SAFETY ON THE RAILWAYS

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22506, 14 September 1938, Page 12

SAFETY ON THE RAILWAYS

EXPENDITURE ON REPAIRS BOARD AND MINISTERIAL CONTROL DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.] WELLINGTON, September 13. Allegations by the Minister for Railways (the Hon. D. G. Sullivan) that the former Government had reduced maintenance expenditure on the railways during the depression to an extent that threatened safety caused a considerable argument during the second reading debate on the Finance Bill in the House of Representatives tonight. The point was raised by the Rt.. Hon. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara), who said it appeared that the Minister was attempting to blame the last Government for all the railway accidents that had occurred since Labour had restored Ministerial control. He had stated that it had been necessary to increase expenditure on maintenance and rolling stock to a tremendous extent in order to bring the railways back to their former standard of safety. “There is nothing further from the truth than that statement” said Mr Coates. “The actual rate of expenditure on maintenance is less to-day than it was in 1935. Furthermore, the general manager, in the past as at present, has always had to sign certificates on the question of safety. At no time under the system of board control was the safety factor overlooked.” “Self-confident Rubbish” *T have never heard such self-con-fident rubbish as that which has just been enunciated by the member for .Kaipara,” said Mr Sullivan, when Mr Coates resumed his seat. “The simple truth of the matter is that the department is faced with terrific difficulties because of the substantial reduction in expenditure on repairs to rolling stock during the four years of board control. lam not blaming the board, but I am blaming the right honourable gentleman who is trying to wriggle out of. a position which he and his colleagues created.” Mr Sullivan said that during the period of board control the reduction in expenditure on repairs and renewals - amounted to £400,000. That was £BOO,OOO a year less than the present Government was providing. Repairs now being undertaken were taking ■longer and costing more because of the delay. The department had reached a crisis with its rolling stock, the great bulk o!f which was in a state of exhaustion. "We are building as rapidly as we possibly can,” added the Minister. “The Government is providing every penny of money required to ensure safety. I have never said that the accidents which have occurred were due to the condition of the rolling stock. I merely raised the question whether the failure to provide adequate money for repairs and renewals may not have contributed to the situation to which attention has been drawn from time to time fay members of the Opposition. X have never stated specifically that tfae accidents were due to the rolling •tock." . Mir Hargest’s Figure* -Mr J. Hargest (National, Awarua) paid the Minister had charged the last BWleniment with having lost £8,000,000 in six years in railways administration. That)was not correct; but the Minister himself in three years had lost {£4359,000. The Minister had also Claimed that the Railways Board, during Its control, had spent £400,000 less ■m -year on rolling stock than previously. Mr Hargest challenged the Minister to prove . that the controlling authorities In that time had ever refused a requisition for the improvement of the rolling stock. Mr Hargest quoted figures to show that the number of engines repaired a 100,000 engine-miles in 1935 was 2.93. and 2.42 in 1938. The number of cars and vans repaired a 100,000 passenger journeys was 8.68 ,!n 1935. and 8.45 in 1938. The number of waggons repaired a 100,000 vehiclemiles in 1935 was 12.33. and in 1938 it was 10.54. Mr Hargest said there had been an absence of complaint regarding the condition "of the rolling stock in 1935. The Minister had said that £BOO,OOO more had been spent in his term a year in repairs than in previous years. The figures showed that the cost of repairs in 1938 was £448.379 higher than in 1935. Some of the Minister’s colleagues had said the cause of railway losses, and some of the railway accidents, had been the neglect of the past. That was not correct.