I was particularly struck by the fact that the Minister in his speech paid scant attention to the part British Railways have to play in the introduction of this Bill. He did not indicate whether corresponding legislation has to be passed in the British Parliament; nor did he say that it would not have to be passed or whether the British Parliament had any interest in the matter at all. He did not tell us if any effort had been made by British Railways to induce CIE to shut down the section of the line in which they are mainly interested, that portion from Fermoy to Waterford city and right through to Rosslare. A definite case could be made for this if it was suggested it was done by a British Railway company to save loss. Then the discussion would be of considerable interest and we could ask what return was got out of this line by a British company, a line that was built on guarantees by the citizens of Waterford and neighbouring counties. Is it not because of the altered circumstances of a changing world that a loss is accruing and that they are cutting their losses and getting out? I ask the Minister if that is true?
What significance was there in the Minister's complete ignoring of the fact that British Railways have an interest in this line? I understand that while we can refuse to run trains on the line, we cannot sell a single house on it without the consent of British Railways and that some of our sales of houses which have already taken place are completely illegal. This Bill now legalises what was done by CIE over a number of years. That does not commend itself to anyone who might think that the officers of CIE are a responsible body of men who would make no hasty decisions. Something must have gone wrong somewhere along the line.
This Bill does not close the line— it is an enabling Bill—but we all know in our hearts that it would not be brought in here unless it was in the minds of the responsible officials of CIE that this line is to be cut out. The Minister pointed out in his opening speech that he would see to it that some senior officers of CIE would meet any deputation that would go to them on the matter. There is a deputation already in formation awaiting the passage of this Bill in order to attempt to influence the staff of CIE, whether they be the headquarters men or the area manager. I would prefer it to be the board of directors that they should meet because it is the board of directors who will come to a decision on the matter.
In the case of the closing of the Tramore line, it was the board of directors who made the decision, even though the officials advised them. Getting the area manager in Waterford to meet the local inhabitants is not good enough. They should be entitled to see the people this House puts there. These directors were appointed by this House and they have an obligation to this House, and we should be able to get from them the facts and figures of this closure.
In other cases where railway lines were closed, information was given to me after the closure which, if I had had it before the line was closed, would have placed me in a much better position to argue against the closure. Unfortunately, when you meet these officials in CIE, they have all the facts and figures at their fingers' ends and the ordinary public representative or business man is forbidden to get any information from stationmasters or anybody else. The only facts we can get are those given to us unofficially because stationmasters have been warned not to supply information that would help to build up a case that the line was not losing money.
I know that in the case of the Tramore line, the loss was claimed to be £5,000. Waterford Corporation and Waterford County Council agreed to put up that loss plus certain increases in fares but the line was torn up at one minute past midnight on 1st April, which was the operative date. It was torn up in the middle of the night because they were so anxious to get rid of it. I presume the same will be done when the operative date comes in connection with this line.
I know, and every responsible Deputy knows, that this is a vital matter for the people of Waterford and for the people employed on the line. It is vital for the tourist industry, for our relatives and friends who come home each year and bring their children with them at great inconvenience and expense. They would now be supposed to travel from Waterford to Midleton, or on to Cork city, by bus and without toilet facilities. How could a woman with a baby in arms undertake that type of journey after having travelled from Paddington to Fishguard and then on to Waterford? How could such a woman then get into a bus and travel on to Midleton or perhaps further on?
I do not think this is good enough. The people in my constituency do not think it is good enough. We feel that in this Bill the Minister is doing a disservice to my constituency and to the constituency of South Tipperary. A list of the towns affected was read out by the Minister at the request of Deputy Dillon but a considerable number of people are affected as well as these towns. In Lismore, Tallow and Kilmacthomas, serious efforts are being made to attract industry. There are development associations there which have advertised in German and American papers and they have entertained industrialists from Britain, Germany, France and other countries. One of the first questions they are asked is: "What railway link have you with Waterford port?" From this on we will have to say: "None at all. You will have to travel by road." That is wrong. This industrial estate being set up in Waterford is a good thing. Our town clerks and those who attended a planning conference in the Custom House only a couple of months ago were told there would be offshoots of this industrial estate all over the county and that we would come into the picture. How are we going to come into the picture if we are to be cut off from the cheapest method of travelling? I see this as a deliberate effort to weaken West Waterford.
Perhaps the Minister would be able to answer the question: is the Cork-Youghal line less profitable than the Mallow-Rosslare line? I challenge the Minister to produce proof that our line is less profitable than the Cork-Youghal line. The Cork-Youghal line was to be axed—I am glad it was not—but there were deputations trying to keep it from being closed and the Cork-Youghal line continues. Even though the Minister says he has no function in this regard, the Minister has a function when it becomes a dangerous political situation. I would suggest that the Fianna Fáil Deputies representing South Tipperary and Waterford should assert themselves in somewhat the same manner as the Fianna Fáil Deputies asserted themselves in a neighbouring constituency and county.
I find it very difficult to work out the average the Minister gave of eight passengers per station. It is true that some of our stations are not stations in the sense of being tourist stops; they are really halts to pick up creamery produce, cattle or something like that. If you measure up the stations that really would be effective between Waterford and Fermoy, you would find there are four or five stations that could be considered in the working out of an average daily discharge or intake of passengers; then the average would shoot up from eight per station to something like 30 per station, which is a vastly different figure. Deputy Barry gave some figures in regard to the traffic rate per mile, of which I also have a copy, but it is pointless to repeat them. I challenge the Minister to deny that there are lines in existence in Ireland at the present moment which are costing much more per mile to maintain than the line it is now proposed to close down. If so, why is the Waterford line chosen as the target?
I do not believe that the assessment of seven buses, five lorries and a couple of trailers would take the hundreds and hundreds of tons of beet arriving at Dungarvan station during the beet season. Thousands of tons are sent to Mallow, and that will have to go by road. Deputy Hogan and Deputy Barry gave some figures in respect of the cost of (1) preparing the road for it and (2) maintaining it. In respect of the section of the road in Waterford, our engineer put the cost at £500,000, plus a cost of £10,000 per year for increased maintenance due to the closure of the line. This is hardly economy, when the Minister for Local Government will have to give £500,000 and the ratepayers and taxpayers will have to provide another £10,000 per year for that portion that is in Waterford, plus the figure for South Tipperary and portion of Cork.
Apart from this being false economy, we are depriving the people of West Waterford, South Tipperary and parts of Cork of a social amenity. People who in their thousands used to go by train to football matches will now have to go by road. The GAA people should have an interest in this because when teams like Waterford and Tipperary or Waterford and Cork are playing, the rail service is essential because to travel to Thurles, you have to go down to Waterford, back around by Clonmel and on to Thurles. Furthermore, for the tourist trade and also for the beet trade it is absolutely essential to keep the railway line.
Deputy Barry suggested that some economies could be made. I do not know a great deal about how economies could be made because I have never worked in the railway service, but it seems ridiculous to me that a train should leave Waterford in the morning to go to Dungarvan and a bus should leave within ten or 15 minutes of the train. The roadway runs practically parallel with the railway line, and the bus and the train run the same way at about the same time instead of running in opposite directions to serve the interests of the people. If that is not crazy, I do not know anything at all about commonsense. I remember that in 1926—that is a long time ago—you could leave my town of Dungarvan at 7.45 a.m., get on to a passenger freight train that came from Rosslare, reach Waterford at 9.30 a.m. and then transfer to a train that reached Dublin at 12.5 or 12.10 p.m. Now, 40 years later, you leave at 9.45 a.m. and arrive at Kingsbridge, after travelling twice the round via Mallow, and so on, at 3.15 p.m. That is surely not progress.
Something should be done to make the railway more attractive. A great deal of the falling off, outside of that which is natural because of road traffic changes and more people having cars, could be arrested if people were encouraged to use the railway. I want to join with my colleagues in the Opposition—because I am afraid I cannot say the same for my colleagues on the Government side, although I would be quite sure they agree with me—in deploring the closing of the railway line, and I want to protest emphatically against its closure.