The Minister still dislikes it? However, I think he believed and from his speeches tended to give the impression, in any case, that as far as he was concerned public transport should not be subsidised. Now, he and the Government have come to the firm conclusion that the transport system in this country must be subsidised for some time to come. I wonder why he made all these statements. He is a man who takes a tremendous interest in the detail of his Department and in the financial details of the different State and semi-State bodies for which he, as Minister, is responsible. He surely must have known that, whilst the losses of CIE for the first three or four of these years tended to decline, at the time he was talking about subsidies, the losses of CIE were beginning to gather again.
In April, 1962, the Minister said that CIE must pay its way because the age of subsidies is rapidly passing away. He said that current operating subsidies are deadly, breeding inefficiency, bolstering up outmoded techniques. In February, 1963, he said that subsidies are not in any way justified per se. Then, in June, 1963, speaking in Limerick, at a time when he knew this Bill would be introduced, the Minister is reported as saying he would forecast the unlikelihood of any general subsidy for CIE and that subsidies bred inefficiency and indifference.
I suggest that all those speeches which the Minister made, and the quotations from which I have here, from 1960 onwards, were designed to prod CIE into making superhuman efforts that were not justified when one considered, in conjunction with them, the upset to the public and to the employees of CIE. My impression is that the Minister made all these speeches in order to spur CIE to break even within five years. I do not think he should have done that to the degree he did. I do not think he should have done that to the extent of telling CIE that they were "bunched", so to speak, if they could not break even after five years.
While I do not regard the Minister as a ruthless man, I believe CIE were ruthless in the past five years in trying to break even. It was an impossible and an unfair task to give the Chairman and the Board of CIE. I suggest that they did their best in accordance with the terms of reference they got under the 1958 Act—terms of reference with which we in the Labour Party disagreed at that time.
I do not think that in this Bill or even in the Minister's speech there is a clearly expressed definition of future transport policy. There may be a lull now for all time. There may be some sense of security in that the Government have said the railway system must be preserved. However, the Minister could have been a little more positive and could have given a little more detail as to the future of the railways.
Are we to take it that, from the passing of this Bill, the present railway lines will remain intact, that the services we have will be preserved for at least five or ten years and that the stations that now serve the people will also remain intact for any long time? There is implicit in all this Bill the undoubted fact that the rail section can never pay for itself. It is a service that we have to pay for. Those who complain about paying the subsidy of £2 million would in my experience be the first to protest to CIE and to the Minister for Transport and Power if half a mile of track were taken from their area.
The Minister has given good reasons for his conversion as to why we should have a good railway system, a railway system that should be preserved for a long time to come. Whilst it is not for any of us here to comment on what happened in the Six Counties, I think there is now a change of heart and of mind as to the wisdom of the policy of denuding the Six Counties of the long mileage of railway system there.
I suppose the Pacemaker Report has provided a lot of information for the Minister for Transport and Power. Again, might I suggest that it has come somewhat late, when we remember complaints from—the outstanding one—Tramore, west Cork and others from various parts of the country. It is not for me to jump into the Tramore controversy. I suppose the Minister has had to listen to more about Tramore than about any other railway track in the country. However, from my experience and as far as my judgment is concerned, they made a tremendous mistake in scrapping the railway in Tramore. I shall go no further than to say that.
In the past five years, CIE have scrapped 600 miles of track and I think something in the region of 200 railway stations. The Minister would be the best person to judge this: I wonder whether, if he knew as much then as he knows now, would he have advised CIE not to close so many miles of track and not to close down so many railway stations.
In all this, my primary concern is not alone for the travelling public but for the workers. It seemed obvious to the workers over the five years that the railway system was being allowed to run down deliberately. There may be various criticisms from those interested in excursions, beet growers, and those interested in the carriage of freight in respect of very many different commodities. But there may be general dissatisfaction in regard to the way the railway system has been run, and, in many cases, with inefficiency. If this Bill is going to clear up that; if Pacemaker is going to provide information to ensure that CIE will change its methods, I think it may be welcome.
I am sure the Minister has been asked this question before but I think he should, in his reply, expand on his explanation of section 3 because it is not clear to us, at any rate, what it means, as to what expenditure CIE will be allowed to engage in. Does it, for instance, preclude them from building canteens, from capital expenditure on railway stations merely to preserve them? Does it mean that railway stock is to be run down or that the permanent way can go, or must be neglected by reason of the bar that may be imposed on CIE in respect of these things?
The grant is mentioned as £2 million per year. Can there be any adjustment of that? I assume there cannot, since it is stated specifically in the Bill, but Deputy Casey yesterday suggested that £2 million would not be enough. There will be wage adjustments, I assume, in the next five years—there must be; costs in other respects will have increased and to suggest that £2 million will be sufficient next year and the same sum in five years time is presenting the problem in a way that is far too simple.
Section 9 deals with compensation. I think CIE has been very unfair in regard to the absence of any compensation scheme for domestic upset. I should be the first to say that in many respects the redundancy scheme was a good one, one that was agreed between the unions and the CIE Board, but there were some omissions. I know many young and middle aged men who did fairly well out of redundancy compensation payments but there are others who were not allowed under the agreement to avail of any compensation and who were very much upset. There is no provision for domestic upset.
I have met, as I am sure other Deputies have, porters and different other ranks of CIE employees in places where a station was closed down and they were told they could get another job 20 miles away at the same wages. That might seem fair enough, but the domestic upset was tremendous. To give an example: A man who lives about 20 miles from Waterford city found the railway station in his area was closed down. He was told there was a job for him in Waterford. He is a man with a wife and a number of children. I think the Minister can immediately see the domestic upset involved because in Waterford, as in Wexford, Limerick and Cork it is extremely difficult if not impossible for an entire stranger to come into the town and expect to be housed. I found these people had to travel long distances every day in order to do their work. They had not the option of retiring on any compensation payment. That has happened in a big way all over the country.
It is true that redundancy compensation is continued but only to a limited extent in regard to the withdrawal of a service or the introduction of dieselisation. I think there should be another look at the redundancy compensation provisions so as to ensure that justice will be done all round and especially where there is a big domestic upset. The redundancy compensation, except for railwaymen, has ceased since 31st March, 1964.
Has the Minister been asked—I was not here all the time but I am sure he must deal with it when he replies —about the question of compensation for those who will be displaced with the total operation of one-man buses? As far as my information goes, two-thirds of the provincial bus servicees are still to be one-manned, so to speak. Does it mean that, as redundancy compensation has ceased since the 31st March, any of these people who will become redundant because of the one-man operation of buses in the provinces will not receive any compensation? What will happen those becoming redundant? Will they be placed in other jobs or must they, having given five, ten, 15, 20 or 25 years service, be thrown out without a penny compensation? I do not know if this was made clear; it may have been, but when I read the Bill before reading the Minister's speech I made a note here asking if the compensation payments would be made out of the subsidy, or would they be advanced by the Government? If the Minister has not already referred to that I should be glad if he would make it clear when replying.
There does not seem to be any compensation provision for redundancy in the Road Passenger Service or in Maintenance or Road Traffic. There does not seem to be any compensation provision for the clerical staff of Road Traffic or for redundancy where there are reorganisation schemes other than what is set out in the Bill. There are many other schemes of reorganisation that can be carried out that are not covered in the Bill and which would render workers redundant. I should like the Minister to clear up this point for me: it seems that CIE have to pay interest on capital advanced. Would the Minister make it clear whether other State bodies are treated similarly? It seems very unfair if CIE have to pay interest while other State or semi-State bodies have not. That would put CIE under a great disadvantage.
I hope I have not provoked another speech. I tried to be as brief as possible in order that the Minister might get in.
