Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jun 1964

Vol. 210 No. 4

Supplementary Estimate, 1964-65. - Transport Bill, 1964—Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. P. Hogan

(South Tipperary): On the last occasion I had come to deal with the question of commercial transport. I found that whatever success lay with CIE in the field of commercial transport largely stemmed from the monopoly conditions which the 1958 Act provided. Those monopoly conditions appear to have been pretty extensive. I want to quote now from the “Economic Research Institute, Paper No. 13”. The heading to a paragraph on page 6 is: “The Licensing and Freedom of Commercial Vehicles”. I now quote:

Restrictions on the use of commercial vehicles employed on transport for reward date back to the 1933 Road Transport Act which was aimed at protecting the railways from competition and to enable them to secure a substantial share in road transport for hire and reward. The latter aim, however, has only been partly fulfilled. The Act prohibited, save under licence, the carriage of goods for reward by mechanically propelled vehicles except within certain exempted areas which, since 1944, have been within a radius of 15 miles from Dublin and Cork and within a 10 mile radius of Limerick, Waterford and Galway. Licences were granted to existing hauliers in 1933 (and in 1944 when certain areas were removed from exemption) on the basis of their original vehicle fleets with certain restrictions as to the weight of the vehicle operated, the radius of operation, and on the commodities carried. Licences could be transferred or continued by near relatives of the original licensee provided that he lived in the same district but virtually no new licences have been granted to new entrants other than some issued for special traffics, e.g., turf, milk and cream, newspapers, on the grounds of inadequacy of transport.

Under the same Act the railway companies were empowered to buy either by compulsion or by agreement, the licences and businesses of their competitors, which they have done on a substantial scale, having acquired some 387 of their larger competitors.

At Table 8 of this bulletin under "category of operator, rail companies, including railhead collection and delivery", it gives the number of concerns as three, and the number of other operators as 890; the number of vehicles, rail companies, 879; other operators 1,090; tonnage carried, rail companies, 3,327; other operators, 2,257. It goes on to give livestock carried and vehicle miles run.

In his speech, the Minister said:

The members of the House are entitled to ask what will happen if there is a very marked deterioration in the position. My answer is that the Government have made certain assumptions as with all future planning. These are that:

(1) It is hoped that the Board, supported by the entire staff, will induce more efficiency and retain existing traffics.

(2) It is hoped that the railway will gain traffic from the growth in the general economy.

(3) There is recognition of the fact that the huge staff of CIE will and should receive increases of remuneration applicable to the whole economy and that future increases as a result of the advice of the National Industrial Economic Council will be based on national productivity growth on a basis clearly set forth by the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance.

This is the one I want to come to.

(4) No doubt the staff and management will recognise the special characteristics of the railway finances, the dependence on 20 important customers and on courteous punctual service.

To me that is an amazing paragraph. Maybe I am misinterpreting it but it suggests to me that CIE are dependent on 20 important customers. That is what is written here. It is amazing that in this monopoly system, and with the implementation of the powers they are given, they are now talking about their business being limited to 20 important customers. That does not bespeak the efficiency with which the Minister would like us to gather this concern has been operated.

It brings me to two tentative conclusions. First, if that is all they are able to do, we might just as well completely relax control on private transport. After all, if CIE are not to be a solvent concern any more, why not let them operate in full competition with private commercial haulage? The deficiency will have to be paid one way or another. I believe the time has come when these restrictive practices on commercial hauliers, which have proved to be ineffective as one of the means of making CIE a solvent proposition, should be removed. Should we not ask ourselves: "Should we not abolish these practices and give the private hauliers more competition with CIE?" The position cannot be worse than it is.

The second tentative conclusion one is driven to is in regard to the whole question of State companies. We are all familiar with the Minister's replies to various questions arising in regard to different concerns of which he is in charge. He seems to be unfortunate in that he has a number of concerns over which he has no direct charge and time and again he has come here to say: "I cannot answer that question; you must write to CIE". If we are accepting the idea that CIE is no longer going to be a solvent company, that is cannot be run on the same lines as the ESB, for instance, then the time has come when there should be more direct control by this House so that any Deputy can get up and ask a question and the Minister will not be constrained to say that he cannot give a reply.

Mr. Sweetman

I want to support strongly the case made by Deputy Hogan in relation to the transport of livestock in particular. It is, in my view, essential to the livestock industry that there should be a much freer movement in transport. The haulage of livestock in something which to a phenomenal degree depends on the individual care and attention that is best given by the man who owns his own lorry. It is without question the experience of those who have livestock to be hauled that the individual will give a very much better service than that given by an organisation which must have regard for its own needs. CIE of necessity have to run what one might call a continuation service, and if anything happens, as I have seen it happening on occasion, to one of the earlier runs, then the effect is that the later cattle destined for the Dublin Cattle Market from my constituency do not go at all.

Secondly, I want to say—and I have informed the Chairman of CIE that I proposed to say this—that only last week I had a most unfortunate experience in relation to CIE on the Cork train which I mention not for the purpose of grumbling but for the purpose of publicly ventilating something which I hope, because of its ventilation, will be stopped once and for all. I travelled to Cork a week or ten days ago on the early morning train, travelling first-class. The carriage was filthy and had not been brushed or dusted. The floor was filthy in the sense not of being oily or muddy but covered with papers and empty cigarette cartons and the ashtrays were full of old cigarette butts. The booking arrangements in relation to that train were not exactly happy. I do not care much about that, but unless we can make certain that our transport vehicles of every sort are scrupulously clean, we need not expect anything from the tourist trade. It is not merely a matter for ourselves; it is a matter in particular for the tourist trade.

It so happened that on that morning I saw several tourists coming into the carriage. They were polite enough not to say anything in my hearing but the manner in which they looked at the carriage was eloquent testimony to their thoughts. I might also add that I made it my business to point out to the ticket inspector the condition of the carriage. He agreed with me but did not appear to be as upset as an official of CIE should be in those circumstances. It did not matter in the least to me but it certainly was a very bad advertisement for CIE and it will be a very serious deterrent to our tourist trade if we cannot ensure that all our transport vehicles are scrupulously clean. While I may have many differences with the Minister, I think he will agree with me on that.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

The debate has ranged over a very wide field and it will take me some time to deal with all the points which were raised. I think I should speak in detail in view of its importance to the life of the community and of the many charges made not only against CIE by some Deputies but also against me as the Minister in charge of transport. First of all, I should make it clear to those Deputies who spoke of CIE as though it were a monopoly that the only monopoly that exists in connection with CIE is the restraint on the number of public hauliers operating for reward who are permitted to circulate in the State. There is enormous and growing competition from private transport, from cars and privately-owned lorries of a kind which is taking place in other countries in Europe. By no stretch of the imagination could CIE be termed a monopoly and not even a monopoly in the sense that the ESB is a monopoly, and rightly so, in our circumstances. The competition is terrific.

In regard to the debate on this Bill, it seemed to me that Deputies were divided. Some of them praised CIE services; others criticised some but not all the services. They criticised particular services which they felt were defective. There was sufficient praiseworthy comment for me to say that I believe I have the majority of the House with me in thinking that the efficiency of CIE has greatly improved in the past five years and that the community receives a great deal of first-class service. The fact that they are able to carry 85 per cent of their goods from any one part of the country to another within 24 hours is proof enough that their freight service is reasonably adequate to say the least.

Some Deputies, such as Deputy P. Hogan (South Tipperary), spoke about CIE as a bankrupt, insolvent and incompetent organisation. That is a gross untruth and has no relation to reality. I have given particulars which show that in spite of the reduction in the length of railway lines by 621 miles back to 1,460 miles, the actual passenger mileage in the five years has remained fairly constant and the number of passengers multiplied by miles which they travelled, which is the generally accepted method of computation, has been generally maintained. Rail freight has increased by some 18 per cent during the period and road freight by over 90 per cent. With all the private haulage available and with the licensed carriers in operation, it is hardly likely they would have attained that growth in traffic if they were an incompetent organisation and I do not believe it is a reasonable charge.

Now I want to speak of the charges made against me and therefore against the Government in relation to the attitude I have adopted in the past five years regarding the progress CIE has made. I have been accused of hypocrisy in that I should have known that transport never could be viable. I have been accused of having backed a phoney prospectus, meaning the 1958 Act. I may as well remind the House again that in the case of the 1950 and the 1955 Transport Acts, both passed under Coalition auspices, the Ministers there made statements, which I have already quoted in this House, in the belief that as a result, in the first case, of the reorganisation in 1950 and, in the second place, of an injection of capital in 1955, CIE might pay its way. I made it clear that I was not accusing them of hypocrisy, that although the Taoiseach was extremely careful, as I was, not to commit himself in 1958 to any statement that in his view at the end of five years CIE would no longer need the £1,175,000 of subsidy I was not charging the two previous Ministers with hypocrisy.

The reason I was not so doing was because of the complete absence of cost accountancy in railway companies, because of the attitude of mind which has been common all over Europe of treating the transport concern as a kind of traditional service and because Deputy Morrissey, the late and respected Deputy Norton and Deputy Lemass had not the kind of knowledge or the information available which would make it possible for them to predict the future one way or another. As I have said, I did not accuse them of hypocrisy. I could just as well say they were less realistic than the Taoiseach. I have not said so but in the circumstances it is absolutely wrong to charge me or my predecessor with hypocrisy over this in view of the generally optimistic talk that has always been associated with the discussion of transport legislation in this House.

It is true that on the Second Reading of the 1958 Bill, as it then was, the Taoiseach himself was extremely cautious, stating he hoped CIE could do the job but pointing out that very few railways in Europe paid. The other more responsible Deputies in the House were mildly pessimistic, particularly Deputies such as Deputy Cosgrave—I do not want to quote them at length—who, should I say, was not too hopeful and not too pessimistic. He did not laugh at the Bill's financial terms and say: "They will never do it." He said he thought they would have a hard time doing it and that it might be possible that in 1964 we would be coming along to the Dáil with more legislation seeking more help for CIE. The attitude of the responsible Deputies on the opposite side was, perhaps, just a little more pessimistic than that of the Taoiseach, and no more. There is the position and I thought it should be recorded here.

Deputy O'Higgins suggested I should resign my position as Minister because I had gone all out and expressed the hope that CIE would pay its way. I congratulated them on every stage of their progress, even though I did not in one single case say I believed that the CIE Budget would be balanced at the end of the period. He talked about Fianna Fáil having the habit of talking about a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. Perhaps that is one of the things we could be accused of and we make no apology for it. We say: nothing venture nothing win. We in this Party believe more than anyone else that the Irish people are capable of doing things as well as or better than other people if given good management. As long as I am in charge of any State company which is going through a process of reorganisation I shall encourage them to the limit. I shall make no apology for exhorting CIE to take advantage of the capital made available and of the newly-found freedom in relation to charging rates with a view to doing their utmost to gain traffic. In reply to Deputy Corish, I have no apology for, in his words, driving them as hard as I could to see whether they could not achieve solvency at the end.

No Deputy, with the exception of Deputy Barry indirectly, referred to the reorganisation statement of CIE which was sent to all members of the House. I defy anybody to say that was not a magnificent piece of work, that it was not a splendid piece of reorganisation, once the immense complexity of a transport system and the millions of items handled are recognised. In view of the fact that CIE, like all railway companies, was living in a world where, from the point of view of the law, it would have only the horse as a competitor, the overhaul that took place during that period was splendid. I am sorry that no Deputy thought fit to comment on it. If Deputies had commented on the report in a critical way and said CIE should have done more or criticised some of the items in regard to organisation and said they were exaggerated that would have been constructive criticism but there was no comment on the magnificent piece of organisation which is enshrined in that document which was sent to every Deputy.

There is no need for me to recount to the House the details of the document but it involved a great change in cost accountancy, a tremendous effort in establishing more productivity in the workshops, a reduction in costs, better organisation of wagon and coaching stock, the provision of better coaches, more comfort for passengers and faster trains. Reorganisation also involved providing for the first time a modern sales organisation for the sale of traffic once CIE was placed in the position of being able to work and operate independently at least in regard to the rates that it charged.

One of the reasons why I continued to encourage CIE during the five years and to express optimistically the hope that they might achieve their objective was that I wanted to defend CIE against all the elements of conservatism that inevitably arise when anything new and drastic is being done to an organisation. I wished to defend them from being attacked by all the people who would like to frighten the Minister or the Board of CIE because they were carrying out reorganisation for the general good which would have the effect of inconveniencing certain people, and rightly so, for the general good. I wished to discourage all the pressure groups who wanted too much from CIE at other people's expense, people who perhaps in many cases would be pressing CIE to give this service and that service when it was unreasonable and would merely mean that one group of the community would be subsidising another and that the service requested was something the transport company could not be expected to give in the circumstances.

Then I did have to discourage that group in the community which exists in every country, who have such faith in a railway as a method of transport that any effort to close a railway they oppose vigorously. Up-to-date concepts in regard to the character of the transport of the country are unknown to them.

The basis of CIE policy has been to maintain rail services for the longer hauls and for the faster runs. Buses and lorries are more suitable in an area where more people can be served than by rail and where single handling of people and of goods is the most suitable form of transport. CIE operate on that basis and they found naturally that the railways that were closed were so thinly used——

Mr. T. Lynch

With the exception of one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Please allow the Minister to reply.

Mr. Childers

I am talking about the railways.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister is going off the track.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would the Deputy restrain himself?

Mr. Childers

Where the average number of persons entraining at a terminal station is 50 and where the average consignment of tons of goods is ten, this is not a train service in the modern sense, but a bus or lorry service which travels along rails and stops frequently. I might add that most modern transport administrations all over Europe have taken this same attitude. Thousands of miles of railway line have been closed in country areas. I have read in the report on Swedish railway reorganisation that the new policy of this modern State, which resembles strongly our own, has been to close a large number of railway lines for the same reason that we closed them here.

I believe that if the rail tracks had been preserved on these lines and if I offered to reopen these terribly losing railway services and at the same time asked the House to vote £700,000, which would quickly become £1 million, the House would not vote the taxation required. I should also like to make it clear that railway services have been closed in this country over a period of many years and that even at a time when there was no analysis of rail costs and no complete examination of transport needs throughout the country.

An examination undertaken in the Pacemaker Report on CIE shows that when there were few, comparatively speaking, private cars and lorries on the roads compared with what there are now, 528 miles of railway line were closed between 1924 and 1958. The process of closing railway lines did not begin with the 1958 Act. This process has been going on slowly right from the time this nation became independent. It was merely accelerated when a new attitude towards transport was taken and when the means of assessing the value of railway lines became known and when a modern attitude towards transport economics was adopted.

There are the figures—528 miles were closed in the period previous to the 1958 Act. Some of the railways closed since 1958 were replaced by as few as three vehicles. If 6 per cent of the revenue of CIE in terms of goods carried could be replaced by 57 buses and lorries over a very large area of the country, I cannot help feeling that the policy of CIE was not in any way exaggerated. Those are the actual figures—57 buses and lorries, with a few more, mostly from CIE stock at certain seasons, were required to replace the train traffic along 620 miles of track and the 200-odd stations that were closed.

I wish to make it clear that the modern policy with regard to transport is that railways are, first of all, used only where they get a reasonable amount of traffic. They are for fast, long country services and the bus and lorry are considered more suitable for transport purposes in the scattered rural areas.

Questions were asked by a number of Deputies on this, particularly Deputy M.P. Murphy of West Cork. He asked if the statement in the Pacemaker Report that 750 miles of railway line are wholly unprofitable is a fact, is it then true that if the statistics and the methods used in the Pacemaker Report were available to CIE at the beginning of the period they would not then have closed some of the branch railway lines which were in fact closed. In other words, did the cost accountancy method come so late that CIE made a mistake in that regard?

The answer, I am glad to say, is no. The costing methods used for analysing branch line traffic were so conservative that when the Pacemaker Report was produced and when the eventual evaluation of every sector of line was recorded it was quite obvious that all the railway lines closed came within the debit position. Moreover, there are still branch lines which are considered doubtful.

CIE made that clear, as Deputies will see if they read my statement again. They will find that whereas it was intended to maintain the main arterial system there are some lines still in question. Even using the most modern methods of the Pacemaker Report, they are deemed to be losing money and are not contributing in any worthwhile way to the main arterial system. I want to make that clear because the House has a right to know it. If Deputies read my speech properly they would know that a mistake was not made.

Mr. T. Lynch

Has the House a right to know, Sir?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy has no right to interrupt.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am asking whether the House has a right to know.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. T. Lynch

I shall bring it up another time.

Mr. Childers

In connection with the House having facts about the closing of a number of railway lines, I gave at that time a great deal of detailed information on the lines that were losing money. I gave the amount of the losses and the revenue from the lines and I made it clear at that time, because it was in the public interest to do so, that the Minister in charge of any transport system in any country in Europe who continued to give information on the economics of every line in the country would simply create pressure groups of people who wanted this, that and the other at other people's expense. This would not be in the interest of the company concerned. As it was a matter of public interest, a considerable amount of information was given at that time.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is not true.

Mr. Childers

Next I wish to refer to the suggestion made that I continued to be over optimistic as to the final result of the CIE reorganisation under the 1958 Act. I have already indicated that I was determined to exhort CIE to do their utmost to resist the efforts of pressure groups who might have held them back in their progress.

In fact I was in the position of not knowing whether CIE would be able to balance their budget in the end because of the complete absence of economic analyses within the organisation. This has indeed been reflected in Europe where only recently the International Railway Research Organisation began to assemble economic data which enable railways to engage in the science of transport econometrics after studying all these facts.

How could I or any other Minister know in advance whether, having been given freedom to engage in package deals, CIE would be able to get £500,000, £1 million or £2 million worth of package deals? Who could tell? They might have got only £500,000. In fact they got something like £1 million but at the time there was no basis of analysis by which I could tell whether they might be able to get £2 million or £2½ million in package deals which would have brought them much nearer paying their way.

That is a fact. There was at the time no traffic analysis of a modern kind. We did not even know what were the comparative costs of package deal traffic by CIE and the costs of carrying the same goods by private transport. One of the difficulties CIE had was that the very able sales staff employed by them to go around the country found it very difficult to get people willing to engage in a cost comparison. First of all the sales staff had to go to a great many firms and say: "Will you allow us to do a modern costings on your transport establishment if you have not done it? We shall show you how much it is costing you to take your goods at a given time and over a given period from A to B or from B to C and we shall offer you a package deal at what we can do it for."

CIE found in a great many cases that it was quite obvious it would pay the companies to continue their own transport. In other cases they found they could do the job more economically. In some cases, for prestige reasons, because of the publicity value of using their own lorries and vehicles, some of the companies refused to accept package deals. They preferred to have their own lorries even if it proved more expensive to them.

We did not know at that time what the cost would be when this tremendous effort was being made to secure traffic. It was impossible to tell in advance the results of CIE's competitive selling campaign, carried out for the first time on a modern basis in a transport service which had lasted for 100 years or more. Then again, during a great part of the period, it was impossible to say how the economy would expand. It took until 1959 for us to observe a very pleasant and startling growth in the national income. We did not know, we could not know how much of the growth would be reflected in very largely expanded CIE sales.

The transport services did expand but the nature of the new raw materials, where they were coming from and going to, how many of them would reach the larger towns, the seaports, how much processing of goods would be undertaken, was impossible to forecast. All we can say is that from 1959 CIE shared in the economy expansion. A number of international railway reports show that the growth in traffic in a railway does not follow proportionally the growth of national income. That is partly due to the fact that there has been a reduction in heavy bulk traffic owing to the setting up of heavy industries near seaports and because of a reduction in the weight of finished goods resulting from the use of new raw materials and the increasing trend towards factory finished products of high value but often of low weight.

Railway traffic forecasts are extremely difficult to undertake because of the changing pattern of industry, although they are now making a better effort at it. At that time we could not make a very definite prediction in that respect. I was quite determined, as long as this process of examination went on, to be optimistic and I shall be optimistic again if any State undertaking finds it necessary to engage in a similar reorganisation. I shall go on being optimistic unless, in advance, I get the kind of information which would make it very much easier to predict what would happen and which might alter the character of necessary legislation.

My final answer to this point is why did not the Coalition Government write the kind of Bill in 1955 that we provided in 1958? Why did they not set in train the forces of reorganisation which would enable the proper analysis to be undertaken and some predictions made so that in 1958 we could have observed the situation and might have produced a different type of Act providing different arrangements for the transport services?

I am not blaming the Coalition for not having done it because all this modern analysis is so recent. If I do not blame the Coalition for not having thought on the lines of modern transport econometrics and of the need for relating transport as a social service to the economics of the service, they can hardly blame me if during that five year period, with completely unknown quantities in front of me, I chose, and will always choose, to be optimistic in such circumstances.

Both the Beeching Report in regard to transport in Britain and the Pacemaker Report are very modern documents, acclaimed throughout Europe and elsewhere as such, so that the whole of this new analysis, of this new method of book-keeping and accountancy, is something that will enable us in future at least to be more realistic about CIE than we have been in the past. We are, all of us, jointly responsible for this rather traditional attitude towards the transport service.

The next statement made was that I went on refusing publicly to accept the principle of a subsidy until I was forced to do so. I make no apology for that either. If I had hinted at any time during this period of evaluation, of reorganisation, that a subsidy would be inevitable, all the people would have been seeking subsidies and, not having to vote for the money, would have been howling like wolves at CIE's feet and it would have been impossible to carry out the reorganisation that was so essential.

At the same time, I felt that as long as I could I should speak against the principle of an operating subsidy to cover the difference between current operating expenditure and receipts because I thought that would be a most undesirable form of subsidy, and still do, though I was compelled by circumstances to introduce this Bill. It does encourage inefficiency. There is no question that it does encourage inefficiency in any organisation. A deficiency subsidy is very different from capital grants.

The rural electrification scheme of the ESB is subsidised by this House in the form of interest. The repayment of capital for the subsidy to the ESB from my Department comes on the Estimate every year in this House. But, from the ESB's point of view, it is a once and for all capital subsidy that enables them to do the job well. It is very different from our saying to the ESB: "You are losing £1 million on the sale of current and we shall pay you the £1 million this year. You have lost £1 million and we shall pay for it." Everybody fully accepts the difference between subsidies to cover current deficits and capital subsidies.

Some subsidies are inevitable for services that are entirely social. The subsidies given to maintain the price of agricultural produce are, again, quite different. We guarantee the price of a product to a farmer. We are not going to farmer John Murphy and saying: "It cost you so many thousand pounds to run your farm last year and you made £1,000 less. Here is the money for you. We shall give you £1,000 every year." Psychologically, it is quite different to guarantee a price to a farmer rather than to provide him with a specific subsidy to cover a loss he may be making. The two things are quite different.

I very much dislike having to propose this subsidy. It is necessary because an arterial railway line is essential to this country for a considerable time not only to take peak traffics but to provide transport for tourists; to undertake speedy express services for passengers and for freight because the road conditions are totally unsuitable in this country for high speed traffic and will be for many years; because of the cost of changing over and because of the social effects, in any event, of very large-scale redundancy even although the redundancy would result in full compensation at the present rates.

Again, I should like to point out that I hope and expect that CIE will prove to be one of the exceptions— there are others. There are railways in Europe that are subsidised and that are efficient. I hope CIE will join with them and with efficient State companies such as the ESB and will resist all the influences of a subsidy covering an operating deficit. I hope they will be efficient. I hope the staff will realise the position they now face. CIE should live not only within the subsidy but should try to dispense with some of it or use some of it for capital purposes in the next five years.

I believe in the success of our people in engaging in new enterprises and in reorganisation. We have a splendid tradition in regard to the operation of State companies. The people manning them, the executives and staffs, are second to none in Europe. I have every hope that CIE can avoid all the temptations that a subsidy offers. I make no apology for having tried to resist it as long as I could for the reasons I have given. At no time during that five years was the sort of statistical information or analysis I desired available to me to show how far CIE could go in securing additional traffic with its newfound freedom.

Next, I want to deal with those Deputies who spoke of the subsidy level and who asked whether it would be sufficient. The subsidy of £2 million a year is based on a realistic estimate of the extent to which CIE can get by in its operations during the next five years. Effective management, increased efficiency and the avoidance of waste are all assumed in that connection. It is based on a minimum realistic level and there is no margin for feather-bedding. There is allowance for a reasonable increase in staff remuneration.

During the period of five years, if CIE get into temporary difficulties, they will be able to borrow up to £2 million under the temporary borrowing clauses of the earlier Act. But, in fact, they are obliged to break even during these five years. It is not a derisory subsidy, as suggested by some Labour Deputies: it is based on realities. Some unusual circumstances may arise that we could not foresee, but it is based on a realistic examination of the position.

I hope the staff will be wise in relation to the part they will play in CIE. I hope they will realise the very heavy character of the subsidy and that while seeking good conditions and reasonable wages they will do everything to help the Board and to enable this House to view with equanimity the payment of the subsidy.

As I have said, CIE are now in a position whereby they will be obliged to live on the £10 million. I was asked the question whether some allowance was made for redundancy payments. The redundancy payments will now be made by CIE. The whole of the £10 million assumes a certain level of redundancy to be met by compensation payments by CIE and that, equally, there will be corresponding economies. CIE obviously will have to adopt a slightly different attitude towards redundancy, now that they have to pay, whereas, when the State was paying, it was rather like the Government investing a capital sum producing an annuity over a period of years which resulted in a given level of redundancy being made available, the redundancy payments gradually decreasing as the years went by so that, if in the first year the economy effected was not equal to the redundancy payment, over a period of years, as the workers gradually retired, the final economy achieved was a net one.

Under the arrangement now, no longer does the House vote the money for redundancy. The character of CIE's negotiations in relation to redundancy payments will be different and the speed at which they effect reorganisation may have to change. But that was all allowed for in connection with the total subsidy offered.

As reported at column 1780 of the Official Report, Volume 209, Deputy McGilligan said he proposed that we bring public transport under the control of this House so that we shall be able to have an examination of even the day-to-day administration that is required. I could not quite make out from Deputy McGilligan's speech whether he was definitely going to do that or felt like it because of his reaction to my Second Reading speech on the Bill. Deputy Esmonde did not definitely propose that but he said he hoped I would give sufficient explanations and make a sufficient statement which, from his point of view, would perhaps eliminate the necessity for moving such an amendment.

Deputy Donegan spoke equally tentatively in regard to this. I should make it clear to the House that a great deal of the debate centring on the question of whether or not public transport should be brought under the control of the House was partly related to this endless controversy that takes place on the answering of questions in regard to the day-to-day administration of CIE. The Coalition Government in 1950 provided in the 1950 Act that the Board should furnish to the Minister such information "as he may from time to time require regarding matters which relate to its activities, other than day-to-day administration, and which appear to him to affect the national interest." That perfectly clear demarcation in regard to information supplied to the Minister is enshrined in the 1950 Act passed by the Coalition Government.

Mr. T. Lynch

Would the Minister explain that? What is the difference between day-to-day administration and the other end of it?

Mr. Childers

I shall come to that later. I have already given a very full explanation but I shall go further into it.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have not heard anything about this yet.

Mr. Childers

In that connection there was a debate on the 2nd March, 1950, in Seanad Éireann when Deputy McGilligan was Minister for Finance, on the question of the matter of day-to-day administration of State companies. Speaking on a motion concerning State and semi-State companies Deputy McGilligan said—I quote from Volume 37, Column 718, of the Seanad Debate:

... and I think that we would get very definite agreement here that if these concerns are to be allowed to run with any pretence of efficiency you cannot have day-to-day interference by parliamentary questions with day-to-day actions ....

There has been a very large measure of general agreement in regard to that ever since.

Mr. T. Lynch

I am not clear about that.

Mr. Childers

A great many Deputies on the opposite side of the House have, by implication, accepted that principle because only a certain number of Deputies—like Deputy Lynch—continually refer to this question of whether or not I should reply to what would be practically a perpetual set of questions on every single activity of State companies.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of explanation, does the Minister consider that a £900,000 deal is a matter of day-to-day administration? It is in the paper tonight and that is not a three-halfpenny matter.

Mr. Childers

Quite obviously I am not going to deal with a £900,000 transaction now——

Mr. T. Lynch

He never deals with anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Could the Minister be allowed to deal with something?

Mr. Childers

I am quoting Deputy McGilligan and I am very glad to say that however we may disagree with the actions of the two Coalition Governments they did generally observe the tenor of Deputy McGilligan's principles as stated in the general debate in 1950. There was then roughly the same number of State companies in operation, engaged in post-war work, as there are now. The only new organisation has been the Shannon Free Airport Development Company so far as my Department is concerned. Bord na Móna and CIE and so on were operating then. That was a clear declaration showing that this is not a question of Party politics. It has been well accepted for a very long period.

I think it is a pity, even though Deputies opposite may not respect me personally for one reason or another, that when they come to argue here about this question on the position of the Minister in relation to the Oireachtas and his position in relation to State companies and the information he gives, that they should not at least take the trouble to read two considered statements I have made and come to this House and take them to pieces paragraph by paragraph, if they wish to do so. Not a single Opposition Deputy has referred to my speeches which I have indirectly referred to on a number of occasions during interlocutions in this House, as reported in Volume 191 of the Dáil Debates at columns 909 to 915 and again at some considerable length in Volume 207, columns 1518 to 1522.

On the next occasion when we have a debate the Deputies should remember those references and take the trouble to read the Dáil Reports. We might then be able to get somewhere because I made a considered statement on all this matter. That is never referred to in the Dáil but in my view it completely answers the charges that have been made in this regard and completely explains the position. It is very difficult for me to continue the argument when I consider I have made a complete statement on it already. However, I shall say a few more words about it. I should first refer Deputies to an address by the Taoiseach on the position of State companies published by the Institute of Administration. That document is in the Library and anybody may read it.

Mr. T. Lynch

We shall read that with the Pacemaker Report.

Mr. Childers

We stand by that in this House and the position of the Government at present is not to depart one iota from the clear statement made in that address which I have commented on, expanded and analysed in my speeches in the Dáil in the two references I have already given in relation to the State companies over which, as Minister, I have at present the responsibility of having supervision.

Mr. Casey

And your speech in the wagon works in Limerick. And the four other quotations that I gave.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy was not in the House when I was replying to his questions.

Mr. Casey

I am sorry——

Mr. Childers

And the Deputy is not going to interrupt me now. I have already answered the points made by Deputy Casey.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Perhaps Deputy Casey would allow the Minister to continue. Perhaps he misunderstands me. If these interruptions continue I shall ask the Deputy to leave the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

On a point of explanation, I did not hear the Minister answer any of Deputy Casey's questions and I have been here since the Minister began his speech.

Mr. Childers

I could never expect Deputy Lynch to accept anything I say——

Mr. T. Lynch

I could not, because you are not a man of your word.

Mr. Coogan

The Minister did not say it.

Mr. Childers

I am going to say a few more words on the subject.

Mr. T. Lynch

The only way I could describe what the Minister has said would be unparliamentary. It would be a sin against the eighth Commandment.

Mr. Childers

I should like to repeat what I said on another occasion when Deputy Dillon interjected "hear, hear" before I had finished the sentence, that emotionally I should love to answer every single question but the result would be that my Department would be trebled in size and there would be an enormous number of questions.

Mr. T. Lynch

Answer the few questions you have been asked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Childers

The questions could relate to every single bus and train service in the country, to individual events that took place, to individual complaints that were made and this, quite apart from demanding the trebling of the staff of my Department, would finally result in political interference of a most undesirable kind with the State companies concerned.

Mr. Casey

As if it were not there already.

Mr. Childers

It would result in the formation of local pressure groups of every description——

Mr. Casey

As if they were not there already.

Mr. Childers

This is well recognised even in the Socialist countries of Europe——

Mr. Coogan

Are you going to the left now?

Mr. Childers

——where the independence of State companies is regarded as essential. Not only is this recognised in countries like our own that are not termed socialist but which you might describe as countries with a left-of-centre policy in general, but also in countries that have had labour administration for years. The day-to-day independence of the State companies is jealously preserved for the reasons I have given. There are 20,000 people employed in CIE and, human nature being what it is, anybody can understand that if every aspect of the day-to-day activities of CIE were to be subject to interference, it would simply cause confusion and inefficiency.

We have what I call a regular system for dealing with complaints in my Department. When Deputies ask questions about day-to-day matters, if they appear to be repetitive or numerous, I ask CIE for a report on all matters where there would appear to be either an absence of efficiency or where a programme of reorganisation does not appear to have achieved its rightful level. I have conferences with the Chairman of the State company concerned. I meet the Board regularly and all these matters are discussed. Repetitive complaints are dealt with expressly. If complaints from Deputies became massive I would regard that as being a matter of public interest and not a matter of day-to-day administration. For instance, if there were very numerous complaints about the CIE cattle transport service, and if these complaints came from all over the House that the service was not good enough, that would enter into the field of being something more than day-to-day administration and I would feel compelled to suggest to the Ceann Comhairle that it was not a matter of day-to-day administration but a matter of great importance.

Mr. Casey

What about the massive complaints and protests about the closing of the west Cork railway? The Minister did not pay any attention to them.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy can go on interrupting but the fact is that I have already given that as an example. There was a debate that lasted for 10 days on the proposed closing of three railway lines and during that debate I gave full information as to the reasons for closing them. If I was now to be asked what were the receipts and expenditure for the first six months of 1964 for the line from Cork to Mallow I would regard that as a matter of day-to-day administration. In fact, there has been a complete analysis of all these matters in the Pacemaker Report and I gave all the particulars in the debate on the closing of the West Cork railway. It was quite obviously desirable and necessary to close it.

Mr. Casey

The massive protest was made and the Minister paid no attention to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

These interruptions have been made several times. They are being repeated and the Minister should be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. Childers

That is a fact. The report of CIE is published yearly and the Taoiseach readily offered to the House that whenever they felt a State company was deserving of more comment and debate than was possible on an Estimate or a Bill the report of that company could be discussed in the House. The running of the three railway lines which were closed were matters of day-to-day administration and could not be perpetually discussed here just as the operation of individual sectors of the ESB are not discussed here because these are matters of day-to-day administration. I might indicate that there is a wealth of information in the Pacemaker Report. I hope Deputies will read it. It has been placed on the Table of the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

It was placed in the Library.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Table of the House is the Library.

Mr. Casey

You were converted by Pacemaker.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Childers

The two volumes of Pacemaker were made available on 9th March. They are extremely interesting and provide an exhaustive analysis of CIE's position and they indicate in the utmost detail and in terms that can be understood by the ordinary man how one relates the economic analysis of a transport service to the social need for the transport service. It shows that the position of CIE now is that if the social need for transport is to be satisfied a subsidy is required.

Mr. Casey

The Minister did not believe that before.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Casey was not in the House when I dealt with the matter.

Mr. Casey

You were converted by Pacemaker.

Mr. Childers

Now I want to get back to the question of the running of CIE by a Parliamentary Committee. That is something that has been proposed in this House on several occasions but I do not know how it is to be done. That Parliamentary Committee would need a team of highly paid experts to advise them and I do not know of any democratic country in which the transport system is run by a Parliamentary Committee. They would have to know all about the costings and all the variable factors that are associated with the transport system. They would have to have some method of comparison. They would have to know how to establish the conditions and factors that make for different costings here compared with smaller countries such as the Netherlands or Denmark. I do not know how they would be able to administer the affairs of CIE. I do not think it would be possible for them to do so.

The fact is that Deputies can charge me with responsibility for all this. I am responsible for the efficiency of CIE. I am in constant touch with the Board of CIE and my officials have constant discussions with the staffs of CIE. They discuss the capital programme, the requirements and we are close to them at all times while accepting that as a commercial concern they must have a degree of personal freedom. I take full responsibility in this House for all the alleged misdoings of any State company and we can be defeated in an election if an election is desired to decide these matters. That is the position now and that is how it is going to be in the future. A Parliamentary Committee could not run CIE.

If by any chance, I hope it will never happen, some State company was being so badly run that the Opposition became extremely vociferous about it you could not have a Parliamentary Committee discussing the matter here. You would possibly appoint a committee of inquiry to go into the whole matter. In 1957 we had here a committee of inquiry into internal transport, not because CIE was being badly run but because it was losing money and the House considered it essential to find out what could be done about it. That committee reported. The report, while excellent, was inadequate because of the lack of a comprehensive analysis of the running of our transport system and it was not a report on which final conclusions could be based. My view on this matter is that the Minister is responsible for his Department before this House and that is why a Parliamentary Committee would be unable to work as far as the running of CIE is concerned.

Mr. T. Lynch

Do you say you are responsible to the House for the State companies?

Mr. Childers

Yes. I made that quite clear before.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is in the presence of reliable witnesses. You are responsible. It is on the record.

Mr. Childers

Yes.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Will the Minister undertake to answer Parliamentary Questions?

Mr. Childers

I had already dealt with that matter before Deputy Esmonde came into the House. In relation to some of these questions of day to day administration I want to make it clear that there are limits to the service CIE can provide. If a bus is running almost entirely empty there may come a point when they cannot run it any longer. The Board have to use their own immediate judgment with regard to the services they are providing.

Deputy Murphy referred to a bus service between Schull and Goleen. The average number of people in the bus was two per journey on that service.

Mr. Casey

What about the social aspect the Minister referred to a while ago?

Mr. Childers

It cost about £12 to run the bus.

Mr. Casey

What about the social obligation you referred to a while ago?

Mr. Childers

I can tell this to Deputy Casey, that if we are to have to run a bus wherever two people go in it, this House would be paying something like £5 million in subsidies.

Mr. Casey

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He said a while ago that he was convinced of the social obligation.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. Surely the Minister is entitled to speak without interruption?

Mr. Childers

The social obligation, obviously, has its limit.

Mr. Casey

Just make up your mind.

Mr. Childers

There is no country in the world where people run bus services with only two people in the buses.

Mr. Casey

You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Childers

It would almost pay CIE to give these people each a car. The Deputy is speaking very irresponsibly. He knows very well that bus companies do not run services when there are only two passengers per journey.

Mr. Casey

Do not talk about your social obligations, then. You cannot have it both ways. You must have it commercially or socially.

Mr. Childers

On the contrary, the only possible way of running CIE, at a price the country can afford, is to have a combination of economic services and certain services which are social needs and which are quite obviously losing money. The Deputy can take this, that I stand on the Pacemaker Report and, having seen the list of losing bus services, I am prepared to believe that CIE is doing a pretty good job in providing bus services throughout the country.

The next point that was made was in connection with the possibility, that may not eventuate, of an amendment to this Bill, which, of course, would involve a repeal of section 16 of the 1950 Act, which clearly prevented the Minister getting information on the day to day administration of CIE. It would mean a repeal of that section of the Act. The suggestion was made that Parliamentary control might be required because the subsidy of £2 million seems to be very big.

Of course, as I think the House knows, there were always subsidy payments to CIE in one form or another. A great deal of capital has been extinguished over the years. There have been advances to CIE which have never been repaid by them. At a time when there were far fewer cars on the road, when wages were very much lower, when the value of money was higher, not only here but in the rest of the sterling world, about £11 million was paid to CIE and the GNR. Between 1949 and 1958-59 about £11 million was paid in the form of subventions of one description or another. So, if you look at the £2 million in relation to the changes in the value of sterling over the last ten years, it is not so vastly an excessive subsidy in relation to what was paid before as to suggest that Parliamentary control is needed in order to have supervision over the subsidy. I wanted to mention that because it seemed to me to be of importance.

Deputy Donegan asked whether the interest and sinking fund payments are included in the 2 million. The answer is that they are. He also asked about depreciation in CIE and whether in connection with the £6 million capital to be spent in the next five years, CIE are providing for depreciation. The answer is "yes".

I was asked by some deputies what term I give the railway system. The Government have decided that there should be a railway system in the foreseeable future and that the railway should be properly preserved and properly maintained and improved so that it can compete with the ever-growing competition from other forms of transport. I could not say what would happen if there was some kind of financial emergency or if there was some dramatic and catastrophic change in the fortunes of CIE. No one could predict what would happen under those circumstances but, as I have said, it is the decision of the Government to maintain the arterial railway system of this country.

Mr. Casey

It is about time you were converted to that. That is news to me.

Mr. T. Lynch

We are running around in circles getting nowhere.

Mr. Childers

There have been some rather incomplete analyses of subsidies to railways prepared by international railway organisations. The comparison of subsidy is not very definite because of the different conditions. In some cases there are different methods of accounting and, of course, there are charges arising from war conditions. If we take the ratio of income to expenditure in a number of European railways for the year 1962 to 1963, the average ratio of income to expenditure for nine or ten railways was one to 1.13.

Mr. A. Barry

That is income—not subsidy?

Mr. Childers

I speak of income. The ratio goes up above CIE, which is 1.24 for the railway alone. It varies upwards and downwards. There are figures of 1.23 and 1.33. All I am trying to show is that the CIE subsidy is not an enormous figure by European standards; but a fairly high figure and the subsidies that have to be paid in some cases are much lower. One of the difficulties, as the House knows, and as I have already indicated in my first speech is the fact that, unlike many European railways, there is no massive transit traffic and practically no carriage of coal or ore on CIE, which provides many railways with a great proportion of their profitable traffic.

Some Deputies suggested that railway fares are at present very high. CIE offers a great number of low price fares on excursion days, return fares of various descriptions, special fares in special trains. Railway fares have gone up. The basic fare has gone up by 46 per cent since 1953 and the earnings of workers have gone up by 78 per cent in the same period.

There are some other facts that might be of interest to the House showing how CIE combatted for five years against a great number of disadvantages. One of the disadvantages which I think has not been fully appreciated is the great length of even the present largely arterial railway line, in relation to the income of the country as a whole. I think this is regarded as a viable statistic which is of interest. The number of miles of railway line per £1 million of gross national product in 1962-63 were: Ireland, 1.8 miles; United Kingdom, .65; Netherlands, .57 and, a country which includes a great many poor people, Italy, 1.13. For historic and other reasons, the mileage length, in relation to the country's income, is still large. The present restricted mileage is 1,460. The number of miles of railway line per 100,000 of the population shows the same position: 51 miles per 100,000 of the population in Ireland; in the United Kingdom, 33; the Netherlands, 17; Italy, 27.

Then there is a figure which I am sure would be of interest to the House. The only way I know of realistically measuring the number of private cars in a country is to compare the number of private cars per £1,000,000 of gross national product. The only factor which indicates the social determination of a people to own motor cars is to compare the number of cars with their income. This is a recent figure— 1963, number of private cars per £1,000,000 of gross national product— Ireland, 287; the United Kingdom, 246; the Netherlands, 205; Italy, 256. That shows that because of the scattered character of the population in this country, because of the almost complete absence of villages as in Europe, because of the number of small farms, the Irish people are quite determined to have what is for their income a huge amount of private transport. At the same time, except in the Dublin and Cork city concentrations and some other town areas, the number of cars in relation to the mileage of roads shows a comparative absence of congestion, which further encourages the purchase of private vehicles.

I mention that particular figure because it is of importance in estimating the position of CIE. I do not think anybody could have foretold in 1958 that there would be this tremendous increase in the private car population. It is still going on. I do not think anybody could have said positively that the Irish people would decide to purchase private cars on that very high level basis in relation to their incomes. It is one of the difficulties CIE have to face, as other countries have to face. In fact, there are figures I will not bother to give the House that show, taking it large and wide over quite a number of countries in Europe, the proportion of goods and passengers taken by rail in the last ten years is steadily diminishing. Therefore, all railway companies to some extent are facing these difficulties of the growth of private transport.

Mr. Casey

When did they discover that? Not today or yesterday. The Minister was told it in this House, but he did not believe it.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy can go on interrupting. He was not here when I made a complete statement.

Mr. Casey

I am glad to see the Minister's conversion.

Mr. Childers

I am ignoring the Deputy because he did not choose to come here to hear me. He is interrupting me in regard to things about which I have already spoken. The Deputy is generally more polite in this House.

Again, I will not give the details of the figures, but if you take the effort of CIE over a long period it shows that in spite of all these difficulties they have managed to retain a great deal of very competitive traffic, but the costs of carrying that traffic have inevitably grown.

Next, I come to some matters of local interest. Deputy Seán Dunne and Deputy Byrne referred to the city services in Dublin and said they were inadequate. Of course, the whole problem of transport in Dublin is being complicated by the large number of private cars and other vehicles, by the sharpening of peak traffic due to the shorter working week and by the bunching of traffic which takes place in the centre of Dublin as in other cities and which results almost inevitably in the bus movements being irregularly timed as they move out to the outskirts of the city and when they come back again. May I make it clear to the Deputies that additional buses put on in large numbers at peak time traffic would not solve the problem at all? It would simply result in more bunching in the centre of the city, causing an encumbrance there. The one-way street changes which have taken place in Dublin have resulted in fewer complaints to CIE, although naturally they still arise when people have to wait for buses in wet weather that have been held up and delayed because of centre city bunching.

My own belief is that sooner or later the hours of work will have to be staggered, not only in Dublin but in many other cities. That involves a great sacrifice of personal liberty in regard to the arrival times and departure times of various classes of citizens. But when you read the Buchanan Report on road congestion and realise that in the Empire State Building in New York everybody has to sign a lease in which they agree to arrive and leave at a specified hour, because it would cause utter chaos if they all arrived and left together, the idea of having some kind of voluntary staggering of hours of work in Dublin does not seem so crazy when we are beginning to have the same sort of congestion that would be inevitable in the Empire State Building unless they made that arrangement for the people living in what really is a very large community. I mention that as a trend which seems to be inevitable in the future, although I quite realise the difficulty of bringing it about.

Mr. Coogan

Decentralisation is the only solution.

Mr. Childers

CIE have already carried out motivation research in a number of areas. The area managers have been undertaking this work. May I pay tribute to their work? As far as I know, they are very highly respected wherever they operate. They have brought CIE into closer touch with the people. They are able to make decisions in regard to services of various kinds and to suggest innovations in the patterns of service. I have heard no complaint against them from anybody in the community and I think they are all doing splendid work. They have been engaged in lengthy motivation research. As a result of it they altered bus times and bus movements in Limerick to, I believe, everybody's satisfaction. They have been doing that kind of work in Cork and Waterford also.

As far as Dublin is concerned—this is the real answer to Deputy Byrne— I am told the area manager is going to provide a traffic control centre for bus movements in O'Connell Street. He is going to decentralise the control of inspectors and keep them in constant touch with headquarters through a decentralised form of control. They are going to instal more time clocks to help buses attain regularity of movement. That, of course, will be accompanied by a further examination of the whole service. That is typified by the particular examination they made in the Ballymun area, which resulted in a considerable amount of contentment to the people living there when the services and movements were altered to suit the majority. Whenever a bus service is altered, however, it is always at somebody's disadvantage. The job of CIE is to see what they can do to satisfy the largest number of people.

Now I want to make it quite clear that I have made a study of bus services abroad and the general city bus services here are of a very high standard. The House can say I am wrong, but I take responsibility for CIE in saying that. I believe the city bus services, particularly in regard to the number of people required to stand going to and from work, are of a high standard. I am not saying they are perfect.

Deputy Ryan suggested in that connection that people would prefer to stand in buses as against having to wait or, not to misquote him, that CIE ought to consider that. I think, if CIE really believed that a very large majority of the people living on the outskirts of Dublin would prefer to stand in a bus so that more people could be carried in the largest bus permitted to operate by the Garda, CIE might consider that. So far as I am concerned, I asked them about this some time ago, about the advisability of workers standing in buses, with the idea that the workers might prefer it, and they might pay a lower fare. I understand it has not found favour but I would hope that CIE would always consider that kind of idea if they thought it was likely to be popular.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Would the Minister agree that is the system in a great many countries in Europe?

Mr. Childers

It is, but as the Deputy knows, a great many of the buses and trains in Europe are not specifically designed for standing. They are designed for sitting and standing and a huge number stand. What Deputy Ryan was thinking of was a bus specially designed in which people could stand almost entirely.

Deputy Dunne and Deputy Byrne complained about the cost of bus services. I have indicated already that the whole of the surplus of receipts over costs in the Dublin bus service, which is £380,000, represents .37d. contribution per passenger carried. That is a realistic figure and it means that, if the average person in Dublin goes 12 times a week on a CIE bus, the profit represented by those 12 journeys—we will not call it a profit; we will call it a surplus—is roughly 4½d. Deputy Dunne spoke of someone who had to pay 25/- in fares. The total surplus on that would be 2/-. The position is, of course, different if you measure the estimated loss on the city railway services against the surplus on the buses. The surplus on the buses is reduced by £160,000 and becomes £220,000.

It is true that half the employees of CIE work in Dublin. CIE provides a great deal of employment in Dublin and I do not think that the figure represented by a surplus of .37d. per passenger is excessive. If you allow for the loss on the rail services, which should really be paid by the Dublin people, it becomes something very, very small indeed. The only alternative is either to have the whole country pay more in taxes for the sake of the people in Dublin and raise the subsidy here by the amount of the surplus on the Dublin bus services or have Dublin Corporation take over the bus services and strike a large rate. I do not think that is advisable. I do not think it is a realistic proposal. The fares on the Dublin city buses are broadly comparable with other bus services throughout Europe. They are not necessarily either very low or very high.

I do hope Deputy Byrne will read, if he has not already done so, the Buchanan Report, which is regarded as a major study. He will find in that that the whole question of public transport is involved in the planning of a city and involved also in the new planning of a city. CIE are in touch with Dublin Corporation in regard to all the plans that are being undertaken to deal with congestion and I am sure that, when the House hears the final report on Dublin traffic the enormous expense entailed in avoiding inconvenience to the public either through absence of parking or through difficulties in the movement of buses will be realised.

Deputy Sherwin suggested that old age pensioners be given free tickets or reduced rates on the CIE bus services. I sympathise with that idea but I think it is better in the long run to channel advantages to the less well off in the community by raising the social services. I think the answer to that is that we hope to go on raising the social services so that the recipients thereof will be able to afford to pay the normal bus fares. I do not think diverting subsidy in that particular form would be a good thing on the whole.

Deputy Harte asked about the future of CIE in relation to the changes that have taken place in the Six Counties. CIE and the Ulster Transport Authority are in consultation and, if redundancy is involved, it may be taken that CIE will take a sympathetic attitude towards it.

A number of Deputies asked questions about the redundancy provisions. I have already dealt with redundancies in some detail. I have pointed out that the redundancy payments voted by this House were wholly exceptional and it was made absolutely clear by the Taoiseach—I do not think I need quote his many references—that they would only be paid for a short period while a major reorganisation took place in CIE. Indeed, I might even quote the late Deputy Norton who, as far back as 1955, hoped some of the redundancies could be met by transfer to other occupations. Again, I do not want to suggest that was his ultimate view, but he was sufficiently optimistic to say that way back in 1955.

Employment is buoyant in Dublin in some trades and occupations and in some areas outside Dublin and we do not envisage a contraction in the road service of CIE. We hope that, if there is a measure of redundancy in one direction or another, CIE will make satisfactory arrangements, first of all, with the unions for redundancy payments. We hope that a transfer of employment under present economic conditions may be possible. May I make it clear that, if CIE have a particular agreement with a trade union in relation to road transport, this Bill does not break that agreement. It simply means that either the redundancy does not take place or that new arrangements have to be negotiated freely between CIE management and the trade unions. I might add that the Congress of Unions proposals for severance pay are very moderate indeed compared with what this House has been paying under the 1958 Act. I only mention this in passing to show the very liberal character of redundancy payments under the 1958 Act, which, in turn, derive from earlier Acts in so far as railway employees are concerned.

The Congress recommended there would be consultation between the trade union and the company concerned when considering redundancy and, if at all possible, alternative employment be offered, that appropriate notice be given and that one week's pay for every year of service be offered in the form of severance pay. I dare say CIE would very much like to negotiate on that basis. These were the general proposals but, as I have said, this is a matter for CIE, and there has been a long tradition——

Mr. T. Lynch

Will the Minister tell us something about the old pensioners?

Mr. Childers

CIE have already announced the increase.

Mr. T. Lynch

How much?

Mr. Childers

The Deputy could have seen the notice.

Mr. T. Lynch

It is about 6d.

Mr. Childers

Pensions of 12/6d. have been brought up to £1. However, that does not arise on this Bill.

Mr. A. Barry

The Board might consider improving the lot of those men.

Mr. Childers

A question was raised in connection with examinations for clerical appointments to CIE. The section alters the method of selection. In all other ways they remain the same as provided for in the 1950 Act. The present procedure whereby entrants to the clerical examination for CIE have to take some kind of written examination is totally out of date. With modern accounting machines and the whole development of modern clerical work written examinations are not at all suitable and no other State company within my ambit has any statutory restriction whatever with regard to the appointment of clerical staff. The position is that CIE are competing with other State companies to get suitable clerical staff and they are not able to get them.

Mr. Casey

Can the Minister say how the ESB recruit clerical staff?

Mr. Childers

The qualification required for ESB clerical staff is leaving certificate with honours and the test provided is an interview.

Mr. Casey

Could CIE adopt that method?

Mr. Childers

Bord na Móna requires leaving certificate and intermediate certificate and an interview is the test after the other qualifications have been proved. That is the position in five of the State Companies.

Mr. Casey

Would it not be reasonable for CIE as well instead of an oral, a written or any other method of recruiting staff?

Mr. Childers

It will be so difficult in the future to secure the right kind of clerical staff that there will be no question of queues looking for that work.

Mr. Casey

We will deal with it on Committee Stage.

Mr. Coogan

Will the Minister state why CIE advertised for senior hotel staff in English papers only.

Mr. Childers

I cannot tell the Deputy——

Mr. Coogan

"No Irish need apply."

Mr. Childers

I cannot answer that without notice but the idea that CIE do not choose Irish staff is ridiculous.

Mr. Coogan

The advertisement appeared in English papers only.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy can make all the propaganda he likes but the fact remains that I have visited all of the Great Southern hotels and 90 per cent of the staff were Irish. They are the nicest people in the world.

Mr. Coogan

I am talking about senior staff.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister said he would answer any questions that were put down. I would put down that question to him and see if he will answer it or if he will use the old "day to day administration" again.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Lynch asked some questions about Waterford and Tramore. For his information CIE have offered a site for a public convenience at the bus stop in Tramore. There are no buildings at the bus terminal. There is just a yard in which the bus turns and a small shelter for the passengers. It is not usual to provide public conveniences at these terminals as distinct from bus depots where they are provided as a matter of course but the Board have offered a free site to the Tramore Town Commissioners at the bus terminal.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister gave a guarantee that the services he would put on between Waterford and Tramore would be equal to the services which were taken away. He will have to keep his word. Whatever CIE say he is the person responsible.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. T. Lynch

He should give them their orders.

An Ceann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Esmonde asked questions about——

Mr. T. Lynch

I have been asking these questions for three years.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister must be allowed to make his statement in his own way. Every Deputy is allowed to make his statement in his own way and surely the Minister in charge of a Department must be allowed to do so.

Mr. T. Lynch

With the greatest respect, let me explain.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will not.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have been asking questions for three years and you said I could raise them on the Estimate.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will please sit down.

Mr. T. Lynch

I have raised them on the Estimate and the Minister will not answer.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the Deputy persists in interrupting, I will have to use the powers I have to deal with him.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Esmonde asked if the Bill contained anything which affected the position in regard to the Rosslare-Fishguard service. The only section of the Bill which is relevant is the one which enables CIE to be represented on the Board of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company by officials instead of Board members. That will be more convenient and they will keep in more executive touch with what is going on. As I have already indicated Rosslare is not being neglected. Consultations are going on between CIE and British Railways through the medium of the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbours Company in regard to improvements in the service including access between the mainland and the pier. I am glad to say that the new western regional manager of British Railways is taking a very active interest in this examination. I am hopeful that there will be a great improvement in the services and facilities available. The traffic through Wexford, Waterford and the South, should thus expand. It would be wrong to give details until the plan is agreed; and as Deputy Esmonde knows, that plan has to be sanctioned by British Railways and CIE.

Technical questions are involved in the position of Rosslare pier as they always are involved in any harbour development. As the Deputy knows Rosslare is not really a harbour but a pier sticking out into the sea.

Mr. T. Lynch

That is a new one. It can take a 5,000 ton steamer.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Can the Minister go further and say if the final decision will be a political decision, in other words, a decision taken between himself and his opposite number in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Childers

There are two companies concerned and I have to authorise any expenditure by CIE.

Deputy Corry made some extraordinary statements about beet haulage. I have made inquiries and find that at the last regular meeting between the Beet Growers' Association, CIE and the Sugar Company, no major complaints were reported by the Association's representatives. The transport of beet is planned in advance in detail each year.

In reply to Deputy Donegan, I have had no substantial complaints in regard to the adequacies of CIE services for beet, wheat and barley haulage.

I have no power to deal with individual hardluck cases as suggested by Deputy O'Donnell. Further in reply to the Deputy, North of Ireland lorries cannot carry for reward down here. They are subject to police surveillance if they do. Deputy O'Donnell suggested that there was difficulty in regard to the purchase of the station at Bundoran for a major resort scheme. Bord Fáilte are progressing with their major resort work and I am satisfied that the negotiations are properly conducted in Bundoran.

There have been some remarkable increases in traffic because of the general growth of tourism and because of the fact that some of the bus services attracted a new class of tourist to the town even though there may have been some initial disadvantage from the closing of the railway. Deputy Sweetman complained about the cleanliness of the main Cork rail services on one occasion. I must say I have travelled a good deal by CIE and I look into other carriages as well as my own and the standard is fairly high. I hope Deputy A. Barry will agree with me.

Mr. A. Barry

I think he was unlucky on that occasion.

Mr. Childers

I am sorry that he found the carriage unclean. I should say in connection with the train services that the percentage of trains that are late has very rapidly diminished with the arrival of the new General Motors diesels. The general record of punctuality is now fairly satisfactory and is improving all the time. I think I have answered every question suitable to this Stage of the Bill——

Mr. T. Lynch

Except the one I put, and I gave the Minister notice that I would be here to ask it when he was concluding.

Mr. Childers

I have spoken at very great length and dealt with all points raised in this debate and I confidently recommend the Bill to the House.

Mr. T. Lynch

This is intolerable. I have been asking this question for three years. I gave the Minister notice on 20th May when I spoke on this Bill that I would come in when he was closing the debate and ask him the question again. I want to know is the Tramore bus service paying or not? He has had notice of that and he has it there.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am putting the question.

Mr. Childers

I have dealt with that already.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Minister has degraded this Parliament.

Question put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

Next Stage?

Mr. Childers

Next Tuesday?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

No; we would like to read the Minister's speech and think it over.

Mr. Childers

Tuesday fortnight?

Mr. T. Lynch

If the Minister would answer questions and give us some courtesy——

An Ceann Comhairle

Will the House decide when the next Stage is to be taken?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Tuesday week.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday 16th June, 1964.