We all need answers over plans for our buses
IN relation to the issue at the heart of this weekend’s strike by staff at Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus, the NTA tells us that it will own the buses, and set fares, routes, frequencies, environmental standards and customer service standards for those routes being put out to tender.
If we assume that whoever wins the tender process for the 10 per cent of routes to be privatised will largely be subject to the same insurance costs as Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann, it would appear that the only place for savings is on wages. No wonder drivers with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are worried about their future.
Transport Minister Paschal Donohoe has guaranteed that the Dublin Bus/Bus Éireann workers will not have to transfer to a private operator if a private operator wins routes and will guarantee their pay and conditions. All routes in Waterford City are out to tender. If a private operator wins the tender and drivers do not opt to transfer (or if the new operator does not wish to employ them), who will pay their wages?
Will they be paid to sit in the depot all day on full pay or will they be required to transfer to, say, Dublin or Cork to maintain their employment? Who will cover any relocation costs which might be incurred in such cases? If they are to be paid by Bus Éireann, will this not increase the cost base of Bus Éireann and make it more difficult to compete with private operators in future bids?
I don’t normally support industrial action in the transport services but in this case, despite being dependent upon public transport, I can support the actions of the bus drivers.
The Government policy of putting 10 per cent of services to tender is what caused this dispute and it will, through the NTA, fine Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann for a failure to pro- vide service due to a strike which resulted from the implementation of Government policy. The Government needs to clarify the position and state the benefits to the traveller and the taxpayer of the proposed partial privatisation of bus services.
TOM BURKE, Clonsilla, Dublin 15. IF 10 per cent of public transport is privatised, will free travel for the old and the disabled also be lost?
Is there a guarantee in place to protect this particular aspect of life after any privatisation move? What happens when what we now consider as public transport becomes privately owned?
Will profit become the only bottom line when the Government sells off yet another possession of the people? As in all projects, such as those proposed, I’ve found that the social considerations are the first to be jettisoned. Much to consider. ROBERT SULLIVAN,
Bantry, Co. Cork
In defence of Dev
THERE has been much commentary in recent days to mark the 70th anniversary of Éamon de Valera’s infamous offering of condolences to the German ambassador on the death of Hitler.
I accept that it was a grossly insensitive act on the then taoiseach’s part, even if the full extent of Nazi genocide and war crimes wasn’t known to the world in April 1945. But it is worth bearing in mind that he was following established protocol that applied to the death of any head of state whose country had a legation in Ireland.
It can also be offered, in de Valera’s defence, that 1) Ireland was a non-combatant in World War II, and 2) despite our ostensible neutrality de Valera allowed the quiet return of captured Allied airmen who crash-landed in Ireland while detaining Luftwaffe pilots for the duration of the conflict.
He secretly permitted Allied aircraft avail of the Donegal Corridor, and useful military intelligence was passed to the Allies throughout the war. A vital weather report from Blacksod Bay in Co. Mayo, for example, was conveyed to the British. It resulted in the D-Day landings not being subjected to a delay that might have altered the outcome of the make- or-break invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe. And there was the government’s public display of humanitarianism in sending ambulances and f i re engines to the North when the Germans bombed Belfast and Derry in 1941.
Aside f r om t his, I am not i mpressed with the supposed abhorrence of British and American politicians and diplomats at de Valera’s expression of sympathy to German ambassador Eduard Hempel, given the fact that both countries offered their official condolences to the Soviet authorities when Stalin died in 1953.
Stalin, like Hitler, was a ruthless dictator and mass murderer. Anyone who so much as whispered against his barbarous rule could expect a bullet in the back of the neck or a long stint in a gulag. Between executions, forced labour, mass ethnic deportations, and a deliberately engineered famine in Ukraine, up to 20 million people perished during Stalin’s reign of terror.
The Western nations displayed a blatant lack of consistency in honouring this cruel homicidal oppressor in death after vilifying his contemporary, the Führer. Stalin is credited for his major role in the defeat of Hitler, but he only fought him because the Germans invaded the USSR. For the opening hours of Operation Barbarossa, he refused to believe that his dictatorial friend had betrayed him.
So let’s not get too carried away with de Valera’s admittedly illjudged gesture because, to be fair, what’s sauce for the Nazi goose should also have been sauce for the Soviet gander! JOHN FITZGERALD, Callan, Co. Kilkenny.
Poldark’s plague
THE tragic ‘ putrid sore throat’ disease featured in the last episode of Poldark was diphtheria, a sickness caused by the absorption of toxins from infections of the throat, nose, larynx or eye.
Extreme difficulty in breathing with a high temperature and enlargement of the neck glands gave it a serious mortality rate.
A greyish membrane in the throat that bled when touched was just one of the dreadful symptoms.
Jane Austen refers to the disease in her letters. The introduction of supha drugs and later antibiotics made the infection rare.
JILL NEALE, via email.