I thank Deputy Treacy for his good wishes to me. This was very pleasant to hear from him. This has been a very long debate and I propose, if I have time, to continue the tradition of giving a reply to virtually every question asked during the course of many hours of discussion because I wish to make it clear that I believe the debate on the Estimate is a time when a great deal of information should be given on matters of a very detailed character which would not ordinarily be the case throughout the year. At the beginning, I wish to deal with the parrot cries issued by various Deputies alleging that I have no function as Minister for Transport and Power. Though these parrot cries are funny and though I am aware of the fact that the great majority of Deputies are fully aware of my position in relation to the State companies, I nevertheless think it right, in view of the wide publicity given in the newspapers to those Deputies who spoke of me as having no function, to reply to what has been said.
I am obliged once again to state very briefly my relations with the State companies and to indicate just what are my functions. I examine with the boards of the companies, through my officials, the annual accounts of all the companies and all matters that seem to me to be of interest or significance in connection with the accounts. I sanction in most cases the expenditure of capital. I give sanction to that expenditure in relation to what I consider to be the Government's policy in relation to each State company and that means a very definite form of specific control of the general policy of each State company.
I discuss at regular intervals with every State company all the important aspects of its administration, the frequency of these discussion depending on the company and the kind of work it undertakes. For example, in connection with companies whose functions are promotional, I take a very deep interest in everything they do. I do not suppose there is a single item of Bord Fáilte's general programming that I have not discussed in great detail and I have made suggestions in connection with many of the policies at one time or another. I bring to the Dáil and Seanad at frequent intervals Bills for the enlargement of the capital of State companies and for other purposes. At such times details are given to each House of the companies' progress. I deal with every complaint of faulty services that comes to my Department and if faults are repetitive, I discuss them with the chairman and the general manager or with the board as a whole. I incidentally meet the chairmen, managing directors and boards of the companies regularly. Irrespective of the fact that I have matters to discuss with them, as a matter of policy I meet them at regular intervals.
I get a detailed statistical picture of every company in all its main activities. I examine constantly the steps taken through industrial consultants and work study, both those employed by the companies and those employed outside, to improve productivity. I ask for comparative productivity estimates, when these are possible, in order to compare the efficiency of one or other of our State companies with those of a corresponding character and size outside the country or with private enterprise within the country. I might add that is not always possible because such an examination has a limited value. Nevertheless, results can be significant in certain cases.
I ask for long-term estimates of production or achievement of one kind or another and I ask all companies to do such long-term planning as is possible, making a fair and a generally optimistic estimate of their future, based on whatever programme the company concerned has in mind or the Government have suggested. I regularly inspect the premises of all State companies. I ask for information from the management of companies regarding their industrial relations because I have realised that if a company is to be efficient and successful, there must be satisfactory industrial relations. This will be a matter for the Minister for Labour in future but I shall be equally concerned with the provision of a background of economic information in so far as it is important for the Minister for Labour in order that he can visualise what it is possible to achieve in the field of industrial relations, taking into account the importance of State companies in the life of the nation.
Then, I also have always received from the State companies general statements of their wage levels and fringe benefits so that I can be assured that, allowing for national income per head compared with that of the British and other people and the average of wage levels in the country and the particular economic position of any State company, the position of any State company is not one meriting any serious criticism. There, again, the companies are supposed to work under the finest possible conditions of management and they are supposed to pay what might be described as a good average wage compared with a good wages paid in other similar occupations by good companies. While, again, there must be variations because of the character of the company and its capacity to pay, nevertheless there must be general recognition that the State companies should not be subject to any extreme criticism in regard to the wage levels or fringe benefit arrangements they make for their people.
I need hardly say that all that takes a great deal of time and no one can conceivably advocate that I have no function in regard to the State companies. I wish some of the Deputies on the opposite side would stop talking their appalling nonsense and not be trying to confuse the people. I have presented this House on the occasion of this Estimate with 30,000 words of detailed information and documentation together with notes showing that those companies have been, right up to 1966, in the main, fulfilling the aims of the Second Programme, including CIE, with all its difficulties.
If Deputies had really read the notes prepared in advance for them and circulated in advance before I read my Estimate speech, and if they had read my Estimate speech in detail, and in particular in relation to CIE, and the statement by Mr. Herlihy of CIE, which I got distributed, and which appeared, very luckily, at the time of the Estimate, they would have had, not 30,000 words but 40,000 words of detailed information enabling them to understand the progress and the problems of any single one of the State companies and enabling them to take part in this debate in a positive, constructive manner, as many of them did. The idea that I had not given information to the Deputies and to this House is so ludicrous as almost to need no argument. I want to make this clear.
After having said all that, do I have to repeat the reason why the Acts have been passed through this House in a form that makes it the duty of the Ceann Comhairle to decide whether a particular question is one which refers to the day to day operations of the company or whether it may be asked? Do Deputies really want me to repeat what I have said before on that matter? Do Deputies realise what would happen if there was no limit on questions and if deluges of questions were asked on every conceivable matter regarding the working of particular State companies? I make a prediction here that any Minister who takes my place in the future, regardless of what Party to which he belongs, will make very little amendment, if any, in the law in regard to this matter because the questions which would be asked would involve the most minute circumstances of the operation of every company. They could concern industrial relations and once Deputies of this House attempt to do the work which should be done by the branch executives of trade unions or by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions in relation to State companies there would be absolute chaos in the State companies.
One of the things I have noted about this debate is whatever the Labour Party may have to say as to their attitude towards State companies, about whose conditions they were speaking when they described what they regarded as inadequate industrial relations in CIE, they were of a very general character. It was not Deputies of the Labour Party—most of whom are union people—who started to try to create agitation in regard to the operation of a particular section of CIE, the Inchicore works. It was, regrettably, two Deputies of my own Party. This was because they have not had sufficient experience of trade union work.
Deputies know in everything I have said in relation to State companies and industrial relations that I never said on any occasion that any particular group of men should be treated in any particular way or given any particular wage. That, again, is a function of the trade unions and the management in our system of free collective bargaining. I have never gone beyond doing anything other than uttering warnings to the management and the staffs of certain of the companies. I have referred to the subsidy which could be afforded to them by the Government. That is as far as I have gone.
Deputies can imagine what would happen if there were unlimited privilege to ask questions. If questions relating to the day to day activities, in which industrial relations were concerned, were allowed we would have absolute chaos. Just to give an example in relation to quite a different type of question. What would happen if Deputies could ask a question about the level of excursion fares for any GAA match, an excursion going from any part of Ireland to Dublin? Does the House realise what would happen if such questions were allowed and the intolerable pressure which could be exercised on CIE, locally and otherwise? I could give many other examples of what would happen if questions in regard to the day to day working of CIE were allowed without limit.
Deputies know in their hearts that what I am saying is absolutely correct. May I also say that in countries which have had a long experience of either left of centre administration or a Government of the European social, democratic type, which can be described now as moderately labour and very, very left Conservative Government, a concept which is coming close as time goes on, in that kind of administration there is absolutely no difference in regard to the rule about answering questions on State companies. The reason is that when a State company is set up, it is supposed to operate as a commercial company, and whereas questions of a general kind can be asked in the Parliaments of those countries and whereas during debate members can learn fully about the operations of the company and can have their questions answered in a general way, the tradition is maintained there the same as it is here.
Again, in order to answer those allegations that the House is ignorant of what is going on in our State Companies, during the financial years of 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66, in other words, during the last three years, two Bills in this House were discussed in relation to tourism in which I answered every reasonable question asked. There was one Bill on the British and Irish Steampacket Company, two on Air Navigation, two on the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, one on the Air Companies, two in connection with the Electricity Supply Board, one about Bord na Móna and there was another Bill of a private character about the ESB houses in Fitzwilliam Street. During this period, there were four major discussions on Bills in relation to transport. In addition to that, there were four resolutions discussed during Private Members' time. I defy any Deputy to read the records of the discussions on those Bills and to say that I did not, in a reasonable manner, answer all questions asked of me in regard to the operations of the companies concerned. My conscience is quite clear about this.
I suppose I really should laugh when I hear Deputy Coogan murmuring all the time "He has no function", because as I have said, I have taken a detailed interest in the operation of these companies and conveyed a large amount of information about them to the Members of this House. I could, of course, reply to this debate by saying that I accept that there is criticism of every State company, that no State company is perfect, that obviously there are problems, that the management do their best and I have trust in the board of directors and that the proof of their judgement right through these State companies lies in what has been accomplished during the period of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. However, I am going to repeat what has been accomplished and I will go on to give details in reply to all the observations that have been made and all the questions that have been asked.
I should like to say that these State companies have led and are in the van of the Second Programme. Most of them have lived up to everything asked of them in that Programme. Some of them have experienced difficulties, such as Irish Shipping, which went through a period of abnormally low freight rates throughout the world but which in the past year has shown a small profit, after allowing for depreciation. There has been a very complete re-organisation in the company. New types of ships have been acquired and a large carrier is being built. The company will be able to achieve its objective in the future, provided freight rates do not fall alarmingly.
In the case of the air companies, their success has been splendid. The number of passengers carried by Aer Lingus during the period of the Second Programme increased by 53 per cent. That is beyond the demands of the Second Programme. The number of passengers carried by Aerlínte increased by 301 per cent and they carried 1,437 per cent new freight. The airports constantly extended in order to carry more passengers. Shannon Airport shows an increase of 137 per cent in terminal passengers during the period of the Second Programme and terminal freight traffic increased by 216 per cent. Dublin Airport shows an increase of passengers passing through it of 64 per cent since 1960. Total freight has increased by 89 per cent. All these figures were up to and in advance of the requirements of increased production in the Second Programme. Cork Airport only opened in 1962 and the number of passengers is up since that time by 72 per cent.
Of very great importance to the economy is tourism, which has lived up 100 per cent to its requirement in the Second Programme. I am very proud of that because it is a tremendous tribute to Bord Fáilte, to everybody concerned in the industry and to the many private individuals who invested millions of pounds in new accommodation. The tourist industry, as the House knows, provides at the moment 18 per cent of the total export receipts of the country and is absolutely essential to our economic existence. Without it, we would collapse and go bankrupt as a nation.
Consumption of electricity has gone up by 58 per cent since the inception of the Second Programme and in the case of rural areas, it has increased by 70 per cent. Bord na Móna has experienced fearful weather difficulties, as I indicated in my opening Estimate speech, but nevertheless there has been an increase of 174 per cent in the milled peat produced since the inception of the Second Programme, 103 per cent in the amount of briquettes and 115 per cent in the amount of moss peat. These again are figures which show complete compliance with the general industrial requirements of the Second Programme. One cannot really refer to the Shannon Free Airport Development Company in relation to the Second Programme because in one sense it started from scratch in 1957 and now employs over 3,000 people.
I could end the debate and save the House a lot of time by saying that I admit that there are criticisms and difficulties but nevertheless the State companies have done wonderfully in so far as their contribution to the life of the nation is concerned since 1960 and since the time we started planning our future, but I am going to speak in very great detail in regard to all matters raised during the debate. I just want to make one short observation on Deputy Dunne's remark that apparently I created a sensation for him by admitting the existence of inflation in this country. Deputy Dunne must be innocent or he was pulling my leg because all the Ministers, the former Taoiseach and myself in particular have given the clearest picture of the future of the country ever since 1962 when the first signs of inflation appeared. I can quote speeches which I made in that year in which I warned the public that if income exceeded the growth of productivity and if at any time there was a recession in England or international difficulties, inevitably whatever programme we had which envisaged an increase in production and exports, would be temporarily halted. My speeches are on record and can be read by anybody who looks back over the newspapers of the time. Every responsible Minister warned the people that firstly, under our free collective bargaining system, they had an absolute right to negotiate wages in the way they wanted to, but gave a perfectly clear warning that unless guidelines in relation to income were observed, the cost of living would rise, the cost of government would rise, the price the Government had to pay for every service, for its own officers, for every service which they subsidised, would increase and that a great deal of the increases in income would inevitably be lost in increases in the cost of living.
I do not know whether at this time it would be tactful to draw Deputy Dunne's attention to the fact that Great Britain is being run by a Labour Government. A great many of the speeches made by Conservative Ministers, by Labour Ministers and Ministers in the Fianna Fáil Government ever since 1962 have been almost exactly on parallel lines, but in many cases for different reasons. The people of neither country were willing to accept the advice given to them. One can now see the difficulties in which the British people and the people of some other countries in Europe find themselves. I mention that simply in reply to Deputy Dunne's extraordinary statement that I was making for the first time the admission that we faced inflation.
I want to deal in great detail with CIE because most of the criticism was directed against CIE and I want to reply again to it. I want to repeat that Dr. Andrews and his Board have undertaken and carried out a splendid job of organisation. I am not going to give details of it; they have already been given. At a time of tremendous expansion of private motor car traffic here, the actual figures for the carriage of freight and passengers show either a remarkable stability or a very large increase, thanks to the efforts of the Board and thanks to the acceptance by the vast majority of the staff of a perfectly tremendous re-organisation.
When I hear of industrial relations that may not be so good in one sector or another of CIE and when I hear indignation expressed at certain changes that have been made in working techniques in certain sections of CIE, I say to myself: I do not suppose any company in the history of this country had to have such a tremendous re-organisation effected after a long period of gradual decline of the railways system which faced difficulties here similar to those experienced by railways in other countries. Allowing for the changes that took place in attitudes, habits and techniques, a very great deal was accomplished with great co-operation by the vast majority of the staff for which the staff and management of CIE must be congratulated. Such reorganisation and progress must leave its trail. There will be misunderstandings of new principles and procedures in CIE until they are fully understood and until workers and management come together and see the final course on which CIE is embarked.
Having made that general statement, I now want to clear up one matter of a purely personal kind in the House. There was some strong objection rightly expressed to remarks of Mr. T.P. Hogan, part-time Chairman of CIE, in regard to members of this House. Certain Deputies who spoke were not prepared to be sporting enough to forgive Mr. Hogan when he had made an express apology. I think we are all fair enough in this House—I do not think there are many mean Deputies— and I want to say here that Mr. Hogan did express to me his regret for a foolish statement. He is a very well-known engineer who is highly reputed and has an excellent reputation in industrial relations. He has been director of a number of important concerns. I hope the House will agree with me that having expressed his apology, the incident should now be forgotten and that he should be given due chance as part-time Chairman of this very great organisation to carry on in that job without any prejudice against him because of a single statement at an indiscreet moment. I take it all Deputies here will agree with me on that and I hope they speak on behalf of all Deputies in the House.
I was asked a question by Deputy Oliver Flanagan, who incidentally very much commended the appointment of Mr. Hogan as Chairman. I noticed that in the course of his speech he asked why it was decided to appoint a part-time Chairman. I had already given the reason for that in reply to a Dáil Question, namely, that the organisation and revolution that had been required in CIE had, in the main, been completed, that the line of organisation had been laid down and that it was felt it was sufficient to have a part-time Chairman and the Board and that they, operating through the General Manager, who had been a director of the Board, would continue this work of reorganisation and do their very best to ensure that CIE played its rightful part in the national life.
There were also some observations in regard to Dr. Andrews' pension. I do not want to raise that matter again, except to say that I am quite certain that if one could be sure that, by offering an individual a pension of the amount received by Dr. Andrews one could, each time the pension was offered, see between 4,000 and 6,000 people employed in a new industry, if that was the way industry could be established here, why then, I do not believe this House would be unwilling to grant such pensions. Dr. Andrews was responsible for the establishment of Bord na Móna, along with other members of the Board, and his inventiveness and initiative in that regard and the way he was able to inspire others and gather around him good workers and good engineers should be commended. If providing such people with pensions at that level would bring us the kind of industrial revolution we need here, it would not be a bad way of doing it. Unfortunately, that is not the practice. We give grants in a different form. I am speaking in a fanciful way simply to answer some of the criticism made in regard to his level of pension. I should also say that in the case of the previous Chairman like terms and like pension were granted and there was nothing in his case that was particularly exceptional.
I was asked by one Deputy about the charges made by CIE. Of course CIE freight rates, charges and fares have gone up, as they have in Europe generally. There is no excessive inflation in the cost of travelling by CIE or in the cost of sending goods. It relates in general to increases that have taken place elsewhere. I have looked at the figures and I find there is no exceptional inflation there. I was asked why it was that CIE had more staff cars now than they had before. The answer is that whatever considerable increase there has been in the number of staff cars since 1958 is due to the fact that they have had to establish a sales organisation that would sell all around the country. It is no use for an official, whose job is to sell freight all over the country, to go only by train: he must visit people and must get to area managers quickly and move around the country and see everybody. The extra cost of the cars in relation, for example, to the £1 million worth of package deals effected by CIE, is negligible. The extra cost of cars in relation to the turnover of CIE, which is £24 million, is negligible.
This is part of the mean little talk one hears from certain Deputies who like to arouse envy in the minds of CIE workers by suggesting that, because there are a dozen or so more cars or because of the flower beds, the workers are being deprived of some extra benefits they could have had or that the company is being wasteful. If only they would remember that figure of a turnover of £24 million, they would realise that if you added together all the alleged lushness in CIE, the whole thing in toto would not make a bag of nuts in the difference to the general level of the company's operations. That sort of petty talk will not get us anywhere. It will not benefit the workers or advance the interests of CIE.
Deputy Dunne raised the old question of the closing of the railways. I have already dealt with that in such detail that I need scarcely go into it here tonight. When a branch line is closed, it is closed because it is really a bus line forced to run along rails, stopping infrequently, carrying far too few passengers and too little freight to justify its existence. Thousands and thousands of miles of railways have been closed all over Europe in the past ten years, and if a better service can be provided by road at less cost to the taxpayer, the policy in all countries, subject to certain exceptions for special reasons, is to close down railways of this kind.
Deputy S. Dunne implied that CIE was not run as a social service, that it was a purely commercial operation. There it is again. Deputy Dunne does not bother to read the information I provide him with. On the Second Reading of the Transport Bill, 1964, all the information was given about the social services operated by CIE, about the 39 services in Dublin that do not pay and never will pay; about the high proportion of provincial bus services that do not pay and will never pay; and about the remarkable services which help to make up for the nonpaying services and which provide a very large proportion of the revenue. For example, in Dublin, three of the bus services provide one-third of the entire revenue of the bus service in Dublin, and if those services were not highly profitable, either the taxpayer or the people of Dublin would have to pay very much higher taxes or fares for taking buses in Dublin. This, of course, is common to bus services in other countries.
Deputy Dunne accused me of having Victorian views in regard to the economics of State companies. Now I accuse Deputy Dunne, in turn, of being a thoroughly Victorian Labour man because the modern labour parties, the modern social democratic parties, while believing philosophically in the social principle, have come to accept the operation of State companies in relation to private enterprise on what might be called a factual basis, that, as long as the system works, it is good to have private enterprise and as long as private enterprise is not supplying what is required for social and economic development, the State should intervene. That is generally accepted in the modern labour world. It is accepted by Mr. Harold Wilson and Mr. Callaghan in England. It is accepted by the Swedish administration which is a left-of-centre, socialist-in-origin government which has been in office since 1925, if I remember rightly. They take an ad hoc view. They recognise that private enterprise and the State company system operating together have succeeded in building up the economy of Sweden.
That is the view we have on this side of the House. Therefore, I repeat for the benefit of Deputy Dunne and Deputy Casey that if I see the number of private motor cars doubled in ten years, a decision made by the Irish people, as made by other peoples, to have their private transport, if I see the Irish people make that decision in common with the French people on the basis that there are more motor cars per £ million of national income in this country than there are in any other country in Europe—and largely because of the scattered character of our population and the lack of village life—there is no reason why I should be obliged, for purely socialist purposes, to pump more and more money by way of subsidy into CIE.
I have no obligation of any kind to ask the taxpayer to pay more and more pennies per gallon of petrol in order to support CIE. We regard the subvention of CIE as the amount of money required to keep a railway system going efficiently that never can be made to pay in any conditions. It is not a subsidy to support an ailing, inefficient company. It is a subvention deliberately designed to maintain a railway in a country which is too big to justify the closing of the railway and which is not quite big enough to enable the railway to operate without entailing a fairly large loss.
If Dublin were 300 miles from the main arterial terminals of CIE, the loss would be less because the railway would be better able to compete on long hauls, as in the case of every other railway, with road transport: 150 miles is a most regrettable length because the railway is still essential and yet it never can pay for reasons I have given so often. We have a low density of population in this country, unlike Great Britain. There is absolutely no transit traffic as in the case of the Dutch railway which has paid but which is beginning to go into the red, or the Swiss railway which is only just balancing its accounts. We have as yet no substantial volume of metal ores or coal—and are unlikely to have—which form some of the basic revenue of railways where there is no large element of subsidy.
Then there is the fact that although we are trying to establish industries in the west, Dublin, the capital city, is in the east and the railways move westwards to comparatively thinly-populated areas, and the length of railway in relation to each thousand of the people is still one of the longest in Europe, even after our having closed 621 miles of line.
We want this railway to operate efficiently in the sphere in which it was justified, namely, long-distance freight, long-distance passenger traffic and the essential commuter service in Dublin. The £2 million at present paid in subsidy, which represents 4d a gallon of petrol to the taxpayer and represents 22 per cent of the rail revenue of CIE or 4/6d on every 20/- worth of rail ticket bought or freight fare paid, is quite adequate. It is ludicrous to suggest that I should encourage a considerable increase in that subvention when I see £30 million a year being invested in private transport and the private sector willing to risk investing money in transport every year. No social democrat or person believing in left-of-centre government or believing strongly in State enterprise would recommend the Minister for Transport to give way easily to demands for an increase in a subvention of that kind. If CIE were not compelled to run railways because it is part of the national economic life, there would be no need for a subvention at all.
Deputy O'Donnell from Donegal asked a question about the buses which run parallel to the railway and he suggested that CIE rail service could not pay because there were buses running parallel. If you examine the CIE bus services that run parallel to the railway, you will find that they call at different towns, many towns not covered by the railway. Equally it would be found, if the ticket sales are examined, that a very large number of people get on the bus during its journey and for part of its journey and that they are not, in many cases, passengers getting in at Dublin and getting out at the final terminal.
All that has been examined very carefully by CIE. If those services were not run it would then be necessary to have services running in a circle from stations at enormous extra cost and at very great inconvenience to the passengers. There are many services relating to the railway already but these long-distance bus routes do not follow altogether the route of the railway. The Dublin-Cork bus, for example, goes completely off the railway route for most of its journey. Therefore Deputy O'Donnell need have no doubts there would be substantial changes if all the buses following railway routes were abolished and the feeder services were established instead.
In reply to Deputy O'Donnell, express bus services are doing very well at the moment.
Deputy James Tully referred to the fact that he thought provincial bus fares were high. The Deputy is right. Provincial bus fares in relation to certain Welsh bus services are somewhat higher when the mileage exceeds eight miles. Up to that point they are about the same. Above eight miles they are somewhat higher than in the case of one particular English operator. I think they are not very different from the bus fares of the UTA, the Northern Ireland transport service, and I do not think there is any way of reducing them. They are not so much higher as to serve as a real deterrent to travelling on the bus. I have asked CIE to consider on a more elaborate plan the examination of excursion bus fares. I hope that they will consider that but that is the answer to Deputy Tully's question.
Deputy Tully also asked a question about the synchronising of bus services with the arrival of railway trains. In most cases the arrival and departure of buses do correspond with railway services. There are exceptions to this and I would be very glad if Deputy Tully would give me the example of which he had a record of a bus which left five minutes before the train arrived because I should like to make inquiry of CIE in regard to the matter.
Many Deputies implied that I never go by bus and do not know what the bus services are like. That is completely untrue. Do Deputies imagine that a Minister for Transport and Power would really seal himself off from the ordinary life of the people of Dublin by never going by bus? That would show lack of imagination, on my part. So, I do go by bus and I have been by bus and I have got into buses, waited for buses at 5 o'clock in the evening in wet weather and I know all the difficulties of the CIE Dublin bus services. I have watched the conductors and noted that 90 per cent or 95 per cent of them are extraordinarily polite and decent to the people they serve. So the idea that I have not travelled by bus is as ludicrous as to say that I have not travelled by Aer Lingus or Aer Rianta or by CIE train. I travel frequently by CIE train and, of course, I have been by bus in order to acquaint myself of the position.
I want to say that I have also compared the Dublin bus services and the provincial services of CIE, as far as I can, with services in other countries with a very much higher income per head of the population than we have and, whether you examine it by looking at a map with the densities of population marked in the main centres and then at the bus services indicated in the case of European countries or whether you examine it by the number of passenger miles travelled by the public in these countries, or however you examine it, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the CIE bus services in that it cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination that it is not fulfilling a social service as well as running buses that pay.
I can also say with truth, and I am sure any Deputy who has been abroad to the Council of Europe or for any other purpose and who has watched people going to work in the morning in the large cities of Europe in countries with 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent, 100 per cent more income per head than we have, will not disagree, that a higher percentage of people travel to work in Dublin seated than in most capital cities with a far greater income per head than we have. Any Deputy who has been to Stockholm, for example, or Berlin or Zurich or Munich and has seen people going to work there will know that what I say is correct. That is not to say that the Dublin bus service is perfect. Of course it is not perfect. One of the great facts about the CIE bus service administration is that the Manager of the bus service knows that it is not perfect and is doing his utmost to improve it.
Deputy Dillon asked a question about my connection with the one-way street operation in Dublin. I have no connection. Of course, CIE are linked with Dublin Corporation in an enquiry into congestion in Dublin. May I say that the one-way street operation has not nearly solved the problem and I myself have recently investigated this. I recently took a bus in Dawson Street at 5.30 p.m. Even when the bus had emerged from the central complex, the bus took 25 minutes to go from Dawson Street to Kelly's Corner because of congestion in an area where congestion is supposed to have been solved through the one-way street operation. I can tell the Deputies of this House the melancholy news that until the congestion problem in Dublin is settled, every time at peak traffic hours, morning and afternoon and at mid-day, the rhythm of the bus service will be deeply disturbed, no matter what is done to remedy the position and that buses that are supposed to travel at five minute intervals will often be travelling in bunches at 20 minute intervals and there is nothing that CIE can do about it except ameliorate it as far as possible by having radio telephone link, inspectors' cars, by turning a few buses where this is possible back into the traffic and by the origin and destination survey about which I will speak later.
I might add that the first specific experiment in factual surveys on bus operation conducted by CIE in Limerick, Waterford and Cork, proved extremely successful and there everybody admits that the bus service has been very much improved indeed.
I was also asked questions about the desirability of CIE not running all their buses into the centre of the city, seeing whether it would not be possible to route buses avoiding the centre of the city. That, of course, involves knowing how many people want to cross the city from one point to another. CIE conducted some time ago a pick-up and set-down survey the purpose of which was to equate the capacity offered by city buses at all times of the day with the number of people travelling. That enquiry of a preliminary kind is now I think fully processed and many improvements have already resulted. CIE, as a result of that, re-scheduled 72 per cent of their major Dublin City routes and also provided new services and provided increased capacity of seven per cent in the morning peaks and 6.8 per cent in the evening peaks on the routes.
As the House knows, nearly a quarter of a million passengers, a very representative sample, have been questioned as to the origins and destinations of their journeys. During the survey that took place recently each passenger was asked: "Where did you board? Did you transfer from another route? Where will you alight on this route? Will you transfer over to another route later? To what route will you transfer and at what place will you finally alight? Are you travelling to or from work or school or other activity?" The results of that survey will be examined by Professor Schachterle, the Dublin Corporation traffic expert. Deputy Dowling and other Deputies who said that CIE should attempt to run buses to a lesser extent through the centre of the city, will learn later the results of the survey.
I am afraid my own prediction is that Deputy Dowling will be disappointed. Although it may be possible that CIE will run more routes, such as Route 18, from one area to another and not through the centre of the city and may alter the pattern of services, I am afraid there will be found a very large number of people who want to go through the centre of the city from the periphery. However, I hope it will result in CIE being able to contribute to some extent to the relief of congestion in the centre of the city. I might state in passing that there are certain cities in Europe where buses are given some priority rights travelling through the city. That may be another solution.
I have already spoken about the CIE provincial bus fares. In regard to the CIE Dublin bus fares, these compare at present quite favourably with those charged in London and Manchester. Although it is regrettable CIE had to increase them, the cost to CIE have gone up because of successive wage rounds and increased costs of materials. It is only fair to point out that Dublin bus fares even at this moment compare favourably with those in London and Manchester. To give one example: For 3.2 miles of travel, the fare in Dublin is 9d; the fare in London is ?d; and the fare in Manchester is 9d. Double that to 6.2 miles. The fare in Dublin is 1/1d; the fare in London is 2/-; and the fare in Manchester is 1/1d. Go up again, for example, to something equivalent to going to Dalkey or some place roughly that distance from the centre. The fare in Dublin is ?d; the fare in London for a similar distance, 2/6d; and in Manchester, it would be the same, ?d. Therefore, in reply to those Deputies who asked about fares in Dublin, I can say they compare favourably with provincial cities in Great Britain and very favourably with those in London. I might add that the cost of oil is about the same. The cost of many of the materials CIE buys is either the same or more. The general wage-fringe benefit structure of the bus conductors and drivers in CIE is roughly euivalent at present to that paid by the provincial bus companies in England.
