard, people might, perhaps, take a more lenient view and he would not be drawing as much criticism of his Department as he is. After all, public relations could be good for business. We have an excellent service but the whole thing is to provide a service to suit the majority of the public. Having regard to the cost of motoring at the present time more and more people will be abandoning their own transport and turning to the railways. For that reason, CIE should do their best to provide as good a service as possible for the public.

Mr. Flanagan

I should just like to say a few words regarding the closing of railways. We had experience of that in the west. The whole thing arises out of an evolution, a changing of times, a changing of the requirements of the people and the people demanding facilities and services which are best suited to themselves. I can remember the time when we had guaranteed railways. As a matter of fact, I was a member of two sections of those guaranteed railways. In those early days the number expected to travel on them was sufficient to justify the construction of those lines. When they were abandoned, they were abandoned by the people for whose use and benefit they were constructed. Those people felt it was in their own best interests to allow those sections of railway line to be abandoned rather than provide the small subsidy—it might have been a considerable subsidy for them—to keep the lines in existence.

Later on, after CIE was established, sections of lines were abandoned. The main reason those sections were abandoned has been very clearly stated in this House. It was because it was in the best interests of the people using the lines that they were closed. The people did not use the lines. There is no use placing the blame where blame does not lie. I personally counted among my very great friends the last two Chairmen of CIE, Dr. C. S. Andrews, and before him Mr. T.C. Courtney. I know these men were absolutely dedicated men. Mr. Courtney, God rest his soul, was taken out of the Department of Local Government. He was then Engineering Adviser to the Department of Local Government and he was taken out of that very responsible office and appointed Chairman of CIE. It is a coincidence that these two people were appointed by different Governments representing different thinking. One, to my mind, was as dedicated as the other and both of these were in the closest possible contact with the problems they were given.

I know furthermore that, in the case of the late Mr. Courtney, he was promised a particular salary which could not be realised, unless and until he made the railways a paying proposition. He tried that and he failed, and any other person who tries to keep the railways of this country, as they existed, a paying proposition will fail. That is generally recognised now. We have had during my time in Seanad Éireann a Bill which authorised a subsidy of £2 million a year to maintain CIE. That amount cannot be exceeded and the responsibility of the Minister and the responsibility of the Chairman and Board of CIE is to operate within that annual subsidy.

Senator D.J. O'Sullivan said that the new services have resulted in a substantial increase, or may result in a substantial increase, in the cost of delivery of goods. I fail to see that, in view of the fact that as I travel 150 miles from the west of Ireland a few times in the month, sometimes by road and more often than Senator O'Quigley by rail, I meet lorries on the road from Claremorris, Ballyhaunis and Castlebar which are already being served by a very adequate rail service. I meet lorries going out across the country to Belmullet, although there is a good service to Ballina, within 50 miles of Belmullet. These people by using their own lorries on the roads disprove the allegation that the new service will cost more than the existing service.

It is also suggested that the old railway stations may be used as shelters. Anybody who studied the old railway system in this country must have realised that in the construction of the railways every effort was made to keep the cost as low as possible. Consequently, all our railways run through the poorest country, through bogs and they were never brought into the towns. Sometimes they were brought convenient to the towns but most of the railway stations are a mile or more from the centre of the towns. How people can suggest that these old railway stations could be used as shelters and that the bus services could operate from these railway stations beats me. They are out of touch with reality.

Mr. O'Quigley

Nobody suggested that here today.

Mr. Flanagan

Indeed they did.

Mr. O'Quigley

Nobody did. Could the Senator name the Senator who said it? I did not.

Mr. Flanagan

I did not say the Senator did; it was Senator D.J. O'Sullivan who said it. I agree that the bus depots in the towns are very often quite inconvenient and not up to the standard we would all like to see. I agree with Senator O'Quigley that this is a matter which should be looked into. As far as possible, more suitable accommodation should be provided, particularly in the larger centres, rather than having people use the taproom of a public house or stand in the street. There should be a reasonable waiting room with reasonable accommodation in the large centres.

Senator O'Quigley made one historic journey to Limerick which cost him something like 17/- or 18/- but he must not have travelled on the west of Ireland trains recently. The last time he travelled, there was no dining car west of the Shannon. I very frequently travel on the 10 o'clock train from Castlebar to Dublin and very often on the 2.55 or 6.50 from Dublin to Castlebar and on all those there are dining car facilities.

Mr. O'Quigley

Not on the 6.50 from Westland Row.

Mr. Flanagan

Yes, there are.

Mr. O'Quigley

Nonsense. You will not find it in the CIE guide, not past Athlone.

Mr. Flanagan

The Senator must not have been on those trains recently.

Mr. O'Quigley

I was on them.

Mr. Flanagan

We all have in mind, and sympathise with, Senator Murphy's interest and concern for the employees who may become redundant as a result of the closure of a particular railway line, but I think that although he expresses that concern and we sympathise with him, the concern is not very seriously founded because in most cases these people are given alternative employment. I agree with one Senator who said that in many cases they would prefer to be considered redundant than to be kept on because the alternative was more attractive.

Senator McDonald questioned the demolition of bridges. Generally, the demolition of bridges on a railway line is dealt with by Government grant and does not fall on the ratepayers. He asked a question about the cost of providing transport and the number of buses required to accommodate travellers on the line now about to be abandoned. The Minister said there was on an average eight or nine passengers per 14 stations, or 120 passengers per day—not eight or nine as Senator McDonald said.

With regard to opinion in the country generally, on the suggested closing of a railway line there is an outburst and more often it is an outburst emanating from some local organisation which of itself possibly cannot be of great service or give much traffic to the railway line, but, in any case, which does not represent people who could give a lot of traffic to the railway line. Those people who have traffic and who are not giving it to the railways are generally mute. They have not a word to say and know very well that they are not using the railway line and are not concerned whether a particular branch is closed or not.

Once a branch is closed and the road repaired and put into good condition by grants by the Government, the people are delighted rather than displeased. They adjust themselves to the new conditions and nobody will convince me that the type of transport of stock which starts off in Belmullet through Claremorris up to the midlands is preferable. I saw them, when I came along today. I saw them at Edgeworthstown and other places where they have their marts; they load their cattle on to the trucks and take them right on to the farm. That is what suits the people and, as far as the ordinary passenger traffic is concerned on those small sections of the line, I would say that one in four or one in five of the houses in the west of Ireland has a motor car at the present. There is no isolated village in the County of Mayo at the present time. I go out fishing and, when one goes out fishing in the remote areas, one sees a car at every second or third house. Those people do not want rail transport, they have their own means and if the branch lines were there, they would not use them.

We must support the Minister in the action he is forced to take by the circumstances, by the lack of passenger traffic, by the lack of goods traffic on the lines and operating, as he must do, within the terms of the subsidy, which is very definitely limited, we must give the Minister the permission he seeks to close down this particular railway line.

Professor Quinlan

At the outset, I wish to join with the last speaker, Senator Flanagan, in the tributes he paid to the last two Chairmen of CIE, the late Mr. T.C. Courtney and Dr. C.S. Andrews, for their work for CIE. Their work as great public servants should be known to everyone and appreciated by all. It is a pity it has been the subject of so much wrong comment in recent months because whatever gratuities or pension to which the Chairman of CIE was entitled were laid down by an Act of the Oireachtas some four years ago. Consequently, it was known to all and was regarded, at that time, as the minimum incentive necessary to entice a man of adequate standing to face the very difficult and unrewarding task of trying to make CIE pay their way. Dr. Andrews deserves the gratitude of all for the intense effort he made to have them pay their way and I am very glad to have an opportunity of joining with my colleague, Senator Flanagan, in this tribute in this House.

Turning to the Bill itself, I think it would never have come before us were it not for a doubt about the legality of CIE being entitled to close this line. I think the next line on the schedule, which is probably the Mallow-Killarney line, will fall without any opportunity to discuss it in the House. It is a pity to see this happening. I know, at the present stage in our evolution, it does seem that the tendency is away from rail traffic to road traffic. But just as surely as this is the tendency in the evolution today, that must go on, and in a very short time the swing will be back to the railroads, or, at least, to what we might call the main traffic lines, the main arteries of traffic where I hope and expect that engineering inventiveness will have perfected the means of a quick transition from road to railroad.

Indeed, we all ought to be perturbed at seeing the increasing congestion on our roads today and the great part played in that by these trailers and lorries, and especially by the abominable lorries with trailers which are, in many ways, a greater hazard on the roads today than the speed-hog because, while the speed-hog goes along at an excessive speed, they err on the other side and, consequently, bottle up traffic on the main lines. The only solution at present would seem to be wider roads, dual carriageways or some opportunities of passing these lorries. It is high time the Minister took cognisance of the threat posed by these lorries and trailers and laid down a minimum speed for them or else let the lorries operate as lorries without trailers attached.

I do think in the very near future it will be commonplace for such traffic to be diverted on to the main lines for freight, one might say, that is our railroads. At present there are great economic difficulties about that because the prices charged by CIE for this are not, in many cases, competitive with what the firm could do it for themselves. It is something which should be capable of being ironed out in the future; it is all a case of the chicken and the egg. If CIE can get a lot more freight they can charge this, but they will not get a lot more freight until they charge this, so which has got to come first? In England at the present time they are very anxiously exploring ways and means of getting a good deal of the heavy goods traffic off their roads and on to their railroads. This is something we should watch very carefully and that is why I am always perturbed about seeing main arteries closed down because, once you have closed a main railroad, you cannot reopen it without great cost.

I am not very impressed by the figures quoted by the Minister or, indeed, for that matter, by the reliability of the figures we are ever given to justify various Government actions. We are always finding, having been told a certain thing will cost 2/6 in the £ on the rates, that afterwards it cost not that but four, five or six times that amount. It is the same thing in all the claims usually made by Ministers about savings which will result from closing branch lines and so on. I do not think those savings ever materialise. I should like—and it would be very instructive if it could be done—to have a report by a couple of efficiency experts, operations and methods men, on the actual situation which has evolved out of the closure of the West Cork railroad. It would be a great guide for the future to know precisely what has been the overall saving, if any—and "if any", I think, are the operative words—to the country as a whole due to that action. Probably it is very hard to disentangle it but the extra expenditure on the roads over and above probably what would have been necessary in any case, has been rather defeated in that we have failed to get the heavy freight off the roads and on to the railroads. Therefore, our solution seems to be to put it all on the roads.

There is an astonishing claim made in the present report that if the line remained open, it would be necessary to spend another one-third of a million pounds on additional replacement locomotives. On the other hand, we are told that most of the really heavy passenger traffic on the line from Rosslare to Cork will be carried by CIE in any case. It will be carried by Limerick Junction.

I do not want to press this cost analysis too far: it is only a bookkeeping device. If you have to carry for a certain extra number of miles, you probably multiply by the increased percentage of mileage that has to be gone through. Equally, there is no foundation for this, because we are dealing only with 76 miles of line which is one-thirtieth of the national network. The total of all the freight operated on the national network today is given as under £15 million. How then would we require on this little-used portion of that line an expenditure of £1/3 million? In cost analysis, if you make an arbitrary assumption, you get an arbitrary result. You have to make some assumptions, but this one seems to be taking the straight line method of cost analysis much too far.

Again, the amount of equipment is suspiciously close to being two-thirds of the average amount of equipment per line on the existing railways system. I do not think that can seriously be justified. In any case, there will be new buses and new trucks. It is very difficult to make any firm estimate but I doubt if there will be any real saving. I for one cannot see CIE, a year after the closure of this line, having their losses reduced by £50,000. The whole concept of what is an economic unit needs to be gone into. Today, an economic line is not one that breaks even, which is the standard meaning of an economic unit. It is one that is not losing more than is lost on an average mile of railroad track.

I dislike seeing trunk roads, even if they are iron roads, being dismantled while there is still a hope that the engineers will succeed in completing the present evolution and switch the traffic from road to rail at very little inconvenience, thereby providing an efficient railroad system rather than pushing all the traffic on to the road system, which could store up many problems for us in the future.

Mr. Malone

I want to put a brief question to the Minister on an item which has been mentioned by various speakers in the debate. Does the Minister have prior consultations with his colleague in the Department of Local Government about the roads which will have to carry the additional traffic when a line is closed? Invariably we find that when a railway line is closed, roads which were never intended to carry heavy traffic are immediately cluttered with it. Regardless of the merits of this case, a line should never be closed until the Minister has made sure that the roads are adequate to cater for the huge volume of traffic which will flow from the closing of a line. The disruption of traffic on the roads as a result of the necessary repairs being carried out because of increased heavy traffic, the diversions, the frustrating travelling, and so on, could be avoided if, when it was intended to close a line, the Minister would make sure, through his colleague in the Department of Local Government, that the roads were capable of carrying the extra heavy traffic before the line was closed, and not wait to lock the stable door when the horse has gone.

Mr. Rooney

This Bill demonstrates the tangled mess into which our railway system has been brought by the Government Party. From the day our transport system was nationalised, it began to decline, and the element of private enterprise disappeared. It is regrettable that the closure which is about to take place will create a certain amount of hardship for those who depend on the services provided on that line. However, the figures which the Minister has given, if we can take them as being perfectly accurate, provide the Minister with a strong case for closing this line, but that does not relieve him and his Party of the guilt for making a mess of our national transport system.

When this line is closed, there will be extra traffic on our public roads. The Government are not spending all of the Road Fund towards the construction and maintenance of our public roads. In my view, this track could be turned into a roadway and some of the Road Fund should be used for that purpose so that heavy traffic could be diverted to this new traffic line. That would take a certain amount of traffic off the roads which are already crowded. Many people are being killed and accidents are happening on the roads because our roads are not capable of taking the volume of traffic and providing the facilities for the higher speeds of which modern transport is capable. I believe that the Minister should give an assurance now that the Government will consider using part of the Road Fund for the purpose of turning this railway line into a roadway for heavy traffic. This would take the heavy traffic off the other public roads which will, of course, have to bear the extra traffic diverted from the railway. Previous speakers have indicated various problems which the Bill will create. The Minister must face up to the fact that it was a mistake to nationalise transport in this country. I know the Minister will put up arguments, which will seem acceptable, to soften down the effect of nationalisation but we must realise that since the day nationalisation took place traffic on the railways has dwindled until now we are in the process of closing down line after line. Here we propose to close down another 76 miles of railway.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

The debate has been interesting. Senators, no doubt quite rightly, raised issues which go far beyond the ambit of the Bill. In connection with the section of the Bill dealing with the abandonment of the land owned by CIE when the railway is closed, no land has yet been sold on or beside the Mallow-Waterford line. The section of the Bill dealing with abandonment of land and the method of disposal of land will apply generally all over the country. It will not apply to the Mallow-Waterford line until it has been decided to close it. Therefore, there is no commitment on CIE in regard to the selling of property along the line to private individuals by viewing in advance the inevitability of its closure.

Senator D.J. O'Sullivan said that the coming retirement of Dr. Andrews has something to do with Government policy in relation to transport. That is not true. Everything that has been done in relation to CIE—the passing of the 1964 Transport Act, for instance—was done with full cognisance of the Chairman and Board of CIE who accepted decisions of Oireachtas Éireann in regard to CIE and the limitations of the subsidy to which CIE are entitled. The coming retirement of the Chairman bears no relation to any alleged change of attitude on my part or on the part of any of my colleagues to transport policy. Everything I have said recently, and particularly my observations in December, 1965, about the future of CIE was said with the knowledge and the forethought of the Minister for Industry and Commerce who was interested with me in the development of trade and industry and in industrial relations.

I wish to deny the rumours being circulated that I have been out on a limb because of my particular attitude to CIE and the future of CIE.

I am very glad that some Senators referred to the fact that when meetings of protest are held in connection with the proposed closing of a railway line the vast majority of those present have never made use of the services. That is one of the human difficulties associated with the closing of railway lines. It is the same in every country. I have met most Ministers of Transport in Europe: I have been with them constantly in connection with the Ministers of Transport Conference and I know they go through the same difficulties as we do. They have to deal with the same traditional reverence for the railways in every country, including some of the more modern countries using the most modern techniques. This is a human difficulty affecting other countries besides ours.

I have been asked about the number of CIE lines which are profitable at present and how does one judge what is a profitable and an unprofitable section of line. The answer is that 410 miles of line are truly profitable, 750 miles are unprofitable and 300 miles are marginally profitable. The lines closed are those where there is a very extensive loss in comparison with the others, taking into account the proportion of the line which is not economic which can contribute revenue towards an economic line. A main arterial line may suffer through the closing of certain branch lines but in other cases the minimal traffic on one branch line may make it more profitable to carry the traffic by lorry.

Reference was made to the subsidy paid to CIE and it was suggested that quite possibly it is not sufficient. The subsidy is £2 million, equivalent to 4s 6d per pound of rail freight and rail passenger revenue. To use a rather vulgar phrase, I think it is the hell of a subsidy for the taxpayer to pay 4s 6d per pound of rail freight and rail passenger revenue. It is a very good subsidy indeed. It is equivalent, incidentally, to a tax of 4d per gallon on petrol. If anybody would cheerfully like to suggest in Dáil Éireann that another 4d a gallon be imposed on petrol to double the subsidy for CIE I should like to hear him make the suggestion. Fourpence a gallon on petrol is a fairly good impost.

Mr. O'Quigley

If it were imposed specifically for that purpose there would be a very great rush to the railway stations.

Mr. Childers

There were observations, quite rightly, in regard to the possible damage to the roads occasioned by the closing of this line. I honestly do not believe that some 12 heavy vehicles will seriously affect the roads that run alongside the railway. I know very well that as in the case of other lines that were closed there will be a tremendous protest and that the county engineer, quite rightly, on his own behalf and on behalf of the county councillors whose county council administer the road services, will complain, but there will be improvements needed anywhere in the next 20 years and they could not possibly be said to relate to the immediate impact on the road services of the additional buses and lorries to carry the traffic diverted from the railway. In this case, the major through traffic will be carried on the Waterford-Clonmel-Limerick Junction line.

One Senator referred to the increases in charges by CIE. Of course, these are inevitable when costs go up. Labour costs have regularly increased on all transport services everywhere, particularly on railways which, of the safety requirements, particularly on lines where the traffic is light and which in the case of CIE involves 61 per cent of total costs. Even if inflation can be evaded by relating wages and salaries to productivity, the transport services are affected seriously by the level of salaries and wages because of the inability to decrease the labour content over large sections of the system due to safety requirements.

Some Senators suggested CIE should be a social service. Of course, it is a social service. It is already trans-subsidised within itself in that the more profitable services of both freight and road and rail passengers are allowed to subsidise the less profitable services. It is true to say that all the services of the remote rural areas are not only subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £2 million a year but are also subsidised within the system, and a small proportion of the road passenger services, rail services and freight services make profits and there are a great number of services that do not pay and these are trans-subsidised by the more profitable services.

Senator Flanagan gave a very good history of the railway and the inevitable changes that have taken place through the adoption of private transport by a huge number of people. He has indicated the changes of habit that have taken place in this country, and there again we are not alone. Thousands of miles of railway lines are being closed all over Europe, and although Ministers for Transport differ in their attitude, they generally agree at some point to the closing of a railway line, whereas there may be in certain countries a more restrictive attitude. I can assure Senators that allowing for the fact that there is a reasonably good road system in this country, the kind of lines that have been closed in the past six years come within the category of lines that in the case of most countries in Europe would be regarded as suitable for closing and for replacement by road traffic. As Senator Flanagan and Senator Honan remarked, when a substitute service of buses and lorries is provided, people in the area begin to realise that the bus and the lorry can reach more people, are more convenient and afford a better distribution and collection of goods system and a better method of transport for those people who do not have their own private cars, motorcycles or cycles.

The redundancy compensation provisions apply to all the staff who may cease to have employment on the Mallow-Waterford line, if it is decided to close it. I want to assure the Seanad on that that there is no question of the 1958 legislation applying.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is in the 1964 Act?

Mr. Childers

The 1964 Act, which again relates to the 1958 Act. The rate of redundancy will apply, but the redundancy on this occasion would be paid by CIE and not by the State. That was provided for in the 1964 Act.

The impression has been given by some Senators that it is my policy to sell the railwaymen of CIE down the line, to quote one Senator. All I have been is absolutely frank with the staff of CIE. I pointed out that there is such a growth of private transport, such an enormous investment to the tune of £30 million a year in new equipment, that one is bound to treat CIE as a nationalised enterprise which is subject to heavy and very efficient competition. When these State companies were started at different stages —most of them by my Government and some of them, including the ESB, at an earlier stage—they were not started for socialist reasons. They were started because either the State company set up in a particular way was able to do a better job than private enterprise, had to take over a bankrupt private enterprise or was engaged in some entirely new form of production.

I have to look at each State company—and so do the Government— in a different light. In the case of Aer Lingus, there is competition by surface transport but there is no private enterprise, Irish-owned, attempting to compete with Aer Lingus on a large scale. Bord na Móna has to compete with importations of coal but there at least is no competitor on a large scale in this country attempting to produce briquettes and milled peat. In the case of CIE, there is growing and continuous competition, and all I have said to the management and staff of CIE is that they have to face the competition and not engage in exercises that are going to swell the costs of CIE to the point that they no longer can increase their charges, because if they increase their charges excessively, they will lose traffic and to a point which would be asking the public to pay a subsidy grossly in excess of what is required, having regard to the tremendous growth of private transport and to the huge quantities of goods now carried by companies in their own transport in this and in every other country.

That is the point, and I have seen CIE, in spite of this competition, increase their volume of traffic over the past six years, increase their road freight traffic by some 58 per cent, increase the number of passenger miles on the shortened railway system by three per cent and increase by some very modest percentage the number of road passengers, in face of all this competition. Therefore I believe they have the capacity to maintain and even to expand traffic, provided they are given a reasonable chance of conducting their operations without excessive interruption.

Mr. Rooney

But they are aided by subsidy.

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Mr. Rooney

Private people have no subsidy.

Mr. Childers

One Senator made the suggestion that we should be willing to increase constantly the subsidy. I do not think this idea would be good for any State company. To give a State company in any country the impression that there was, on the occasion of the Budget, a possibility of an increased subsidy would simply be asking for inefficiency of a purely human kind and for inflation of the company's costs, and I think the Members of the Seanad, in the vast majority, would agree with me in that statement.

Getting back again to the whole question of railways, Senator Quinlan suggested there might be a postponement of the closing of the line until it was quite certain that it would form part of a railway system that had been revitalised through modern techniques. It is possible that in the future the economic distance upon which a 125 to 200 miles per hour railway express might run may reduce from 300 to 800 miles to the length of the Cork line. I very much doubt it, but I can assure the Senator that if both of us live long enough, no one will see the day when a very short twisting single railway line can be revitalised to take very high speed traffic. I just do not believe it will happen. I think people will be perhaps leaving the roads and getting into the air before they will start making use of single lines such as this for high speed traffic based on new techniques.

Professor Quinlan

I was referring to freight, not passengers.

Mr. Childers

Other Senators asked some questions about the use of disused railway lines. First of all, I have consulted the Minister for Local Government about the closing of this railway line. If it is closed, it will be up to the local authorities to make such representations as they desire if they think the roads are going to be severely damaged. The Minister for Local Government may have sufficient funds to give a once and for all grant, as he did in other cases, when lines were closed and when county councils claimed certain parts of the road needed improvement because of the growth of lorry and bus traffic. I regret that having made a study of the question as far as I can, I find that very few engineers anywhere in the world seem to want to make use of abandoned railway tracks for road purposes.

That is not absolutely true of double-line railway tracks that are abandoned but, of course, there are not many double-line railway tracks abandoned. There are in some countries, but I cannot find any evidence that it is considered economic to turn a single track railway line into a road, particularly in rural districts. If it so happened that there was a single track railway line emerging from a city into suburbs, with a huge density of traffic, it might then be worthwhile to have the traffic, for example, go north to south in the morning and south to north in the evening, but even in that case I do not seem to have been given any reassurance by anybody that such a proposal is practicable. I think I am right in saying that Dublin Corporation turned down such a proposal in respect of the Harcourt Street-Bray line where one might consider there would be a case for a single track railway at peak hours. They did not consider it to be economic.

Mr. Rooney

It does not speak well for Dublin Corporation, having regard to the traffic situation now in the city.

Mr. Childers

I do not know anything about the details but I do know that they considered it was not practicable to do it. British Railways have accepted the position that the Mallow-Waterford line will close and it will not diminish their initiative in the improvement of the services via Rosslare and Fishguard. That matter has already been discussed with them.

Limerick Junction is down for improvement. I cannot say at what date the improvement will be undertaken, but in the long list of capital improvements to be undertaken by CIE since 1958, Limerick Junction has been included and I think it is reaching towards the point where the work will be undertaken, although I could not guarantee exactly when, and I agree with the Senators that there should be an improvement of facilities there.

Senator O'Quigley suggested that the Taoiseach in 1958 when speaking on the Transport Bill was extremely optimistic in his general commentary on the likelihood that CIE could pay. I have not brought the reference with me because I did not think the debate would expand beyond the immediate ambit of the Bill, but I can assure the Seanad that the actual quotations from the Taoiseach's speech, indicate that he was guarded. He hoped CIE would make progress and pay but he expressed doubt that the railway system could be made to pay, so he did protect himself in that regard. He did not make an overall statement to the effect that under the new dispensation CIE would finally get into the black for all time.

I might add that the Taoiseach is not the only Minister for Industry and Commerce who has expressed guarded optimism about the future of railways. Ministers for Transport all over Europe in the past 50 years have spoken rosily about the future of reorganised railways and two Coalition Ministers, the Minister for Industry and Commerce in 1950 and the late respected Deputy Norton, in 1955, both made grossly over-optimistic comments on what could happen to CIE if certain re-organisation took place. The reason for this was quite natural because CIE, like other railways, were operating under legislation designed to control and limit their activities and their freedom of operation. They simply did not have the kind of accounting system that has been put in since 1958. Until after 1958 no one really knew what it cost to run traffic over any part of CIE in strictly modern terms. So no one was ever able to furnish Ministers before that with detailed costing analysis of how the system would run, and cost benefit analysis in relation to all parts of the system, including all sections of the tracks. Now that is common practice among modern railways but the Pacemaker Report published by CIE was one of the first of its kind in Europe—a modern analytical examination of the costs of CIE in detail. It enabled us for the first time to assess the whole economic future of CIE and to make up our minds quite definitely that a subsidy should rightly be paid up to a certain limit for the sake of the social element in a public transport system and because of the difficulty of replacing a rail system with any other system, even if it was desirable to do so.

I agree with Senators about the lack of publicity by CIE in certain connections and I am constantly pressing them to modernise some of their publicity in regard to the services they operate, and so forth. I think their publicity could be more widespread but I have noticed an extension of modern forms of publicity recently by CIE, and I hope it will continue.

The rumours that the Killarney line is to close are without justification, and in connection with Senator Quinlan's speech in general, in so far as it referred to the value of the arterial system of CIE, there can be no major decision in connection with the arterial rail system of CIE without a long-term examination, and the fact that the Mallow-Waterford line might close does not relate to any decision by the Government that the main arterial railway lines of CIE should close either now or in the near future.

Senator McDonald referred to various matters in connection with the local administration of CIE. I do hope that all Senators will have no hesitation in contacting area managers where there is evidence of lack of initiative or inefficiency because area managers are supposed to have very considerable delegation of powers to be able to make changes without having too much recourse to headquarters, particularly in matters of a purely local kind. From what I know, they are competent persons and I hope Senators will not hesitate to keep in contact with them because that is the way in which there can be a check on the day to day management of CIE. It is utterly useless to have people asking questions which could reach the Dáil, for example, by the dozen and which, by the political pressure exercised, would completely take away from the independence of the Board. Most Members of the Opposition know this in their heart of hearts. Area managers are there to receive complaints in regard to local services and to act on them.

So far as my own position is concerned, we have a complaints service in my Department and all the complaints that become repetitive and that are numerous in regard to a particular section of the CIE service or any other State company are discussed with the management of CIE at regular intervals and with the management of other State companies in respect of their services. It seems to me that a combination of ministerial general supervision, of general discussion in the Dáil at Estimate time and of contact between the public in general and the area managers of CIE is the best way of ensuring that inefficiency is reduced to the minimum and that the Board and all the executive staff become aware of such inefficiency as exists.

I am very glad that Senator Quinlan took the occasion to pay tribute to Dr. Andrews for what he did for CIE and that Senator Flanagan referred to his work and also to that of Mr. T.C. Courtney. This was very nice to hear after the abuse that has been published in the newspapers from another quarter, to which I will not refer. I was very glad to hear that very rightful tribute to Dr. Andrews for his tremendous exertions and for the fact that CIE traffic, through the cooperation of the vast majority of the staff, has increased, that the efficiency of CIE has increased, that punctuality of the trains is far better than it was and, from very closely examining the operation of the railway system, it is quite evident that there has been an improvement over the years. I think there can be still more improvement.

Senator Quinlan referred to piggyback traffic on the railway, such as large lorries being taken on trucks. That may come in the future on the arterial lines. In Great Britain and America, experience has shown that such traffic seems to be economic only for distances of about 300 miles and upwards. With changes in costings of various kinds in the future, it may be that the CIE system could be used to some extent for that traffic. However, there are restrictions because of the nature of the traffic and the various technical restrictions upon the development of that kind of traffic on any considerable scale.

I do not think one can compare the number of diesel engines in use by CIE, per mile of line. Everything depends on the kind and frequency of the traffic and also on the conditions that apply to the working of the staff, their rest periods, time off, and so on. If this line goes, CIE will have to order only 12 diesel engines instead of 17. The remaining five would be required if this line were maintained. I do not think it is any use to relate the five diesel engines to a particular length of line. They have to be related to the continuous traffic and to the general use to which the line is put. It is not a matter on which I can go into detail at this stage but I am quite certain that CIE made the right kind of calculation about it. I thank the House for a very constructive debate.

Mr. McDonald

Can the Minister tell the House if there is a case under his Department for having four separate transport fleets and whether, if CIE got the business of Bord na Móna, the ESB and Aer Lingus, not to talk of Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann, it would become solvent?

Mr. Childers

I do not think the company would become solvent but I have done everything I can to induce the State companies to make use of one another's services from an economic point of view. They do, to some extent. I think that, with the particular use the ESB make of vehicles, they have not found it possible to use CIE for a great part of their transport services. I have done my best to get cooperation between them.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION I.

Question proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

Is the Minister satisfied that every person who may become redundant on this line is undoubtedly a servant of the Board of CIE? Is there anybody who might become redundant who would be a servant of the company? If that were so, there would not appear to be provision for compensating such a person.

Mr. Childers

When this line ceases to operate, it is deemed to have ceased to operate as though it was always owned by CIE. That is putting it in a general way. Quite certainly, the redundancy legislation applies to all staff of CIE who become redundant.

Mr. O'Quigley

Section 9 of the Transport Act, 1964, provides for compensation for an officer or servant of the Board. Some people may be working on this—maybe at the Rosslare end—who would become redundant and who would, in fact, be officers of the company, the Fishguard-Rosslare company.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Has it any officers?

Mr. O'Quigley

I am concerned to ensure that no person who may be paid by CIE, on being seconded by British Railways, will become redundant and——

Mr. Childers

CIE have been operating the railway services on behalf of the Fishguard-Rosslare company. All the staff are employed by CIE.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is no doubt about that?

Mr. Childers

No.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. McDonald

I am still not satisfied with the figures the Minister gave in relation to the train services on the section of line proposed to be closed. I feel that if CIE were really out to make economies, they would, perhaps, stop the daily passenger service each way, except Sunday—the ordinary passenger service between the 14 stations. The Minister said that, as people will have to travel on the diverted route, the journey will take an extra 20 minutes. I feel that CIE could easily drop the ordinary regular service and operate the existing express service, stopping at each of the 14 stations. I am sure it would not take much more than an extra 20 minutes. In that way, I reckon they should be able to cut the costs by one-fifth.

Mr. Childers

We had a general discussion on the Second Stage. This Bill really only enables CIE to close the Mallow-Waterford line, if they so decide. It would seem to me to be contrary to the procedure of the Oireachtas to begin a Second Stage debate again. I told the Senator that CIE investigated all this. The use of the Mallow-Waterford line from Mallow to Waterford is negligible by current standards and it is best to send the through traffic from Waterford to Limerick and Cork via Clonmel. That is what CIE have decided, having gone into the matter in detail. We have checked their figures. I think it may be taken for granted that they have not made any mistake.

Mr. Murphy

Do I understand the Minister to say that if this closure takes place, CIE will not have to purchase five locomotives? He said they would have to purchase 17 locomotives but that if this closure takes place, the number will probably be reduced by five. In other words, five locomotives are involved in providing the service between Mallow and Waterford. During the summer, the Rosslare express operates twice a day from Cork and twice a day from Rosslare. In other words, the one locomotive does a round trip.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

And will continue to do so.

Mr. Murphy

It will continue to do the longer round trip because there is not an express service between Waterford and Limerick Junction. There is an ordinary diesel train between Waterford and Limerick and again at Limerick Junction, from the main line. There is also another passenger service operating on this Waterford-Mallow line once a day. I am sure the Minister is well aware that the modern diesel electric locomotives operate practically 24 hours all round the country. If you subtract one service from it and thereby save five locomotives, it seems extraordinary, to say the least of it. I do not know if the Minister is in error about this but it simply does not make sense.

Mr. Childers

That is the information I have been given. I do not think CIE would deliberately overstate the number of diesels they were going to purchase. It is related, of course, as the Senator said, to the portion of the Clonmel line. I do not think the House need doubt that the statement is, generally speaking, correct.

Mr. Murphy

Is it right to say that this is what CIE said, remembering that the Minister has a responsibility to understand his figures? If he is basing his case to the House on a saving of five locomotives, surely he has a responsibility from the point of view of understanding what the problem is to tell us about them as against coming in here and merely stating that this is what CIE told him. I am sure CIE would not mislead him. But that is the Minister's answer and, in my opinion, it is a fantastic answer.

Mr. Childers

This is merely an enabling Bill and I did not therefore bring an enormous amount of detail with me. If it will help, I shall make quite sure that, before CIE meet the once-and-for-all deputation, they will have checked their figures.

Mr. Rooney

That is the point. The Minister has made the case that there will be a saving of five locomotives if we agree to the proposals in the Bill, and I think this is a point that should be clarified.

Mr. McDonald

Could the Minister have the figures before we resume?

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill".

Professor Quinlan

This section has reference to section 21 of the 1950 Act. If CIE decided in the morning to close the line from Mallow to Killarney, they are fully empowered to do so under section 21 and the matter would never come before us at all.

Mr. Childers

That is correct, but it does not arise on this Bill.

Professor Quinlan

That was the observation I made earlier. It was an observation of which the Minister seemed to think ill.

Mr. Childers

I had heard nothing about the closing of the Killarney line.

Professor Quinlan

Having a moderate knowledge of both lines, I doubt if economics of one line are drastically different from the economics of the other line.

Acting Chairman (Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan)

It does not arise on this section.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: " That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister suggested a possibility of the de-nationalisation of certain parts of the transport system. It now looks as if we have gone full circle and are back to where we started. In this particular section we seem to be reverting to the earlier position because we are now getting away from the arbitrator and going back to the courts. That is a procedure I always welcome. The standing arbitrator was appointed under the 1950 Act. I do not know what retainer or fees he gets, but I do know that he would require some form of clerical assistance because there is quite an amount of work involved. Every other arbitrator has assistance of some kind and that is very useful in dealing with correspondence, typing reports, making awards and so on. The Minister understands the position as well as I do and I suggest difficulty has been created because of a lack of clerical assistance. The Minister should inquire into that aspect. It may only involve providing a shorthand typist to take dictation and do some typing, and that on maybe ten or 15 days in the year. I would urge upon the Minister that, if some assistance were provided, it might be possible to dispose of claims which are pending.

Mr. Murphy

There has been a blockage and provision is now being made to have these matters brought before the Circuit Court. Are those who have claims pending now going to have to start all over again in the Circuit Court, with all the extra expense and trouble that will involve? Surely it would be more intelligent to clear up the cases rather than put people to the trouble and expense of starting afresh in the Circuit Court? Some of us know what is involved in such cases and this would impose a very serious burden on these people, some of whom are getting on in years. Provision is being made now for them to go to the Circuit Court because we failed to make proper provision for having their cases dealt with by the standing arbitrator.

Mr. Childers

I greatly regret the delays, but I have consulted the Attorney General and have been advised that the only way in which these matters can be disposed of is by arranging under this Bill to have them heard in the Circuit Court. The Senator probably knows that the majority of people, that is, those entitled to redundancy payment as distinct from compensation for worsening of service, are receiving some redundancy pay. It is only a question of whether they should receive more and therefore the number of real hardship cases is not, I am glad to say, very great. I am afraid this is the only practical method of dealing with the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

I should like to compliment the Minister upon calling this measure the Transport Act, 1966, instead of the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 1966, which has been the pattern in relation to so many other Bills.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Acting Chairman

Report Stage?

Mr. McDonald

I should prefer if the Report Stage were left over to give the Minister an opportunity of finding out where the five locomotives are going because he seems very inconsistent. It is no wonder CIE are in the red if they are going to buy £60,000 worth of locomotive to do one journey a day.

Acting Chairman

The Senator may raise that on the Fifth Stage.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister was slightly restive when we seemed to depart, as he thought, from the terms of the Bill originally, but the Chair was not of that opinion. This debate has produced some very useful information and I am glad to learn that the Minister has, in fact, in his Department a section which sifts complaints which are taken up with the appropriate section of CIE if that is warranted. I am very glad there is that kind of service for the travelling public. If it were more widely known, then the Minister would probably learn more about the kind of complaints that people have.

The Minister suggested the desirability of Senators and other public representatives making representations to the area managers. As far as I am concerned, I have written time and again to CIE headquarters and invariably the correspondence ends in my being frustrated. I am glad to learn that there may be somebody who has this more intimate knowledge and to whom one can go. If this kind of public relations system is in operation, and if it is used, then perhaps it would benefit CIE and the travelling public.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to know where the Report Stage went to. I still feel——

Acting Chairman

When there are no amendments, there is no scope for a debate on Report Stage.

Mr. McDonald

That is what knocked me out. As to the Minister's figures about the five locomotives, all I can say is that if a £60,000 locomotive is capable of doing only one hour's work in a day, then it is no wonder CIE are in the red.

Mr. Childers

I am still going to restrain myself, although I could get very angry. If we have State companies, then their technical explanations have, in the main, to be accepted. There is no one in the Seanad who has had the training or technical knowledge in regard to how to use a locomotive. I go as far as I can to answer these questions. It would be the same type of thing if we were, for example, discussing an ESB Bill and somebody were to ask me a highly complicated question about the improved generating economy of various types of generator, whether it would be more suitable to have a smaller generating station at Tarbert Island and a bigger one at Great Island. If we should get into that kind of discussion, it would be quite unrealistic.

I have given the facts about this Mallow line but Senators will realise that in a railway system, when diesel engines operate, their movements relate to the operation of other diesel engines and carriages and goods vehicles far beyond the limit of those operating on the line in question. It would be quite impossible to read out long technical descriptions of how the traffic moves from Mallow to Waterford, to Tralee, Killarney and so on. It would be immensely complicated. All I can say is that I have not found CIE to be grossly inaccurate in their statements.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister——

Acting Chairman

The Minister has concluded.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is underestimating the intelligence and capacity of this House to grasp technical facts. We have one Senator who is interested in CIE and we have an engineer——

Acting Chairman

There can be no further discussion. The Minister has replied.

Question put and agreed to.

Business suspended at 6.15 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.