Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 13 Nov 1962

Vol. 197 No. 6

Private Members' Business. - Transport Bill, 1962—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

The most important and essential components of an efficient and proper system of public transport services were considered in the legislation passed in 1958 in a particularly superficial way. The public are paying for the results of the superficiality of the approach at that time. In fairness, I imagine one of the people who probably now, if he were asked, would confess to regretting that piece of legislation more than anybody else in the country would be the present general manager of the company. Because of the over-riding consideration incorporated in the legislation that the company, not later than the 31st March, 1964, should balance its operating expenditure with revenue, he better than any of us must now know that that was an impossible task for anybody to be set and that he was a particularly foolish and vain man to think that he could have carried out that achievement.

He must share his foolishness with the foolishness of the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Taoiseach, who, in considering the whole problem of public transport, clearly gave it only the most cursory examination and consideration. It is quite clear he was dominated almost exclusively by strictly doctrinaire, conservative economic ideas and policies and that, so long as the board appeared to carry these through, he really did not mind what the consequences might be for the country as a whole. His main concern is expressed in column 1598, volume 167 of the Official Report, in which he says that our public transport should be put on a solvent basis and so relieve the general taxpayer of the necessity of subsidising it by annual subvention. He gave the general manager approximately 5 years to do that.

He said in the same column:

Indeed, the Bill envisages that the board will not have reached that situation for five years. I know that at the present time there are few railway systems in the world which are not losing money and that in expecting the board of CIE to achieve solvency it may be said that we are asking them to do something that other railway executives are not able to do even under more favourable circumstances.

But that he did ask the railway executive to do, and it is quite clear from present findings that they will not do it.

The then Minister went on further, in column 1599, to lay down the figure that they were to be given each year for this limited period as a subsidy to carry them over. He said, in column 1599:

It is possible that the subvention of £1,000,000 per year will not be sufficient to close the gap between receipts and outlay in 1959 and 1960, and CIE may have to resort to temporary borrowing to tide them over these years. I would hope, however, that this fixed subvention of £1,000,000 a year for five years will be more than sufficient in the latter years and that CIE will be able to pay off any temporary borrowing incurred in the earlier stages and have something left to carry on with, if complete solvency has not been finally reached by 1964.

The most recent of the Annual Reports discloses how hopelessly wrong the former Minister, the present Taoiseach, was in the fact that CIE are still running at a considerable loss and that this loss is increasing and shows little likelihood of being significantly reduced. In fact, there is a very serious likelihood that by the 1963 or 1964 period, instead of paying its way or not needing this additional subvention, we will find that CIE are in debt by anything up to £2,000,000. When they started in 1959 it was £1.9 million; in 1960, £700,000; in 1961, £250,000 approximately; and in 1962, £1.6 million. For a self-assured person, as the then Minister was and the Taoiseach now is, it is of great value to remind him from time to time that on these very important things he is as fallible as anybody else and that he did make a grave error in his estimation of the likely pattern for the future which would be followed by CIE if he gave them these over-riding orders: "You must break even by March, 1964; you work virtually in isolation, and your subsidy from the State must stop then."

I hope that if the Minister intervenes in this debate he will tell us if he still seriously believes it will be possible for CIE, with Dr. Andrews in charge, to break even by 1964. For a man in the position the Taoiseach was then in to fix this sum of £1,000,000, at a time when everybody knew all currency was debased currency, because of its tendency to lose its value, shows the superficial approach of the then Minister to the problem. It was quite clear that this £1,000,000 would not have the same value from year to year as it has in the first year and that, if he wanted to give some sort of subvention from the State each year, it would have been much wiser to have based that on some percentage calculation of the loss existing at that time—a decreasing percentage— if he seriously believed he was going to find that in 1964 CIE was, in fact, paying its way. Not only are we facing the position that the cost of living has gone up, with resultant justifiable wage demands, which have increased the losses without any increase in revenue, but we are also facing the likelihood that, when we enter the Common Market, we may see anything from a ten to a 15 per cent. rise in the cost of living. There will then be further wage demands and, because of that, further losses in CIE.

The whole proposition was, therefore, a completely impossible one to put to the management of CIE. It does not matter whether it is Dr. Andrews or anybody else. It just happens that he used his position in a particularly arrogant and inhuman way and, because of his brash and insensitive manner with the public, he not only did not make a go of the concern but he succeeded in creating widespread dissatisfaction with the whole transport system on the part of the public, on the part of labour, and even on the part of those who might have used the concern, farmers and others. Deputy Corry gave his reaction the other day—the reaction of the civilian—to the organisation of CIE. There would, he said, be an end to contracts. That is because of his resentment at the way they were treated as members of the public. That is a particular incident. Most of us could add to that incident and the whole adds up to a position wherein the overriding diktat of the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time made it impossible for CIE to operate successfully.

It is quite remarkable to note in the annual report of CIE the ingenuous, childlike irritation of management because they have had to face demands for increases in wages. There is a most astonishing reaction from Dr. Andrews and his colleagues on the Board. In one report alone, the matter is mentioned four times in a very short preamble: they did not make as much as they hoped they would because of wage increases, because of the eighth round increase, because of the demands of the unions, or some similar smeary suggestion that, if it were not for this covert sabotage on the part of the workers and the unions, everything would have been rosy. It would have been "roses, roses all the way" for CIE, if it were not for the disloyalty of the servants of CIE. This was the absusrd and insolent suggestion on the part of the management in the Labour Court, the boardroom, or somewhere else.

Why should an unfortunate worker care whether or not CIE will break even? Why should he make a sacrifice? Why should he resist a legitimate demand for an increase in wages following on an increase in the cost of living or, following on something much simpler, namely, a demand for some improvement in working conditions, a shorter working week, better overtime pay, better weekend work? Why should the CIE worker have to make a sacrifice which notably none of the higher-ups in CIE made? I have not noticed that any of them is prepared to take a voluntary cut in salary or emoluments in order to facilitate the implementation of this absurd provision of the 1958 Act that CIE should break even by 1964.

Did Dr. Andrews think when he went into it that he had dictatorial powers to establish or insist on a wages standstill? Did he think he still lived in the kind of world in which he could ask workers to ignore the fact that they could not buy enough bread, enough butter, enough tea, enough sugar, clothes for their children, or pay school fees for their children, merely because they had the privilege of working for CIE? That was sufficient in itself! What an absurd suggestion! But it was made again, and again, and again, and it was incorporated in print in this report.

It is part of private enterprise and capitalism to say, whenever there is a demand for a wage increase, that the workers want more money, for no clear reason that they can see, and, if it were not for their wanting more money, everything would cost little or nothing. There is no reference at all to profits or to dividends. All the references are to wage demands. It is the same with CIE. The accusation is that the workers did not listen to Dr. Andrews when he said: "We have got to break even. If you do not mind, no increase this year; possibly not next year; maybe not the year after; possibly in 1964." What good is that to the worker faced with a school bill, a grocery bill, a hospital bill, or whatever it may be?

Irish industrial concerns have absorbed the eighth round increase. Admittedly, they were not tied like Dr. Andrews and his people. But they absorbed it. They passed it on to the consumer ultimately. Dr. Andrews did exactly the same thing, but he still did not achieve his overall objective of breaking even. He comes up with the suggestion then that because CIE had to meet these increases, they suffered this unexpected deficit. One would think he lived in the moon. Surely he was in this situation before? Did he not expect the CIE workers to look for an increase? Did he think they would not behave in precisely the same way as Bord na Móna workers behaved when they were faced with an increase in the cost of living?

It is very wrong to poison the public and labour relations by indicting the worker in this way in these semi-State concerns, making them appear responsible for the fact that Dr. Andrews is not able for the job, is not able to carry out an impossible undertaking imposed on him by Deputy Lemass as Minister for Industry and Commerce. The result is a conflict. Dr. Andrews will not say to the Minister: "I cannot possibly expect these people to take a voluntary cut or make a voluntary sacrifice in order to carry out an impossible undertaking". Instead of saying that, he goes to these various courts and fights the workers on the sole ground that he must "break even", as if that were any concern of theirs.

The result of all this has been labour disputes of one kind or another, official disputes and unofficial disputes. The result of that is repercussions in the trade union movement. It has reacted throughout one of the principal unions in a most serious way from their point of view. The workers were not satisfied with what they were given by CIE.

Then on another occasion there was a lock-out. Using the archaic procedure adopted by Dr. Andrews, following in the footsteps of the great William Martin Murphy, a lock-out technique was used. All these things add up to the fact that the public got, get, and have the impression that labour relations in CIE are very unsatisfactory. Certainly any of the workers I know in CIE are most unhappy in their relationship with management.

It seems to me that if this man cannot do the job properly, he should either tell the Government or the Minister: "This is an impossible undertaking to ask me to carry out," or he should resign. He cannot have it both ways. The fact of the matter is, as the GNR and the GSR have shown, that it is not possible, consonant with the social needs of society— and particularly in a complicated society like ours with its great rural overlap—to operate a transport concern at a profit.

That is becoming obvious and for that reason we felt it was desirable that the Minister should reconsider the basic principles of our public transport at this time. One of the repercussions of the labour difficulties has been reflected in revenue. In his short speech the other day, Deputy O'Connor really touched on a consequence that had arisen, the uncertainty amongst merchants—and I suppose it could be said, the legitimate uncertainty — as to whether they could rely completely on CIE to deliver their merchandise of one kind or another. The result was that because of those labour difficulties that occur from time to time, most of them decided: "It would be better for us to run our own independent transport service."

That, of course, is reflected in the transport figures generally and there is no significant advance by CIE in taking over the general public transport services of the country. One Deputy was given figures last week which demonstrate that very clearly. I think the ratio is something like ten to one in haulage and merchandise as between the private service and CIE. There is no significant impact by CIE in whittling down the domination of the private enterprise section of the public transport service generally where it is related to merchandise.

I wonder whether the Minister has considered, or would consider, the whole position arising from the fact that there is a preponderence of private transport and where there is private transport there is naturally no need for public transport for the reason that it follows, as in most other services, that private transport tends to go for the easy return and the foreseeably sound undertaking. It is never a risk because it is largely certain of the work it has to do. It is purchased for a particular purpose and it can usually manage to draw even or make a profit, while the public transport service is at the beck and call of virtually everyone and tends to be squeezed into keeping only the uneconomic public transport sector which the private sector does not want.

I wonder if the Minister has given any serious thought to the likelihood or desirability of reconsidering the whole position of private haulage transport to see whether it is possible to assimilate it into the public sector, where that is desirable. This merely re-emphasises the impossibility of geting the whole public transport service to pay its way, not only by 1964, but by 1974, 1984 or ever. The Minister might decide that he cannot touch private haulage for political or other reasons, but because he cannot, then the public sector must be run at a loss, that that is one of the penalties which he must pay for believing in private enterprise, and recognising that fact get rid of this provision which is impossible and which cannot be honoured by anyone in charge of CIE.

I suppose one of the oddest answers one could get—and it is most significant in many ways—is the answer which I got from the Minister to-day on the number of employees in CIE. One of the things which the public find it so difficult to understand is the persistent news of redundancy in CIE, with varying degrees of consultation or lack of consultation with the trade unions or the workers concerned, men laid off, and calculations as to what precise compensation should be paid, and whether or not the men were satisfied, and allied with that redundancy, periodic advertisements in the paper for recruitment to CIE.

What underlies this extraordinary approach to the service which the Beddy report said should be drastically pruned and reorganised? How is it, if there is this reduction in services, alteration in services, closing of railway lines, closing of stations and all the auxiliary services involved, that now after three or four years, out of a total of nearly 22,000 workers, there are 200 fewer people employed in CIE. While there are 200 fewer persons employed in CIE, we are paying out in the region of £800,000 for redundancy compensation.

The Minister may have an answer pat that satisfies him but throughout the whole of the operation of CIE, since Dr. Andrews took over, in particular, and since the Minister took over his position here in particular, there has been this appalling contempt for the public. I know what is going on and I understand what is going on. I have proof of what is going on. It is a complete lack of appreciation of the reality that both the Minister and Dr. Andrews are employees of the public. They are responsible to us. We pay their salaries. We lay down the conditions on which they are employed and they are answerable to us. CIE should not be run as a sort of dictatorship in which we are told that everything is all right because the great panjandrum, the boy wonder from Synge Street, is in control, that everything is all right, that "Dad is at the wheel" and consequently no one need bother.

That, of course, was completely exploded by the remarkable blunder made in the purchase of diesel electric locomotives which could only be safely driven in one direction, a fact which was only recognised when we got them back here to Dublin. It is deplorable that the Minister makes no attempt to carry out any serious inquiry or to give the public or the taxpayers, who are paying for this, some undertaking that this will not happen again or that some measures will be taken to see that the people who did it will not do it again.

No matter which aspect of the operation of the service that is taken there is very little that can be said in favour of the man in control of its operation. It was recommended that there should be serious pruning. It was intended to reduce the number of staff needed to operate the service. That was the intention of the 1958 Act, that this would lead to a reduction in the cost of the service, and in practically every case the reverse has happened. The only aspect of public relations which is adequately handled is the build-up this Chairman of the Board gets in order to prove that he is infallible, that while he has control everybody is safe and well, everything is going on as was ordained and that there is no need to criticise or question him in any way.

We have attempted on a number of occasions to get more information, so that we could carry out a debate of this kind intelligently and usefully from the point of view of the House, but on nearly every occasion we have been told either that the Minister has no responsibility or the man in charge, the Chairman, Dr. Andrews, simply will not give it. That is one of the things which has led to very bad public relations and labour relations. On the one hand he is responsible for public relations and he is also responsible for labour relations. If we suggest there should be a better city service, that the schedule for Sunday be changed, or whatever it may be, and we ask to see this man, we are told there can be no discussion with him. He is completely inaccessible.

This is an extraordinary, a new principle, in relation to public life in Ireland. I do not think there is a single Minister on those Benches, including the Taoiseach, or the former Taoiseach and his colleagues, who was not accessible to every one of us any time we wanted to see them. I know certainly in my own time that was true, that we were completely accessible and we were glad to see anyone who wanted to talk to us about matters which concerned them. That is not permissible now under this new rule laid down by Dr. Andrews.

If the Chairman of CIE has a good case, why does he not put it to us? What has this particular man got that makes him so inaccessible as opposed to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Transport and Power or any other Ministers or their predecessors in the Cabinet? Why should he be permitted to institute this new doctrine? If Deputy Seán Dunne comes in here and says what he did say, he cannot be blamed. None of us is afraid to say these things personally to Dr. Andrews. We should be delighted to do it in precisely the same terms as I am doing now but we cannot see him.

Similarly, in relation to the Minister's position, we are not allowed to ask him questions, so it is about as easy to find out about the detailed workings under the Secret Service Vote in this House as it is to find out about the workings of CIE. We can only surmise and put together the best information we find, the limited, sparse and biased information which is handed out, and because it is handed out by Dr. Andrews and his executive it is suspect information. We should be given information as we wish, whatever reasonable information we ask for. The information I sought was perfectly reasonable information.

The result of all this is that there are bad labour relations and bad public relations. Deputy T. Lynch and other Deputies were asking for information which they required for a deputation. Again, in my own experience, it was the first thing for which we asked: if any deputation was coming along could they submit a memorandum of the general views so that it would be possible for us to have an intelligent discussion, so that it would be possible for us to prepare our side of the story. If any useful discussion is to be carried out, it can only be carried out when the maximum information is available to both sides of the table. Why should it be withheld if there is nothing suspect, if there is no sense of guilt about it? If it contributes to the discussion or if it contributes to eliciting the truth in regard to whether you should or should not limit a service, extend a service, increase somebody's pay or whatever it may be, why not make that information available?

As I understand it, sometimes the information is changed two or three times. I know that in relation to the Bray-Greystones position, different figures were given. That merely shows the fallibility of these people. If there is a good case let us remember the cliché: not only should justice be done but it should be seen to be done. That would seem to be the ABC of public relations. He must bring the people with him. On the other hand, he can go against them and except for the odd protest we make here there is little we can do about it. However, we have heard what Deputy Corry had to say and he is only one of the many people——

He talked sheer nonsense.

Deputy Corry is an able Deputy and there is no need for me to defend him here, but the point the Minister made is a most interesting one. I believe Deputy Corry bone fide made these charges the other day. If he is wrong it is the Minister's fault or the Chairman's fault — anybody you like — because Deputy Corry should be put in possession of the facts. Again it shows a failure on the part of public relations in CIE if a representative like Deputy Corry is not in possession of the facts and if, as a result of being in possession of something which is not a fact, he then takes this very serious decision——

Cork Corporation did not question the fact.

How is it that when Deputy Corry talks against you it is nonsense but that when he talks with you it is wisdom?

——in relation to beet supplies. It is serious for CIE. He is only one person. Whether he is right or wrong, is not terribly important but there are many members of the public who are taking their own personal decisions in this way. It may be a decision merely to use a bicycle instead of a bus or to buy a scooter instead of having to wait for the bus that never comes or to do as they do in certain areas—club together to get a taxi because it is cheaper. These are all the personal reactions of individuals on the same lines as that of Deputy Corry. He happens to be in a more influential position in relation to the beet industry but there are thousands of people who are taking important and unimportant decisions, influential and uninfluential decisions, in relation to CIE all the time, as a result of the ham-handed public relations system operated by the company. It is no good. There is a wonderful thing about humanity. One can make all sorts of rules and regulations but we are wonderfully versatile, pig-headed, single-minded, obstinate—whichever word you want to use. A great many people will not be driven but they can be lead. No attempt is made by CIE to do this. People merely get this parrot cry from headquarters: "We have to break even by 1964 and the result of that is that we must do whatever it may be, carry out whatever curtailment or restriction of a rail service it is intended to carry out."

People are genuinely confused about the costing methods of CIE. I object strongly to this aristocratic indifference of the Minister and Dr. Andrews and these people to the general public, to the suggestion that they would not understand, that this is high finance, chartered accountancy at a very high level and above their heads. I object to this kind of thing. It should have gone out with the people who used to be here up to the 1920s. We should be able to talk to one another on terms of equal value. We should presume that the public are able to understand whatever we are able to understand. If not, the case should be made understandable—and I believe nearly every case can be made understandable—in simple terms. Some attempt should be made in that way.

No attempt is made. Every single deputation, urban council, district council, group of citizens, individual Deputies have all been treated in precisely the same way. First of all, there is the usual response to any suggestion that the Board could be wrong and then the heavy-hearted acceptance of a deputation which is presented with a new timetable and told to go home and accept it. This is all part of the insolence of the Board which has created a tremendous amount of ill-feeling for CIE. The manager is not carrying the public with him and it is an easy enough thing to carry them.

In relation to the service in which I had some interest, the Bray-Dublin service, I know the difficulty we had in trying to work out the cost of that service. What did the Board take into consideration? There is a service which goes from Dublin to Bray, a service from Dublin to Dún Laoghaire, from Dublin to Rosslare, a service in the summertime to Arklow. How is the cost of the usage of these lines estimated? How are the services broken up over a particular line and, in that way, the amount allocated to any particular stretch of that line worked out? It should be possible to make it clear, as a result of these figures, that there is a good case to be made and the case should be made frankly and fearlessly by the Board and then a decision taken. Obviously, if one accepts the old principle I have referred to of justice being done and being seen to be done, it is wrong that the Board should be judge and jury in their own case, which is, in fact, what they are. They are the final tribunal. If they have a valid case, which is arguable before an independent tribunal, let them bring it forward.

The Dáil decided that they should be the final tribunal. Everybody in the House decided.

Let the whole thing be clearly stated and argued and then let a decision be taken by somebody independent of the whole lot.

I do not think the Deputy voted against that section of the Bill.

There is that simple difficulty in relation to the public. There is the other difficulty of the public when they try to get an extension of services or improvement of services or new services of any kind. At the present time, the public are greatly disturbed. One of the factors which contributed to the increase in the cost of living, which led to the eighth round of wage increases. was, of course, the fares of CIE. The fact that fares were increased subsequently means again they are creating one of the components for a new wage demand themselves. When the public try to ensure that the services are run in their own interests, extended or renewed, they find it is impossible to get any satisfaction from the Board for the same reason as the workers get when they ask for a wage increase, the same reason as is incorporated in the 1958 Act, the same reason as we are asking should be removed—"We cannot give you an extended service because of the cost, because we have to break even by a particular time, because the Company must be run at a profit". The result is that the public are dissatisfied. The public, I think, generally are dissatisfied with the standard of service given by CIE, both on the trains and in the buses.

Certainly I might make my own protest. I am dissatisfied with the bus service which operates in my own part of the world. I tried to put down a question to the Minister about it recently and was not permitted. It takes a cold double-decker bus 55 minutes to go 11 or 12 miles and I wanted to ask the Minister is this a record. Unfortunately, I was not allowed to ask it but I would like the Minister some time to sit in the top place in one of those double-decker buses rambling its way towards Enniskerry, stopping at every bump on the road, the passengers hoping they will not freeze to death by the time it reaches Enniskerry. That is one service of which I have personal knowledge. I am sure there are plenty of others like it. One sees youngsters walking miles to school around that dreadfully hilly area. Clearly, CIE have said that no additional buses will be provided there. It is, particularly from now on, the highest from of cruelty to people. Of course, I have no doubt that the same position obtains in every county in Ireland.

For the Minister's information, there are very many people without motor cars living in rural Ireland. These people are being driven to live in the cities in order to save themselves the appalling ordeal of, after a day's work, walking, say, from Enniskerry village up to any of these places — Glencree or Roundwood or the top of the Deerpark or any of these other places. I do not understand how society can operate and virtually completely ignore the needs of these people. I am certain it is not aimed specifically at ourselves in County Wicklow, that it is the pattern in every county, in the rural areas.

It is no use asking for additional services. You will be told: "They would cost too much and we must break even by 1964." Of course the man is not going near breaking even but he is nevertheless perpetuating this myth that it is possible to do it. The individual response to this type of service is to provide your own. I do not like very much driving a motor car, particularly in view of the appalling danger of the Bray road and the area in which I travel. I should much rather travel by bus if there were such a thing as a comfortable bus with a reasonable frequency, but if you are faced with a 55-minute run for a 12-mile journey, you cannot spend the remainder of your life sitting in a double-decker bus.

Therefore, we have had to make an independent decision and protest in this case, just as Deputy Corry made it in relation to his. I never understand how it is, when I give people lifts in from Kilmacanogue or such places, you find there is not another bus for four hours. In some places, there is not another bus until the next day or the day after, three times a week or something like that. How people tolerate that is beyond me. There are not sufficient services to Ballyfermot, but if the people in Ballyfermot were told they would get one bus in three hours, then they would know how bad things are. Why should people in rural Ireland be treated like this? There should be a better——

The number of bus passengers is going up. Peculiar, is it not?

If you take away the train between Bray and Dublin and somebody works in Dublin, he can either swim or take a bus and at this time of the year, it is preferable to take a bus. I suppose that is the answer. In fact, the number of passengers is reduced. The result of this decision under the 1958 Act, in any case, has left us with this grossly inefficient service in practically all aspects of its operation. One of the minor tortures of my life is driving from here to Enniskerry, where I live, along the roads, any of them, that I have to travel on. Largely as a result of this 1958 Act and the way the whole question of public transport was considered, it is now a very dangerous thing, as the Minister knows, to drive on any of our roads. One need but read the morning papers or listen to the radio to hear of all the accidents and the death rate on the roads. It is clear that to have considered this question of public transport in isolation, as was done in 1958, was completely wrong. I accept Deputy O'Connor's view that we must reduce, or should reduce, the railways and get alternative transport but to reduce the railways and then make no significant improvement in road transport is completely irresponsible.

I do not think the Minister will suggest that there has been any serious approach to road-building as a national undertaking, considering the additional large buses and large transport vehicles that will be put into service on these roads as a result of the curtailment of the rail services. There has been no significant building of properly-dimensioned motor roads of the £1,000,000 or £1,500,000 type one sees on the continent or, to a very limited extent, in Britain. There is very little development of fly-overs, by-passes or under-passes, rebuilding of bridges, increase in the number of bridges, or an attempt to organise traffic in city centres or to restrict by taxation the use of cars. The result, as everybody knows who tries to go home between 5 and 7 p.m., is that you find you had better walk as it is nearly impossible to get out of the city with one's patience intact.

Clearly, the fact that hire-purchase arrangements are much easier and more people buy cars, scooters and bicycles is all part of the protest against the organisation of the rail services. Most people would much prefer to take a quick train home or a quick bus service, if such were available, rather than take the quite considerable risk now involved in trying to drive a car from here to Bray or Balbriggan or other places where people must go.

There has been no serious road-building or road-widening within the county boundary of Dublin particularly. Anything that may have happened between Dublin and Cork happened beyond the county bounds; broadly speaking, I think that is true. Driving from here to Balbriggan, Bray or Dún Laoghaire is very much alike. This need not be. If this curtailment of rail services is decided on for any reason, the decision should have been taken only in consideration of the safety of the public and should have been taken only in association with a great national road-building campaign. In those circumstances, the Minister would have been faced with a problem of whether it was an economic proposition to close down the railways. It is easy to close them down and show a profit on road transport if you do not recall the fact that you cannot have efficient road services unless you have efficient roads and you cannot have efficient transport on roads that were built for horses and carts.

The most uncongested roads in Europe.

This is an Irish Parliament discussing public transport in Ireland. If the Minister wants to discuss public transport on the continent, let him do so. I am speaking for the constituents I represent and their problems here in Ireland which is the only thing I know very much about and for that reason I feel competent to discuss it. If a courageous decision had been taken that rail transport should be curtailed for any reason, with that decision, there should have been a decision taken also that our roads would be greatly enlarged and increased and that all this other business of by-passes, flyovers, underpasses, ringroads and so on would be provided in the interests of public safety. When the bill was brought to the Minister, he might then have some estimate of the true implications of the decision to curtail rail transport in this way. There has been no serious attempt to do this.

It has all been examined.

I do not know if Deputy O'Connor thought of this. He mentioned lorries—and the business of quick turn-rounds which was a perfectly good point—taking the place of rail locomotives but there is this point, that unless you take this decision to facilitate traffic on the roads, then you will be back where you started if your complaint was that rail transport was too slow for the business of carrying merchandise and so on.

Then, when you get a congested road, and we are gradually moving towards congested roads, you are going to get lorries travelling at 20 miles an hour, or 30 miles an hour, or travelling nose to tail as they do in Britain, and if you dispatch goods they will have to wait. Everybody believes there is a great increase in public, personal transport and in road haulage transport by private individuals and the result is that more private, personal transport is thrown on to roads which are not designed to carry it. That was the basic failure of the decision in 1958 and these two decisions should have been taken at the same time. We are going to be faced again with exactly the same position. CIE lorries, or Deputy O'Connor's lorries, are going to be at the end of a queue three miles long. There are going to be complaints about delays and the fact that somebody dispatched something at Bray and had to wait seven or eight hours for it to arrive in Dublin. It will not be the fault of the lorry driver.

Deputy O'Connor's railway only required two extra lorries.

The fact, of course, is that there has been a slowing down in road transport and basically it was a very unwise decision to abandon this wonderful, uninterrupted run from one city to another which was available on the railway. This decision to close them was done without seriously examining the possibility of trying to speed up the services or trying to make them more attractive.

Another inexplicable anomaly of CIE is this: why did we set about what is called dieselisation of the service? To some people it seemed to be a dangerous thing to do in so far as we were putting all our eggs into one basket and using imported fuel to drive our public services and in that way we were putting ourselves at the mercy of whoever was exporting the fuel. There is also the fact that the steam engine services appeared to be operating quite well. There was at one time a proposal that we should use native fuel. I understand that no great progress was made in that regard but what was the benefit of providing these very fast diesel electric locomotives? Was it so that we could provide these secret, gargantuan contracts for General Motors or whatever it was? There is no clear explanation and this is another thing about which the public have been kept in the dark.

One would have thought that the purpose of getting these locomotives was to try to provide a much speedier service on the railways. If this is so is it not a fact that there has not been a great speeding up on these inter-city train services? Is it not a fact that there has been no increase in speeding up the services at all and it now takes three hours—certainly it took President de Valera three hours—to travel from Dublin to Cork when in fact these diesels can do the journey in two and half hours? Is it not a fact that there has been no significant change in railway timetables for about six years? Has there been any significant change in timetables except restricting them or cutting out train services altogether? Surely there should have been a purpose behind this colossal expenditure on providing diesel locomotives? The purpose should have been to try to get speedier and better services in every way, services which would have made the passengers flock back to them. I should like the Minister to say if there has been any significant change in railway timetable schedules for the past five or six years.

There are other countries which have equipped themselves with diesels.

I understand Holland is one and that there you can get two types of trains, a fast train on the hour and a slow train on the half hour. That seems to me to be a good thing for anybody to know. If a person wants to get to the suburbs, it would be nice to know that there was this choice between a fast and a slow train. I do not think that there has been any serious attempt made by the management of CIE to make rail services really attractive to the travelling public. There has been no great improvement in the rolling stock.

In one of the annual reports I saw a reference to four new carriages. We are now a long way along the road from 1958—we are at the end of 1962 —and we still have not nearly replaced the rolling stock or provided ourselves with new, modern and comfortable carriages. Some of the antiques which are brought out at Christmas or Easter or for football finals should be in museums. Conceivably, the reason why one does not get faster services is because if these diesels were running to their full output they would pull the end off these carriages. These antiques cannot be driven at more than a certain speed. It is a vicious circle and the result is that people are not being encouraged to use the passenger services.

The publicity one sees is usually concerned with one or two hostesses, or whatever it may be, but the important publicity is to give efficient, comfortable service between the various towns and cities. The only publicity needed is a picture of a new timetable with faster, more accessible and more convenient services. I understand that that is the broad line to be followed by British Railways, an attempt to have very fast transport, travelling at 100 miles an hour on the railways. Is any attempt being made to do that here? If not, why not? If not why did we not save ourselves the millions of pounds which we have spent and, presumably, by the time we change the remaining steam locomotives for diesels, the millions of pounds which the taxpayer will have been asked to spend?

The Taoiseach, then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, was at that time also wrong on that point when he suggested that the capital payments were nearing an end. It shows how little thought he must have given to this matter and it is quite frightening to think that he had such a powerful influence on such an important aspect of the life of our society. In addition to saying they would be breaking even any time— instead of which they are losing £800,000 or £900,000 in addition to the £1,000,000 which we are to give them in the form of a subsidy—he said, as reported at column 1599 of the Official Report of 8th May, 1958:

These annual payments must cover all the needs of CIE, including payment of interest on their stocks, all outlay, other than expenditure on capital account. The dieselisation of the undertaking is, as the House knows, now nearly completed and it is not anticipated that any further substantial capital expenditure will be required during that period.

That was 1958. Only last July, we voted the fantastic amount of something like £6,000,000 for more diesels. If one continues the dieselisation programme through, many more millions of pounds will need to be spent by the public in the completion of the programme. Therefore once again, Deputy Lemass was talking through his that when he said we were at the end of capital expenditure as far as the diesel electric purchases were concerned.

There was a reference in one of the annual reports to the purchase of four units of rolling stock. It is quite obvious that if we are to go ahead at that rate—possibly it will be speeded up—then, on a quick estimate, at the rate of four a year, it will be 40 years before people will find themselves travelling in any sort of reasonable comfort.

One of the further problems in relation to CIE, about which I am not very clear, is road freight. Road freight tonnage has gone up from £2.1 million to £3.5 million. That appears to suggest that there is some improvement in the holding of CIE in this regard. Of course, as everybody knows, taken in the global picture of road freight in the country generally, it is only a flea bite on the total but, for what it is worth, there is some increase by CIE. At the same time, there appears to be a reduction in price in the rate per ton from £13.5 to £12.4.

I wonder what is the significance of the reduction in price on the road freight side and the increase in price on the passenger side. Our receipts for passengers dropped from £8 million, approximately, in 1959 to £6.9 million in 1962. The significant thing which I should like to explain is why the cost per passenger went up from £1.63 to £1.87 while the rate per ton for road freight went down, as I said, from £13.5 to £12.4. What is the policy decision behind this reduction on the one hand and increase on the other hand? How did the Board of the Company succeed in taking that decision? Were they not bound by the same provision to break even? Did it not operate here?

Did the board not feel they had to increase their rate on the road freight side, just as they increased the passenger costs? Is that significant? Does the Minister believe it is significant that where they reduced their unit costs there was an increase in the turnover generally and where they increased their costs in relation to passengers there was a significant reduction from £8,000,000 to £7,000,000?

I should like an explanation as to whether the increase in passenger fares was inevitable. Was it justifiable to allow an increase in passenger fares and at the same time to allow a reduction in relation to road freight rates so that, in fact, the passenger-travelling public are subsidising road freight transport? Is it not a fact that the reduction in the number of passengers and the increase in receipts means an increased cost per passenger? Is the Minister satisfied it will not end up in a vicious circle with fewer and fewer passengers using railways not only in relation to the curtailment of services but also because of the unsatisfactory nature of the services and increasing fares and then, with the reduction of passengers, a continued upward trend in fares to recoup losses? Will this trend be so?

The increase in passenger fares generally, on the roads and on the railways, seems to be a very diligent and doctrinaire attempt by Dr. Andrews to look after people whom Deputy Lemass, when he introduced this Bill, seemed to be primarily concerned to relieve—the general taxpayer—of the necessity to subsidise the railways, and so on, by annual subventions. The way I look at it is that the general taxpayer is not only the direct taxpayer but is also the indirect taxpayer. He is the person who pays tax on cigarettes, tobacco, drink, and so on. He will have to pay a contribution, admittedly, if the subvention rises. If the subvention has to be increased or maintained at its present level he will have to pay something in the form of direct taxation but indirect taxation is consequent, too.

In recent Budgets successful attempts have been made to reduce taxation on the higher taxpayer. The result of that has been that the main burden of taxation is falling on the indirect taxpayer. He is paying indirect taxation, which is constant, and, in addition, he is paying increasing fares. He is the person who is paying it elsewhere. The wealthy person is not bothered by increasing fares. Most wealthy persons do not use CIE, anyhow. Therefore, it seems to me that this is yet another indication of the Government's determination—whether it is health, old age or any of these other social welfare provisions in the community— to see that the wealthy taxpayer is paying less and less to the general needs of society. Accordingly, the unfortunate worker is paying more and more, either on his own behalf or on behalf of his family, because the people who use the services most are those with children going to school or with wives who want to travel to a town or city to do ordinary domestic duties. People are paying more and more in fares and in that way, since fares have been increased, are paying more and more for maintaining the services.

Therefore, it is unfortunate that the general trend has been to victimise the person who is already finding life hard enough without having further impositions. It looks as if there is no aspect of the operation of CIE under Dr. Andrews and the Minister which can be pointed to with pride as being a booming success. This is something to which this man cannot turn and say: "I have achieved my particular objective."

A question was asked recently to try to determine the impact which CIE have had on the general transport of the country and it elicited the information that CIE had 1,394 passenger vehicles, 674 lorries, 85 vans, and 26 horse boxes, a total of 1,785 vehicles of one kind or another. On the other side, for the haulage of general commercial and agricultural goods of one kind or another, there are in existence 88,929 different goods vans owned privately or by firms. That is a ratio of 1,785 to nearly 90,000, meaning that only one in 100 of the haulage vans on the road is CIE operated.

Anyone would think, listening to the Minister and Dr. Andrews, that CIE are sweeping all before them. Anybody who travels the roads knows this to be a complete hoax. There is a tendency for the general merchant to by-pass CIE if he possibly can and there is a general tendency by the ordinary passenger in whatever way he can, whether it is by buying a car, sharing a taxi, buying a scooter, getting a bicycle or walking, virtually to consider anything as being more satisfactory than using CIE except in extreme cases.

They are buying those in every country.

The difficulty about the Minister is that he does not realise he is Minister for Transport and Power here in the Republic of Ireland and that we do not give two damns about what goes on outside it. The unfortunate person who is depending on transport to get from Dublin to Bray, Dublin to Balbriggan, Dublin to Cork and Cork to Waterford, is not concerned to know whether they are paying the same between Paris and Biarritz or Rome and Milan. It is irrelevant and unimportant, but this type of attitude epitomises the unrealistic approach of the Minister and Dr. Andrews to the simple, terribly important issue of trying to provide the ordinary people with an efficient, comfortable and moderately economical transport service.

It is typical of the Minister that he should be content to cushion himself from reality by saying that it is important for us to consider what happens in Timbuctoo or Paris or Hamburg. I do not give two damns what they are paying in France or Italy and I should be surprised if the Minister stood outside the GPO in Dublin and asked each of a thousand people who passed by if they were worried about the position on the Continent, or elsewhere, that one of them would express the least anxiety.

The reality about our transport service is that there is this great makebelieve by the CIE authorities at Kingsbridge. Their public relations officers are doing very well in creating this mythical fiction about the expert Dr. Andrews, about the great job he did cutting turf down in County Kildare and saying that consequently he should know all about public transport. We do not dispute that he did a good job cutting turf in County Kildare but it does not necessarily follow that this man is infallible in matters of public transport. That is what is worrying all the Deputies here — this aura of infallibility with which Dr. Andrews, his public relations officers and the Minister seem to surround themselves.

There has been no spectacular break-through in relation to rail passengers by CIE. The receipts have gone down, travelling costs have gone up and we have the great touchstone of success. Surely it must be a touchstone of success: it was established as such by Deputy Lemass. At column 1595, Volume 167 of the Official Report, Deputy Lemass is reported as saying that the board of CIE were placed under a general obligation to conduct the undertaking so as to eliminate working losses by 31st March, 1964. They were the riding orders to the general manager and, as I say, the 1959 position was that there was a loss of £1,900,000, in 1960, it was over £700,000 and in 1962, it was £1,600,000, going up. Everybody knows it is going up. I do not think anybody has any serious doubts that we will be losing £2,000,000 at the end of the next financial year, or certainly by the deadline by which CIE have been asked to break even. Everybody can see from the way costs are going that it was an absurd proposition anyway, that even if Dr. Andrews were ten times the man he thinks he is, he could not be expected to break even, not to talk of showing a profit by that date.

Surely the only possible way of doing that would be to curtail services. If you are to curtail the rail services which do not pay their way and replace them with bus services, where is this to stop? The time will come when you will find it does not pay you to run a bus service from, say, Balbriggan to Dublin, Bray to Dublin, Dún Laoghaire to Dublin. What will you do then if you are to put into effect this operative phrase: "We must break even"? If you do insist on retaining that directive in your transport policy, where will you stop? As soon as the bus service which replaces the rail service starts showing a loss, what is your position to be? Take the services from Bray to Dublin, or from Dalkey and Dún Laoghaire to Dublin. That is the logic of your present position.

Even in relation to merchandise, in relation to livestock, has there been a significant increase? If we are to take the annual reports, the increase in tonnage was from 1,200,000 in 1959 to 1,800,000 in 1962, a relatively insignificant increase. In spite of what the Minister may imply in his eulogy of Dr. Andrews there has been no spectacular take over by CIE of the transport of livestock. The position did improve from 536,000 in 1959 to 541,000. There is nothing very significant in that. It is a relatively mild increase in view of the tremendous promise, in view of the undertaking that CIE would break even by 1964.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share