Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 24 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Vote 42 — Transport and Power.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. Childers)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,100,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Transport and Power, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of sundry Grants-in-Aid.

Pending the enactment of the Transport Act, 1964, and the determination of the subvention payable to CIE in the current financial year, only a token estimate of £10 grant moneys for CIE was provided in the Estimates for my Department for that year. Section 6 of the Transport Act, 1964, which became law on the 28th July, 1964, provided for payment to CIE in 1964-65 and in each subsequent financial year of a grant of £2 million subject to review in the year 1969-70.

The main purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to give effect, in respect of the current financial year, to the decision of the Oireachtas, taken after prolonged debate in both Houses, to pay the £2 million subsidy to CIE and we are dealing here only with the mechanism necessary to give effect to that decision.

As I made clear during the debate on the Transport Act, 1964, the fixed subsidy of £2 million per annum which will fall to be reviewed after five years has been calculated on a realistic basis after careful examination of the estimates supplied by CIE. This is the minimum subsidy which, taking the five year period as a whole, CIE can get by with. If in any particular year due to exceptionally favourable circumstances losses amount to less than £2 million, the savings will have to be applied to meet higher losses in less favourable years. Indeed, from previous experience of CIE's financial position, any savings effected will certainly be essential for this purpose. There is absolutely no question of the amount of subsidy being reviewed before 1969-70 and, as this is a very heavy charge on the taxpayer, I trust that the whole staff of the CIE will think in terms of a five year plan for the advancement and the promotion of the Board's business.

In the Vote for Transport and Power for the current financial year, provision was made for payment of £410,000 by way of Grant-in-Aid to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Ltd. to meet administration and general expenses and to provide financial assistance to industries, including grants towards factory buildings, new machinery and training of workers. It is now estimated that the amount of Grant-in-Aid required for the year will be £480,000 and, accordingly, a supplementary grant of £70,000 is needed to enable the company to meet their obligations up to 31st March, 1965.

The provision of £410,000 was made up of £200,000 for running expenses and £295,000 for grants to industries, less £85,000 net income from revenue earning activities. The additional sum of £70,000 now sought is to cover an anticipated increase from £295,000 to £330,000 in the amount of grants likely to be paid to industrialists and an expected reduction of about £35,000 in net income. The reduction in income is attributable mainly to the income from factory rents being less than anticipated, due to buildings not becoming available as early as expected.

I do not propose to review the activities of the Development Company as Deputies will shortly be afforded an opportunity for a full debate on the affairs of the company when legislation at present being prepared is introduced to raise the statutory limits on investment in the company. I might say, however, that the rate of progress by the company continues to be very satisfactory as is evidenced by the fact that employment is now about 2,700, having increased by 700 in the past year, and also by the expansion of existing firms and the continued interest of further firms in setting up at Shannon.

An additional £250,000 is also required to meet salaries, wages and allowances increases in the Department. The amount is in the main due to the ninth round increase and brings the total expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances to £1,280,000 for the year.

The total amount required for CIE, the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Ltd. and for salaries, wages etc. is £2,319,990, but it has been found possible to set off against this sum savings of £219,990 in my Department's Vote, leaving the net sum required at £2,100,000.

I recommend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. Cosgrave

This Supplementary Estimate, so far as the annual subsidy to CIE is concerned, is based on a more realistic assessment of the financial position of CIE than that which operated prior to the decision taken last year. Most of us who have had experience of dealing with the financial problems of CIE over many years recognised, with all the experience that had been gained over the years, that it was unrealistic and nonsensical to imagine that CIE could have got to the position of operating without a subsidy.

The decision which was taken last year recognised the inevitable. From the point of view of taxpayers and the responsibility which the House has of voting money to subsidise public transport, it has been a pretty melancholy record, but we must accept that very considerable losses will occur and that occasionally there may be a brief period, as happened in some cases for even a period of as long as a year when certain improvements were effected and it was possible to work without the same subsidy as has generally been the pattern over many years. My recollection is that the subsidy for CIE has varied for the past ten or 15 years between £1 million and £2 million. As I say, it varies up or down but, by and large, the pattern is the same. If costs rise, either because of adjustments in wages or salaries or adjustments in the cost of fuel or other changes of that sort, the loss will vary within the wide limits mentioned.

I should like to hear from the Minister whether the arrangements made in relation to labour relations in CIE are satisfactory. Over a number of years, certain aspects of staff relations, such as the adjustment of wages and salaries, or in regard to conditions, gave rise to recurrent problems and certain investigations were undertaken with a view to evolving a more satisfactory system. Some of these problems were confined to certain grades and were not common to the whole range of personnel, but nevertheless the problems of those persons did give rise to concern and from time to time caused friction which reacted badly on the whole atmosphere and indeed had repercussions outside the particular groups or sections involved.

A great number of retired CIE personnel have not yet had their super-annuation award made by the arbitrator and very considerable delays have occurred in dealing with cases. I should like to know whether it would be possible to expedite decisions in outstanding cases. Cases of hardship have occurred because the award has not been made. Individuals who have retired have not been in a position to commute in favour of their wives where they wished to do so. In some cases some of the personnel have died before an award was made and consequently they were unable to make the commutation which some of them might have made. A serious effort should be made to ensure that all possible steps are taken to expedite the superannuation award in regard to retired CIE employees. These people, who have given a lifetime of service and whose record in whatever classification was allotted to them was satisfactory, feel very much aggrieved that the award has not been made.

The fact that this subsidy is necessary means that the people are entitled to the best possible service which can be provided for them. While in general the services are satisfactory, there are certain aspects here and there which require certain improvements. For instance, in some cases the heating of trains leaves a good deal to be desired. Very often passengers are told that the heating system is not working as it should be, or perhaps they travel over a certain mileage of their journey before it heats up adequately. Care should be taken to ensure that the heating system operates properly. The provision of bus shelters at places where some form of alternative shelter is not available should be undertaken quickly wherever stops are provided. Quite a number of places in my constituency require shelters and that is true of many other parts of the country. Care should also be taken to ensure where shelters are erected, particularly in housing estates, that the surrounds to them are either of concrete or macadam so that people will not be standing in the wet or mud at the bus stop.

There is another matter which I believe is being examined by CIE but in this regard I believe that if such investigations were carried out before changes were made, it would avoid inconvenience to people. Since the one-way street system was extended in Dublin, people travelling on the Nos. 6, 7, and 8 buses from Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, Sallynoggin and Blackrock to the city, and who wish to go to Grafton Street, Dame Street or that portion of the city for business or shopping purposes, find that the nearest point to alight from their bus is Clare Street. That is a very considerable distance, particularly for elderly people or people trying to get to work on time.

I understand from CIE that an investigation is being made to see if they can provide some alternative routes for some buses in order to facilitate people. If some attention had been devoted to this by CIE, in conjunction with the Garda authorities, before the changes were made, it might have been possible to ensure that as little inconvenience as possible was caused to the people and adequate care could have been taken to provide a service to enable people to get to work without having to walk long distances, which is difficult enough at any time but particularly so in inclement weather. Subject to these remarks, we approve of the Estimate in respect of CIE.

In respect of that portion of the Supplementary Estimate relating to the Shannon Free Airport, I notice that there was an improvement in the numbers employed there in the past year. During the past few weeks a report appeared in the Press indicating that a firm at Shannon had closed down. I should like to hear from the Minister the circumstances in which the firm went out of production, because I think it is of general interest to note that there has been an improvement in the numbers employed. There may be some explanation in regard to that firm.

Dr. Browne

As the Minister has said, this measure was subject to long debate during the passage of the 1964 Act when the whole question of the type of services to be provided was discussed. The Minister was a great believer in the idea that the company might break even and held on to that belief for a very long time, in spite of our repeated assurances that it was most unlikely the company would break even. Now, the Minister has obviously been faced with the profit and loss account of the public transport service and this bill amounts to a further subsidy of £2 million.

One gets the impression from the Minister's speech that even yet he seems to feel that merely by repeating something sufficiently frequently he can make it become a fact. He says there is absolutely no question of the amount of the subsidy being reviewed before 1969-70. I do not know why he bothered to put that into his speech. We must assume that the company will be operated in such a way that it will be run efficiently but there are factors which might arise and involve unexpected expenditure. In such circumstances somebody must foot the bill and, of course, the taxpayer will be called on to do it.

If the state of the country were allowed to continue to progress towards further price increases and for that reason there must be increases in wages, then clearly a situation could arise in which the present subsidy might become inadequate. I have been surprised in the past by the Minister and many of his predecessors, by their incredulous amazement when, in the Labour Court and elsewhere, there were protests that it was impossible to give certain wage increases because the company could not afford them, being bound within certain limits of expenditure. But the Minister and his predecessors seemed to live in a completely separate world as Ministers for Transport and Power and Ministers of Governments who, by allowing the cost of living to go up, made wage demands inevitable and thus increased the operating costs of the public transport system.

I do not think the Minister has any reason to say here that there can be no question of the subsidy being reviewed. He might feel it desirable it should not be reveiwed but I do not see how he can be in any way certain it will not be reviewed. The trouble is, of course — and to some extent I can see the Minister's difficulty when talking of a service of this kind — the promise of unlimited subsidy leads to the likelihood that there will be unlimited demand on such a subsidy if a ceiling is not put on it. The Minister's attitude is that there will be unlimited demand.

I have always felt that is an implied vote of no confidence, an implication of no confidence in the people who have been put in charge of CIE. If he believes they will run the company in such an inefficient way as to involve unnecessary expenditure, then clearly the wrong people are in control of CIE. It should be simply possible for us to put people in control of a company and say: "Run it as efficiently as you possibly can." Then one would have to agree to pay the bill because the basic point is that this is a public utility and in certain circumstances it must lose money inevitably and one must accept that, provided an efficient service is operated.

Here we are having the worst of both worlds. We are getting an indifferent service in some places and a bad service in others. Occasionally, one comes across a good service. I remember the Minister once saying that he travelled by public transport on one or possibly two occasions. It might not be a bad idea if he used the bus services, and if the members of the company used them. They would find out how inadequate they are.

Mr. Childers

I travel on buses from time to time.

Dr. Browne

I am glad to hear it. I must confess I do not use the buses very much but I have watched people in queues during the peak hours from 5 to 7 p.m. The reason I do not use the buses is that I live in a place, Enniskerry, from which it takes an hour to do the 12 miles to Dublin and I have not got the time. One sees very large queues in this type of weather. We know from the timetable that there has been a curtailment of services. That is why I say we are having the worst of both worlds. We are paying a heavy subsidy, as this certainly is, and having a considerable curtailment of services.

The main objection I took last year was to the curtailment of rail services —a very big one on the southern line from Greystones and Bray up — while at the same time, there was no attempt by the Government or the Minister to co-ordinate the offload of traffic from the railways to the congested and in many cases very bad roads. As the Minister said the other night, in Trinity College, I think, it will be many years before we have arterial roads capable of taking high speed transport. That is true; yet we have closed down rail services which were safe and expeditious, and thrown a tremendous added burden on the roads, increasing greatly all sorts of traffic hazards and congestion of one kind or another.

If the Government decided to close down the railways, they should have co-ordinated policy: they should have created an arterial road system. That would have been an intelligent reappraisal of our transport policy. They saved on the railways and at the same time saved on the roads. The saving came because they did not build the alternative transport amenities in the form of roads capable of carrying a fast bus service. So the savings on the railways were completely illusory because there was no alternative service or certainly an inefficient alternative road service. That has been the trouble the whole time in regard to public transport.

I am not underestimating the complications of the transport problem we have to face. At the same time it is a problem which requires very much deeper thought, less superficial thought, than we appear to have given it over the years. We had, as I say, the false economy of closing the railways and diverting traffic on to roads which were never intended to carry that traffic. One of the strangest disabilities in the CIE management was in their approach. They had relatively undeveloped freight transport facilities and amenities and they went out and inaugurated a most intensive propaganda drive to get people to use these freight services. They were moderately successful. Certainly the prices were reasonable. The strange thing is there did not appear to be any conviction that they could prevail on the public to use the rail passenger services. They seemed to take a decision that these could not be improved. A sufficiently frequent rail service could not be provided. There was no question of a particular type of train of a particular size, to be followed by a propaganda campaign to encourage people to use the service. They did not seem to have any conviction that a passenger service could be developed in the same way as they had developed the freight service as a result of an intensive propaganda drive.

People have become so despairing of the CIE services that there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of personal transport on our roads. This has led to a proliferation of vehicles of all kinds, shapes and sizes, adding to the extraordinary congestion already on our roads, roads which were not designed to take the density of traffic now on them. This has all been most unfair as far as the public are concerned because the people are asked to provide taxation for a service they do not get. As Deputy Cosgrave said, they are asked to provide taxation for an inefficient service and, in addition to paying that taxation, they have to provide their own private transport. Most Deputies know that in the suburbs, like Ballyfermot, Finglas, Coolock and in my county, Wicklow, the general practice now is for three or four people to get together and buy some sort of car. They ignore the fact that there is a public transport service. They cannot depend on it. It is not there when they want it, to say nothing of the cost being far too high. They find that it is cheaper on the whole for them to club together, buy a car and share the running expenses. Whether or not that is legal is immaterial. The practice is very widespread throughout the country.

Workers of various kinds also find it cheaper to hire taxis and share the expenses. The Chairman of CIE may be very content with the widespread hatchet work he has done over the years in curtailing services, to say nothing of increasing fares. As far as I am concerned, he has been a complete failure in what should have been his primary objective, namely, the provision of efficient, reasonably-priced transport services for the public. Because of that failure, we are now faced with a very big subsidy which could, as time goes on, become an even bigger subsidy, because of the continuing decreasing use of the transport services. It will be a question of diminishing returns. As they are used less and less, the overheads will remain constant.

The primary costs will not change very much. Shutting down a station here and there is relatively unimportant from the point of view of cost. The decreasing use of the service will mean that indirectly the demands on the taxpayer in the form of a subsidy will increase. An optimum use of the services might mean that one could maintain a particular level of subsidy. If money values remain constant, it might be possible to reduce the amount of subsidy required. As I say, we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are paying in taxation and getting a bad service in return.

The other disappointing feature from the point of view of the public is the fact that high fares take a sizeable bite out of a man's income, particularly if he has to pay fares for himself to reach his place of employment, for his children to attend school and for his wife to go shopping. In addition to that, he will now have to pay some part of this £2 million in indirect taxation. This change from direct to indirect taxation is just one more of the unfairnesses of this Government. A burden which should be carried by the wealthier sections of the community has to be borne virtually entirely by the ordinary travelling public. They are hit every way. If they travel by bus, they have to pay high fares, getting in return a very indifferent service. In addition to that, those who find they cannot use the service have to provide their own transport as well as pay taxation for one they do not use.

Judging by the Minister's speech, unless he thumps the table, as it were, and tells the Chairman there is absolutely no question of subsidy, he will not get the services run as economically as they could be run; that seems to me to show a lack of confidence in the Chairman's ability because, presumably, he is running the services as cheaply as it is possible to run them. The Minister is not, of course, master of the situation at all because, a sufficient measure of inflation in the next five years, and that promise would not be worth the paper it is written on.

Before there is a complete dismantling of the rail services, I hope there will be some re-thinking by the Minister on the whole question of our transport services. He should not feel committed to any decisions that have been taken in the past because obviously changes are taking place all the time. There are countries in which they are deciding to re-introduce rail services of one kind or another. It would be worthwhile, before taking a final decision, to consider the whole position. If there are to be further curtailment and restriction, there is a moral obligation on the Government to consider the alternative they must face. The alternative is a very costly arterial road programme.

The present position is frightening. There are these huge industrial pantechnicons rumbling along the roads, making the position of the private motorist very hazardous indeed. Firms are carrying their own goods over roads which were never built to take this traffic. Consequently, there are great increases in the traffic risks of one kind or another.

I do not know which of us will be here in 1970, but it would not surprise me, if we carry on as we are going with the rather unimaginative policy for public transport being pursued at present, if there were increasing costs, not only the inflationary ones we have been talking about, but increasing costs due to decreasing usage of the public transport service. Because of the relative inadequacy and inefficiency, the Minister will find himself increasing his demands on this House for greater and greater subsidies and we will have no alternatives but to pay them.

Mr. Childers

Deputy Cosgrave raised some matters to which I should like to reply. In relation to the time taken in dealing with arbitration cases for redundancy pay, there have been some delays. I am exerting all the pressure possible to expedite matters in this regard.

The heating in CIE trains is improving. Arrangements have been made to have terminal pre-heating apparatus, so that the trains will be warmed up at the beginning of the day before the passengers arrive.

It is true to say that a great effort has been made to see that the very best possible labour relations exist. Of course, this depends partly on the development of the group union principle for negotiations. There are a great number of joint consultative councils within CIE, where matters are discussed at local level, suggestions for improving the service made, and matters discussed in relation to wages, conditions and so forth. I hope the system is resulting in a better understanding of all the problems involved.

Deputy Cosgrave referred to the difficulties about stopping places on bus routes 6, 7 and 8 in Dublin. I understand CIE has been looking into complaints about this. CIE bus services are to a very considerable degree under the authority of the Garda Síochána. They have to follow street traffic regulations in connection with the movement of buses in that area. It is not always the responsibility of CIE if things are not as perfect as they can be. It relates to what needs to be done to try and minimise the congestion of traffic in Dublin.

I disagree completely with Deputy Dr. Browne in everything he said about CIE, and I do not see any point in entering into an argument with him about it. He completely misunderstands the functions of CIE. He knows nothing about it whatever. In actual fact there is no company which is doing more on a modern basis to analyse traffic needs, to ascertain traffic needs, to conduct surveys of traffic needs, to carry out an analysis of tickets bought and destinations of passengers. Surveys of every description are being carried out by the present administration of CIE. I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting them for the very advanced work they are doing, particularly in Dublin city.

I disagree absolutely with Deputy Dr. Browne that CIE are trying to run down the services, to provide too thin a service, and, as a result, there may be need for a still larger future Government subvention. In connection with the Dublin bus service, the Deputy evidently has not read any of the things CIE and I have said, and which nobody has seriously contested, that the problem in Dublin is caused by bunching and traffic congestion. No matter how many buses you put on, if you start them at intervals of three minutes seven miles from Dublin, by the time they get through the centre of Dublin they have been bunched by traffic congestion. That is happening in this and every other country.

As the Deputy should know, the fact is that CIE have installed a radio car inspector control system in an effort to try and minimise the problem as much as possible and to modify the flow of buses, at peak periods. When any particular situation arises, they can turn buses around, if that can have some good result. But the position is going to become worse and worse unless Dublin Corporation solve the Dublin traffic problem. Merely putting on more buses, which would be completely idle for most of the day, is no solution and will only result in more buses being bunched together.

CIE do advertise the rail passenger service. There are rather clever advertisements around the country suggesting it is more comfortable to go by CIE train. I have encouraged them to do more imaginative advertising for the railway. I will go that far with Deputy Dr. Browne. I do not think they do sufficient imaginative advertising in the newspapers, but they certainly do a great deal.

Dr. Browne

All they will have to do now is provide the trains.

Mr. Childers

People are buying private cars everywhere as well as here. Every country in the world is facing the problem of private car transport competing with public transport. This country is one of the least densely populated countries in Europe. The number of scattered house-holds and people here who do not reside in hamlets, villages or small towns is almost a European record, I think, with Sweden. This presents a particular problem for public transport companies. The same is not true in France, where a very great proportion of the community live in villages. The position is different here, partly because of our appalling history and partly because of other social differences. The problem of transport here, therefore, is much more difficult. Even the present reduced mileage of CIE railway, if you calculate it as a percentage of national income, is still very high. Even though we cut off 621 miles of railway, it is still extremely high by European standards.

Deputy Dr. Browne said we did not have a co-ordinated system of transport when the railways closed down. The answer to that is, first, the improvement grants to the main roads in those areas were subsequently increased. Special once-and-for all grants were made available by the Minister for Local Government which helped to improve the roads where railways were closed. Secondly, by almost any definition applied by almost any country in the world, the railways closed were carrying so little traffic that they would not enter into the marginal considerations which, for example, operated in England, where Dr. Beeching's proposals have been examined by the previous Government and by the Labour Government and where the present Minister for Transport is deciding whether lines should be closed or left open. The lines we closed were in the lowest category of utilisation, where the provision of a road service was more suitable.

I have been over all that before, and I am surprised anybody would raise it now. The proof of all that lies in the fact that for 621 miles of railroad and 218 stations closed during the period of the 1958 Act, if I remember rightly, it required a substitution of something like 52 buses and just over 50 lorries, a number of which were already in the service of CIE and were simply utilised to a greater degree. A number of other lorries were required for particular seasons. The railway which operates on the basis of requiring so few substitute road vehicles is in the very lowest class of utilisation and does not come into the class where there would have been quite serious questions raised, and rightly, in regard to whether a railway should close on the grounds that, 50 years from now, the people would be very glad to have the railway because of intense congestion close to some cities, as in the case of certain British railways. The railway services that were closed down here were not of that kind.

I examined the cost of the bus fares in the CIE city services and I do not think the average cost per passengermile of 2.3d. is excessive by European standards in general. Another Deputy suggested that the Dublin city services were making an excessive profit. Their profit at a recent date was one-seventh of a penny per journey and I could not regard that as excessive.

Dr. Browne

Your wage rates are much lower.

Mr. Childers

Deputies who have complaints about bus or freight services will find that the CIE area managers are very good at investigating and answering complaints. I have few complaints with regard to that. A very exhaustive survey is taking place in Dublin in relation to the railway and bus services with the object of effecting most substantial improvements. One part of that survey has already been completed and as a result of the overhaul of the Ballyfermot bus services, the people are very satisfied with the changes that have taken place. Where it is practicable, CIE issue forms to passengers asking them for information about the kind of bus services they would like. That has been done in Cork, Limerick and, I think, in Waterford. In each of these cities, the changes made as a result were most satisfactory. I thank the House for the way they have accepted the Estimate.

Vote put and agreed to.