: On behalf of the Minister for Transport and Power I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Private Members' Business. - Transport Bill, 1969: Second Stage.
Before the Minister starts, in view of the sparseness of the attendance on the Government side I think we should call a House. They have been very anxious to speak all evening. Let them come back now and do so.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for further capital advances to CIE and for payment to the Board of non-repayable grants in respect of the amount by which the board's subvention was inadequate during the five year period ended 31st March, 1969. I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take with the Bill the motion on the Order Paper in relation to the Transport Act 1964 (Section 6) Order, 1969, the purpose of which is to increase the amount of the annual grant paid to CIE.
The Transport Act, 1964, provided for payment to CIE from 1st April, 1964 of an annual grant of £2 million, with the aid of which the board was required to break even taking one year with another. The Act provided that the amount of the subvention might be varied in the financial year commencing on 1st April, 1969, and in every fifth subsequent financial year, by order made by me with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance and subject to prior approval of each House of the Oireachtas. The Act also made provision for payment to the board by the Exchequer of capital advances not exceeding in the aggregate £6 million. It was estimated that this sum would, in addition to the moneys available from the board's depreciation provisions and other internal resources, be sufficient to meet CIE's capital requirements for the five year period ended 31st March, 1969.
The 1964 Act was based on the Government decision, announced by my predecessor during the course of his Second Stage speech on the Transport Bill, 1964, to continue to preserve the railway system subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might be found practicable and desirable. The Government recognised that CIE could never become a viable organisation so long as the board was required to provide a widespread rail system. It was, however, accepted that while a complete changeover to road transport could possibly yield a public transport system which would carry on without operating losses, the enormous capital required and the very heavy staff redundancy would be such as to outweigh the advantages. The Government also took into account the fact that the railway represents a vast national investment and offers advantages, not alone for tourist and peak traffics, but particularly for certain bulk freight traffics.
The annual subvention of £2 million was intended to be a realistic estimate of the minimum subsidy with which CIE could get by on the basis of effective management and increased efficiency and productivity. The object was to set a difficult but not discouraging target and to provide an incentive to efficiency and economy. In the event CIE's total losses during the five year period exceeded the board's total subvention of £10 million in that period by only £542,460. In the context of the board's scale of operations—its turnover in 1968-69 exceeded £31 million —and of the growing difficulties which beset public transport everywhere, this is a very slight divergence from the target set five years ago. Over the five year period there has been a sharp growth in productivity in CIE and improvement in management throughout the enterprise.
Before dealing with the Bill itself and with the order, I propose to review briefly the results of the various sectors of CIE over the past five years. Except for 1968-69, CIE's net losses have been steadily growing, having increased from £1.475 million in 1964-65 to £2.48 million in 1967-68, before dropping to £1.961 million in 1968-69. An increase in revenue, due to increased fares and rates and additional business, partly offset by an increase in expenditure, was responsible for the reduction of £519,000 in the board's net deficit for 1968-69 compared with the previous year.
The excess of £542,460 over the five year period can be attributed mainly to increases in labour and other costs. CIE is a labour intensive industry and labour costs account for about 65 per cent of the board's total operating expenditure. Over the past five years, CIE's total operating costs increased by 44 per cent. During the same period the additional annual cost of wage and salary increases, reductions in working hours and other improvements in conditions of service for CIE employees represented an increase of approximately 54 per cent on the level of the board's labour costs in 1963. Some of the additional costs incurred over the five year period were offset by additional business secured by the board totalling over £6½ million and by an increase of about 13 per cent in productivity; the balance had to be met as far as possible by increases in fares and rates.
Excluding financial charges which, by arrangement with CIE, were allocated for the first time to the various working accounts in the board's accounts for 1968-69, losses on railway working rose from £1.229 million in 1964-65 to £2.143 million in 1968-69. Rising costs absorbed not only increases in fares and rates but also economies and increased productivity achieved by the board. Over the five year period rail passenger traffic was well maintained. In an effort to increase this traffic, CIE have introduced a wide range of concessionary fares, faster trains and an intensive campaign to attract more commuters to the suburban rail services. Rail freight tonnage increased by 34 per cent; the increase was due largely to the growth in bulk traffic, such as cement, oil and minerals, which more than trebled over the period.
Special container terminal installations have been provided at Cork. Limerick and Dublin for use in connection with new fast liner train services for container loads introduced this year between Dublin and Cork, Dublin and Limerick and Dublin and Waterford.
Since 1964, 126 miles of railway line have been closed by CIE, reducing the railway at 31st March, 1969, to 1,333 miles of first track. In addition, 69 stations and halts were closed. New railway extensions or sidings have been provided at Silvermines and Foynes to handle new minerals traffic, at Arklow for fertilisers and at Oranmore for oil products. Another extension railway is at present being provided at Ballinacourty, County Waterford, to serve the new factory which is being established there for the processing of dolomite into magnesite. The average length of haul of rail freight traffic increased from 86.6 miles in 1964-65 to 101.3 miles in 1968-69, thus reflecting the value of the railway for long distance haulage, particularly of bulk traffics It is also of interest that the average length of passenger journey by rail increased from 35.8 miles in 1964-65 to 37.1 miles in 1968-69.
There has been a significant improvement in the operating surpluses on the board's road passenger services taken as a whole, although the Dublin city services are now less remunerative than in former years, the operating surplus on these services having fallen from £389,000 in 1964-65 to £264,000 in 1967-68 before improving to £354,000 in 1968-69. This is due not only to the impact of increased costs but also to a steady decline in the number of passengers using the Dublin city services. An adverse factor is the ever increasing problem of traffic congestion, now estimated to cost CIE £250,000 per annum. On the other hand, the operating surplus on the board's provincial road passenger services, including tours and private hire, increased from £271,000 in 1964-65 to £941,000 in 1968-69. During the same period the total number of passengers carried on these services increased from 60.5 million to 78.4 million; a large part of this increase is attributable to the operation by CIE of the free schools transport scheme and to the increase in the board's coach tour operations. Revenue from coach tour business increased from £218,000 in 1963-64 to £730,000 in 1968-69 and CIE's target is to achieve a 20 per cent annual increase in this business.
Despite a decrease in the total tonnage carried by the board's road freight services over the five year period, the operating surplus on road freight working increased from £45,000 in 1964-65 to £227,000 in 1968-69, the impact of rising costs having been offset by increases in rates and by economies in operation. I understand from CIE that the increased profitability on road freight working can be largely attributed to a reorganisation carried out by the board in 1965 of its road freight organisation.
The CIE hotels and catering services continue to be profitable, the operating surplus having increased from £145,000 in 1964-65 to £234,000 in 1968-69. There has been an increase in the operating losses on canals and vessels—from £58,000 in 1964-65 to £100,000 in 1968-69. At the request of my predecessor, CIE chartered a second vessel, the "Galway Bay", to help in coping with peak tourist traffic between Galway and the Aran Islands during the summer months of this year and I am delighted to be able to tell you that this traffic increased from 14,795 passengers in 1968 to 18,511 in 1969.
Total capital expenditure by CIE during the five year period amounted to £17.785 million, of which £10.94 million was met from the board's depreciation provisions and other internal resources and £6 million by way of capital advances under section 4(1) of the Transport Act, 1964. There was a balance of £844,664 which was met by temporary borrowing. The £6 million provision in the 1964 Act would have been adequate for the five year period were it not for the necessity for CIE to provide additional buses for the free school transport scheme in the two years 1967-68 and 1968-69; in consequence, the £6 million provision was inadequate to the extent of £844,664. In addition to the board's normal capital programme, CIE, at the request of my predecessor, incurred capital expenditure amounting to £237,596 up to 31st March, 1969 on the provision of car ferry facilities at Rosslare Harbour.
Nothing has happened since 1964 which would suggest that any change is necessary in the Government decision taken at that time to preserve the railway subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might prove practicable and desirable. CIE are satisfied that, for the present at any rate, the railway has been pruned to the optimum size and that further concentration would not reduce losses. The problem of the viability of the railway is common to all European countries and has been faced more realistically here than in most other countries. There is no ready solution but it is quite clear that the railway can never be operated without State assistance. The problem is to contain losses to the minimum consistent with securing the most economic and efficient overall transport system within the national economy.
The railway plays an important role in the social and economic life of the country and will continue to do so. Railway operations will be aimed at providing high standards of passenger travel and, by exploiting its advantages for speed, safety and comfort, CIE will aim at expanding rail passenger traffic. More express passenger services will be introduced between major provincial centres and Dublin CIE will continue their campaign to attract more commuters to the suburban rail services with a view to ensuring that those services will be utilised as effectively as possible and to provide the maximum contribution to the relief of traffic congestion in Dublin city. The board will continue to improve the layout and decor of stations and will provide car parks at stations where necessary and feasible.
On the rail freight side, the board will equip itself to take full advantage of the recent development of container traffic. Railheads will be developed to take advantage of the economies of unit loads and groupage facilities. In this connection, the board in conjunction with some of its major customers, the fertiliser manufacturers, has tackled the problem arising from the need to equate all the year round production to seasonal consumption. Large, mechanically equipped storage areas are being provided at railway stations adjacent to major areas of seasonal fertiliser demand. The fertilisers will be moved in bulk into these storage areas and will then be delivered to local consumers as required. To keep pace with the growth in container traffic, more liner trains will be provided; the board's ultimate plan is to provide a national network of liner trains.
The board proposes to expand road freight traffic in specialised operational fields and standards of equipment and of service will be improved. CIE's principal aims with the road passenger services will be to improve standards of comfort and service. Every effort will be made by the board to improve the Dublin city bus services which are at present operating under very difficult conditions, which have affected not only the cost but also the quality of the services. Many new buses of the most modern type will replace buses which are at present over age. The board will continue to use modern devices such as closed circuit television and short wave radio to try to keep the buses moving in difficult traffic conditions. More express and limited stop bus services will be provided throughout the country. Special efforts will be made to expand coach tour operations; about 75 per cent of CIE's coach tour business comes from North America and with a view to increasing this busines, the board has established sales offices in New York and Los Angeles and proposes to open another office in Chicago.
The Bill further provides for Exchequer capital advances of £11 million to CIE of which £1.08 million is already due to the board in respect of the amount by which the £6 million provision in the 1964 Act was inadequate during the five year period ended 31st March, 1969. This sum comprises £844,664 in respect of the excess of capital expenditure—caused by the school bus programme—over funds available plus £237,596 in respect of the provision of car ferry facilities at Rosslare Harbour. The balance of the £11 million, that is £9.92 million, together with the board's depreciation provisions, will be available to meet future capital expenditure by the board. CIE's capital expenditure will be related mainly to the replacement of road and rail vehicles, the provision of school buses, the modernisation and improvement of equipment and premises and the improvement of staff amenities.
The Bill also provides for payment to CIE of non-repayable grants not exceeding in the aggregate £642,460 in respect of the amount by which the board's subvention was inadequate during the five year period ended 31st March, 1969. This sum is made up of £542,460 in respect of the amount by which the board's total deficits during the period exceeded the total subvention paid by the Exchequer and £100,000 in respect of provision made by the board in 1964-65 and 1965-66 for redemption of its 2½ per cent and 3 per cent transport stocks, which was shown separately in the board's accounts but was not taken into account in arriving at the net deficits for those years.
The draft order provides for an annual grant of £2,650,000 for CIE which will be the level of subsidy for the five year period 1969-70 to 1973-74 and which, in accordance with the terms of section 6 (2) of the Transport Act, 1964, may be varied, if necessary, in the financial year commencing 1st April, 1974. This represents an increase of £650,000 on the board's existing annual grant. The new grant has been determined in the light of estimates of the board's revenue deficits for the five year period 1969-70 to 1973-74. I should mention that these estimates exclude the profits of Ostlanna Iompair Éireann, the CIE hotels subsidiary, as these profits are retained by the company to help to finance its capital expenditure. As in 1964, the annual grant has been fixed at a level which should provide the board, management and staff of CIE with a difficult but realistic target, the achievement of which will call for continued effort and initiative. I have every confidence that these will be provided.
I am satisfied that the formula adopted in the 1964 Act has worked well and has provided the board with a useful incentive to efficiency and economy. A further step in this direction during the past five years has been to ensure that the non-commercial cost of services provided by CIE are quantified as accurately as possible and charged to appropriate sources; thus the cost of the free transport scheme for school children is settled directly between CIE and the Department of Education and is defrayed from that Department's Vote. Similarly, the cost of free travel for old age pensioners is borne by the Department of Social Welfare and for old IRA men by the Department of Defence.
I commend the Bill and the draft order to the House.
I should like to express my regret at the indisposition of the Minister for Transport and Power and my wishes that he will be fully recovered very shortly. He has a very good deputy in the person of Deputy Childers, Minister for Health, who has presented many transport Bills to this House on previous occasions.
The Transport Bill of 1969 is another chapter in the history of public transport in this country. The Minister's speech—and I am sure he will agree with me—indicated the remarkable change which has taken place in the Government's attitude in relation to our national transport system. From the 1930s until comparatively recently the basic philosophy in relation to public transport was dominated by the break-even concept. We were obsessed with the idea that CIE had to pay for itself, but in 1964 we had the first change of heart on the part of the Government. I think this change of heart was due to the publication of the Pacemaker Report in October 1963. I believe that report had a profound effect on Government thinking. During the last few days when reading the Pacemaker Report and past debates on the Transport Bill I noticed that many of the suggestions made by Deputies over the years were borne out by the Pacemaker Report. Many of the views expressed by Patrick McGilligan are to be found in the Pacemaker Report. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the people responsible for compiling the Pacemaker Report. I have said that I have studied it, but I think the Minister will agree with me that it would take a very long time to digest it.
In the 1964 report we had the first admission from the Government, of something which had been accepted by many people outside this House, that our public transport system, the railway sector in particular, could never be expected to pay its way.
I was glad to see in the Minister's speech that the change of attitude which took place in 1964 is borne out in the 1969 Act. If we want to maintain our public transport system, we will have to be prepared to subsidise. The most significant paragraph in the Minister's speech is that which states:
Nothing has happened since 1964 which would suggest that any change is necessary in the Government decision taken at that time to preserve the railway system subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might prove practicable and desirable.
I am sure Deputy M.P. Murphy will be commenting on this. I was reading the previous debates on this matter and he was at that time very vocal on the subject of railway closures. We have now this remarkable statement in the Minister's speech. It is a statement which will be welcomed by many Deputies on this side of the House.
CIE are satisfied that, for the present at any rate, the railway has been pruned to the optimum size and that further concentration would not reduce losses.
We have come apparently to the end of the policy of wholesale closure of branch lines. The figures over the last five years certainly do not indicate any need for any further closures and, if there were any attempt to close the few remaining branch lines, we would have no railway system at all.
The Minister makes the point that the railway "plays an important role in the social and economic life of the country and will continue to do so." Now that our discussion on transport has been, as it were, lifted out of the realm of controversy, I would hope that we might in the course of this debate look at the particular problems in relation to public transport and try to assess the prospects of the development of our transport system in the future. I regret that the Minister's brief was not somewhat more discursive. I thought the Minister would have availed of this opportunity to examine the problem in some depth in order to formulate a realistic transport policy for the future. He did make mention, somewhat casually, of certain very important factors.
Transport is vital in the future economic development and social progress of our country. One of the things I discovered as a result of my recent studies was that it is virtually impossible to form a balanced judgment about the future of public transport here. The reason why it is impossible is because there is very little statistical information available. In 1963 the Central Statistics Office undertook a survey and very valuable figures were produced. Pacemaker is the most valuable report on public transport. It is the only real study in depth of many of the problems confronting our transport system. Pacemaker was the first real breakthrough in getting to grips with many of the problems of our transport system, problems discussed here and elsewhere for many years. Many of the opinions expressed were based on fallacies rather than on facts.
Because of the lack of factual information in the past CIE had a very bad image in the public eye. The lack of good public relations was commented on by many people. So was the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining CIE. I am glad to note that in recent times there has been a changing attitude in this regard. This may be due to the fact that CIE seem to have improved their public relations department. There are signs now of an end to the double-thinking that went on for so long, double-thinking in the sense that we expected our transport system to be economic while it was, at the same time, serving as a public utility and, from that point of view, could not possibly be profitable. I welcome the changed public opinion. Anyone who reads the little booklet containing the résumé of the progress CIE have made since 1964 cannot but be impressed by the progress made in practically all sectors.
It is no harm to re-emphasise certain basic facts. The Minister referred to some of these in a rather general way. The Minister admitted in 1964 that the prospects of making CIE pay their way were nil. He repeated that tonight. Having studied the returns over the last five years in even greater detail than they appear in this little booklet, it seems to me that the real problem of public transport is the problem of the railways. I think it is now realised that the railways can never operate economically and, if we are to maintain the railways, we must be prepared to subsidise them. This is not just a characteristic of our railway system. It is a problem common to every western European country.
I have examined the financial returns from most European countries. I am pleased to say that the performance of CIE compares favourably with that of most and more than favourably with that of some. This is a tribute to the board, management and workers of the national transport system. Some of the returns from countries which we would regard as the more advanced, more progressive and highly industrialised in western Europe show that the operating losses on many of the railway systems are far greater than is the case with CIE. By European standards, therefore, CIE is performing quite well in relation to the operation of the railway system.
There is an important point here that is worth mentioning. While we admit that the railway section of CIE can never pay its way, this must not mean that we in the House would encourage a complacent attitude on the part of the board, management, staff and workers of CIE. We recognise the difficulties in regard to the railway system and are prepared to subsidise that system but there is a continuing obligation on all concerned with the operations of CIE to maintain in the future the high level of efficiency which has characterised their work in recent years.
I am glad to note from my study of the working of CIE that in recent years greater emphasis has been laid on productivity and that many modern techniques and methods have been introduced, such as, for example, work study, cost analysis, and so on. In this age of technology and high-powered business it is vitally essential that the national transport system in all its sectors should utilise to the fullest possible extent modern business methods. CIE are doing a good job, particularly in the problem sector, the railways, and that fact should be recognised.
While we recognise the need for subvention in the future, and are prepared to vote the necessary funds, there is an obligation on the Minister and the Government and on all sides of this House to be clear as to the reasons for continued subvention of CIE. As I have said, the problem is the railways. From the economic and social aspects, are we right in trying to maintain the railway system? As one who is interested in economic development, who has had some experience in promoting industrial development, I am convinced that a railway system is an essential part of the infrastructure in any modern State. In a recent debate on the Industrial Development Authority Bill the question of infrastructure was referred to as being of importance. Since then I have taken the trouble to study the Buchanan Report in relation to industrial development. Buchanan emphasises the importance of transport in relation to industrial development.
There is another aspect also of a railway system which it is well to bear in mind. I am very conscious of this aspect because of development taking place in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. I refer to developments in mining at Silvermines. I have been very impressed by the manner in which the newly constructed railway line linking Silvermines with Foynes has been utilised in hauling iron ore. With the further development of mining and with the possible establishment of a smelter plant in this country there will be increasing demand for this type of haulage for which railways are ideally suited.
A railway system is necessary for a number of other reasons. It is a very useful means of long distance passenger travel. The figures produced over the past five years indicate that people are utilising the railways for long distance travel to an increasing extent. I have travelled by rail in Europe and in Great Britain. I believe that our main line passenger train service compares very favourably with those in other countries and in many ways are more comfortable.
On previous occasions when we were debating transport I advocated the introduction of special weekend fares for the reason that with the introduction of the five-day week people from rural areas who were working in Dublin would be anxious to return home for the weekend. I understand that cheap weekend fares, return fare at the cost of single fare, have been in operation once a fortnight for some time. I was at Heuston Station recently on a Friday evening when that weekend fare was in operation and the volume of traffic was colossal.
There are other ways in which greater traffic has been generated on the passenger train system. Educational tours to Dublin, one-day excursions and special weekend excursions and other means can be found to increase the number of passengers travelling by train. The railway system carries a considerable number of tourists although with the advent of the car ferry and increased mobility of tourists and particularly with the increase in popularity of motoring holidays, I do not think we can expect very much increase in tourist passenger traffic on the railways.
Certain studies have been carried out in recent times in regard to freight transport, rail and road, and these have shown that 80 per cent of all freight haulage in this country is operated by own-account vehicles by commercial firms and others who own their own fleets. Only a small proportion of the total freight haulage business utilises the national transport system. You also have the system of licensed hauliers and, while on that point, I may mention that changes are now pending in the new Transport Bill which will have the effect of liberalising road haulage particularly in relation to livestock, etc. Undoubtedly, this will affect CIE road freight and workers in the CIE road freight section have already begun to express concern about the advent of this legislation.
I have here a copy of a resolution passed by the Waterford Council of Trade Unions recently in which the council called on Dáil representatives to oppose vigorously the proposed legislation regarding liberalisation of road haulage which the Minister intends to introduce before the end of the year, because such legislation would result in redundancy in the CIE road freight depot at Waterford where 100 workers are employed and would also affect depot maintenance and rail workers. I was handed that letter just before the debate began and had not time to examine it carefully or consider the implications of the resolution in relation to impending transport legislation or to this Bill we are now discussing.
In previous transport legislation, particularly in the case of the 1964 Act, because of the closure of railway lines and reorganisation and so on, redundancy was anticipated and provision was made to cover redundancy payments. There is no mention of redundancy in the present Bill or in the Minister's speech. I understand that the Estimate for Transport and Power will be introduced in the near future and, perhaps, I shall have an opportunity of discussing this aspect of the matter which I think the Minister should bear in mind.
The liberalisation proposed in the new Road Transport Bill, even though it may affect CIE, is being introduced by the Minister after long and consistent demand for such liberalisation particularly in regard to livestock haulage. My first reaction is that I do not think this liberalisation of road transport, as intended by the Minister, will have the disastrous results that are forecast for the road freight section of CIE. It is only natural that workers worry about their employment. Perhaps, the matter of redundancy compensation might be more appropriate to the Transport Estimate when we come to consider it. In view of the fact that we are now voting additional funds to CIE to subsidise the national transport system in the future, I am surprised that no reference has been made to any likely development, particularly in the road freight section, which might entail redundancy. Perhaps, the Minister in replying will be good enough to throw some light on this matter if only to quell the fears of workers in the road freight section.
In his speech the Minister states that he is satisfied that the formula adopted in the 1964 Act has worked well and provided the board with a useful incentive to efficiency and economy. I have already commented on that and I think CIE have performed very well but it is in the following sentence that I am really interested. He said that "A further step in this direction during the past five years has been to ensure that the non-commercial costs of services"—that is an expression I have never before heard or seen in any work on transport—"provided by CIE are quantified as accurately as possible and charged to appropriate sources." If this is the first step in what has come to be known as the normalisation of accounts I would welcome it very much because one of the points made in the Pacemaker Report, which is relevant to the present discussion, is that in considering CIE's financial position one must take into account the extent to which social service activities influence its performance.
Unfortunately, under the present system by which CIE present their annual accounts the public get no clear indication of the extent to which the company's services are social instead of economic. If the Minister's statement is an indication that CIE are taking a first step towards normalising accounts it is a step in the right direction. Because of the way CIE accounts have been presented hitherto the impression has been, and can be conveyed, that CIE should be making money but through some shortcomings of its own it has not been doing so.
I am convinced by the Pacemaker Report and other studies of public transport that a change in the system of presenting annual accounts is absolutely necessary and I urge on the Minister the desirability of doing something towards that end. I should be grateful if, when replying, he would comment on this problem and elaborate further on his statement in relation to the non-commercial costs of services provided by CIE which he mentioned. The annual reports and returns furnished by CIE up to now are the usual type of commercial returns we get from manufacturing or trading concerns. Because of the manner in which the accounts are presented it is very difficult for Members of the House and for the public to pinpoint those features of the national transport service system which are in fact social services. We have recognised the fact that CIE will have to be subsidised in the future because some of the services are not economically justifiable but are socially desirable because they serve a community need.
It is most unfair to the board, the management and workers of CIE that accounts are not furnished in a manner which would enable us clearly to see the parts of the system which are commercially viable and those which are not but which are being maintained because they are serving community needs. The presentation of the annual accounts of the transport system so that they will clearly show the need sector, as it is known, has been adopted by many western European countries, which have, to a certain degree, normalised their accounts. Actually Pacemaker goes into this question of the presentation of CIE's accounts in great detail and it states that the present form of presenting the annual report of the working of the company is to be compared with a conventional departmental profit and loss account of a manufacturing or trading organisation. If that is the case, of course, we cannot obtain a true picture of CIE's performance.
I have here a very detailed study of the financial background of CIE which was published in the 1968 winter issue of Administration and which was devoted to an analysis of the affairs of Córas Iompair Éireann. In an article entitled “The Financial Background” by Mr. B.M. O'Farrell, who I understand is the financial controller of CIE, it is stated that:
Whatever form of calculating the amount of State assistance of CIE is eventually adopted it would be fairer to the company and to those who serve it that it should be based on some concept more scientific than the one implemented in legislation up to and including 1964 Transport Act....
Commenting on the effects of this he said that:
it seeks to determine the deficits for a five-year period and to allot a fixed annual sum which, taking one year with another, should result in a break-even position. Under this system the public is given no clear indication of the extent to which the company's services are social instead of economic and the impression likely to be conveyed is that CIE should be making money and is ....failing to do so ...
What I am saying is not intended to be taken as being said in a critical manner. I understand that to carry out a complete normalisation of CIE's accounts would be very difficult, if not impossible. The number of staff and the number of experts in the various fields who would be necessary makes the introduction of complete normalisation absolutely impossible. However, there is a strong case for partial normalisation. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what is Government thinking in relation to this matter. It is vitally important and would go a long way towards clearing up the confusion in the minds of many people regarding the subsidising of the national transport system.
Another important point is that the European Economic Community submitted a proposal to the Council under which the system of normalisation of railway accounts would have to be in operation at the beginning of 1969. Therefore, if we entered the EEC we would have to follow suit and this would rule out the subsidising of CIE by means of a general subsidy.
Again in Pacemaker on page 39 it states that:
The normalisation of accounts envisages the payment of public transport operators by the State for providing inherently loss making services in the public interest; even a simplified and modified form of normalised accounts would go a long way towards resolving the incompatibilities of commercial and public service policies in the operation of public transport.
Pacemaker, therefore, seems to recommend a modified form of normalised accounts. As I said, this is a highly technical matter and I am not an expert on it. I have to study the views of various people and take European developments into account. We will have to evolve a transport policy which will be in accordance with the social character of the services which we provide. In the past there has been far too much emphasis, particularly by the Government, and by various Ministers, on the economic aspect of transport but there has been a change of attitude and people now appreciate the social character of the railway system in particular. We have to convey to the public that the funds we vote to CIE are justifiable and that the social services which CIE are called upon to provide are necessary.
The social services aspect of CIE has improved greatly. I have in mind now the free school transport scheme and free transport for old age and blind pensioners. CIE deserves to be complimented on the tremendous success of these schemes—schemes, I may say, which had been advocated in this House for many years.
The Minister referred to the role of the national transport company in the development of our tourist industry. In the past four or five years CIE have made an important contribution to the overall development of our tourism. Their coach tours are very popular with visitors. The one-day "mediaeval" tour in the Shannon region has been tremendously successful. There is a growing demand for these tours which supply a much needed service in our tourist industry. Last year, CIE introduced the 21-day tour of Great Britain and Ireland which I understand has been highly successful.
Over the summer season I have met large numbers of visitors to this country, particularly at Shannon Airport and in Limerick city. Those who travelled on CIE tours had the highest praise for them and particularly for the driver and the courier. I asked many visitors what it was that attracted them most in the coach tours They gave the obvious answers about the beautiful scenery and the friendliness of the people but, without exception, the courier and the driver got the greatest part of the praise. The greatest credit is due to those men for their dedication to their work and for their contribution to the development of our tourist industry. It is very easy to overlook the human factor when dealing with the operations of a national transport system of the magnitude of CIE and when confronted with a mass of statistics in relation to transport. However, the services of these men are one aspect which deserve mention.
In Great Britain, I met some CIE representatives whose job it is to pro mote CIE coach tours among travel agencies and others. These men are doing a tremendous job. Some years ago, CIE pioneered what were known as "Golden Holidays". Charter flights were operated between Great Britain and Shannon with a choice of a coach tour or a holiday at Kilkee and so on. Unfortunately, I understand that that scheme has not been as successful of late as it originally promised Perhaps the Minister would look into the matter and give me particulars about it when he is dealing with the annual Estimate for the Department.
Since I became a Member of this House in 1961 I have been responsible for two Private Members' Motions on the subject of CIE pensions. Every time a debate on transport arises here, CIE pensions are mentioned. Time and time again Deputies from all sides of the House have pleaded for fair play for our transport pensioners. When I first became a Member of this House I discovered that 1,049 pensioners were receiving only 12/- a week; that others were receiving pensions of £1 a week and other various sums. In time, the 12/-a week pension was increased to £1 and the £1 a week pension was increased to 22/6d and, two or three years ago, there was a further improvement but, again, it consisted only of a few shillings. I appeal to the Minister for Transport and Power to give these old transport pensioners a fair deal.
A big bone of contention in relation to these miserable pensions has been the fact that, on reaching the age of 70, thus becoming entitled to the old age pension, the CIE pension was slashed. I remember an argument in this House in that connection. Time and time again I have outlined the plight of these pensioners. Recently, at Question Time, the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, indicated that he had received a deputation of CIE pensioners and undertook to study the situation.
I want to say again, and to say as sincerely as possible, that I believe the older pensioners in CIE are entitled to a fair deal. I further state that there is no reason in the wide earthly world why these men should not be treated properly. I remember General Seán MacEoin, one of the most distinguished former Members of this House, during a debate on a Private Members' motion which I moved on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, speaking of some of those transport veterans as men who, in the fight for freedom, rendered Trojan service. They were very badly treated. If I remember correctly he also brought out clearly that 40 years before the pensions applicable to some of those grades were higher than they then were.
I have already mentioned the absence of any reference to redundancy payments or to the possible need for further redundancy compensation in CIE. I am also disappointed that no provision seems to have been made in this Bill to meet the absolutely defensible case that has been made in this House by Deputies from all sides time and time again on behalf of the older pensioners of CIE.
Over the past five years CIE have done quite a good job. There are no grounds for complacency and the board and all sections of the staff must ensure that the highest degree of efficiency is maintained. In a national transport system no modern business techniques, no application of modern technological developments, will be a success unless you have a contented and fairly remunerated staff. I want to pay tribute to the ordinary workers in CIE in all grades and in all sectors, who are remarkable for their dedication to their job, and for their efficiency, their courtesy and their kindliness.
The greatest asset CIE have is their manpower. I understand that the present employment content in CIE is in the region of 19,500. This is a high labour-intensive organisation. Therefore, it is vitally important that the board of CIE and the top echelons of the organisation should be conscious of the need for the application of good modern industrial relations, and particularly conscious of human relations in all aspects of the operation of our national transport system.
I recall the Minister for Health when he was Minister for Transport and Power many times bemoaning the incidence of strikes and various disputes in CIE. I have a very high personal regard for the Minister for Health but I am sorry to say that, when he was Minister for Transport and Power, he did not contribute very much to the achievement of harmonious relations in CIE. I sincerely hope the new Minister will ensure that the board and the management of CIE realise that the greatest asset of our national transport system is its human beings, the people who work the system right down to the grassroots.
I wish CIE well in the future. The Minister can be assured of my co-operation in any steps he takes to make our national transport system the type of system we would all like it to be.
Like Deputy O'Donnell I wish to express my regret that the Minister for Transport and Power is not back with us, but I am glad to say I understand he will be back very shortly. It is good of the former Minister to be here because, of course, he is not unaware of the possibilities of people twitting him about the conversion which this Bill shows. However, in view of the hard work he has put in on the Health Bill I do not propose to delay on that. If I may say just one word about Deputy O'Donnell's speech, he made many references to Pacemaker, but he was certainly no pacesetter, if I may so so.
If I may say so, a Cheann Comhairle, thanks to my former professor's good training.
I will not be too hard on the Deputy.
I am sincere in saying that.
I propose to make a few remarks about the Minister's statement and then I have two pieces of what I think are concrete criticisms of CIE which I will put before the House as quickly as possible.
The Minister started off—and this is the point on which Deputy O'Donnell wanted some explanation —with a reference to "an annual grant of £2 million, with the aid of which the board was required to break even taking one year with another". He went back to that idea in the final paragraph of his speech in the rather involved language which mesmerised Deputy O'Donnell a little.
Let me give the history of this. I must admit that Deputy O'Donnell is much better read on the transport history of recent times than I am, but I know this, and it is a good deal older. This business of saying that the board shall so conduct the undertaking that taking one year with another it shall pay its way, first came into section 15 of the Transport Act, 1949, but it was in fact a "cog" from the British Nationalisation Act, the Act which created British Railways, passed in England in 1947.
Let us come back to the peculiar wording which is always creeping into Government briefs nowadays. I suppose civil servants have to prove they are with it, and I suppose Ministers have to prove they are with it. Let me explain. The Minister said:
I am satisfied that the formula adopted in the 1964 Act has worked well and has provided the Board with a useful incentive to efficiency and economy.
That really does not mean anything because, in fact, what was provided was £2 million a year. On the whole the Minister had a good tale to unfold. We on these benches are not critical in the way in which the Minister was critical on one occasion—indeed, extremely critical. The next sentence is the one Deputy O'Donnell got stuck in:
A further step in this direction during the past five years has been to ensure that the non-commercial cost of services provided by CIE are qualified as accurately as possible and charged to appropriate sources;
In simple language that really means that a further step in this direction during the past five years has been to ensure that the cost of non-commercial services provided by CIE was calculated correctly and charged to the right place. It is as simple as that. "The non-commercial costs of the services" upsets it. It is the cost of the non-commercial services; this is just a slip in the way the sentence was put together, but it does make it very difficult to follow. Then there is the word "quantify". People are always quantifying things in economics, and there are all kinds of things in economics that cannot be quantified. I promised I would not delay the House too long, so I shall leave it at that.
The Minister talks—and this is a relic from the Department of Industry and Commerce—about the significance of the railways for bulk freight traffic. The real significance of the railways in this context is in the transport of live cattle long distances, and I should like to have seen an awareness of that fact in the Department of Transport and Power.
CIE has done well and it does not surprise me that the loss on the railways has gone up a bit. The Minister talks about the mileage of lines having been reduced by 126 miles since 1964 to 1,333 miles of first track. I do not exactly understand that. Does he mean that where you have double lines from Dublin to Cork it counts twice?
Exclusive of siding.
It shows that the Minister, when he was Minister for Transport and Power, was not as fierce as he used to talk. It used to be said that there was, roughly speaking, 2,000 miles of line and there is still two-thirds of it there, so the bulk of it is still there.
In regard to the Dublin city services, CIE is not making as much profit out of the citizens of Dublin as it used to some years ago, when it was difficult to find out from the Government the actual figure. It was generally agreed that it was about £500,000. The fares in Dublin are, in the minds of many people, very severe. I have a particular reason for adverting to this; it is not parochialism. People in Dublin willynilly tend to have to live further away from their work than people, say, in Limerick, Cork, Waterford or any of the smaller towns. A mile or two is a long way to go, in spite of Deputy Flor Crowley shaking his head. A few miles is a long way to go to work in Cork city.
They come from the country into Cork city.
I am aware people come from vast distances everywhere. For example, Deputy Tully lives in Bettystown which had a population of 200 people ten years ago and is now a town of 1,500 people, and they go to work in both directions; they go up to Drogheda and Dundalk and down to Dublin. An interesting point is that he told me the first train leaves at 6.20 in the morning. However, I am talking about a major problem when I talk about large numbers of people in Dublin having to go long distances to their work.
I was particularly impressed by the figures the Minister gave us of the profits on the board's provincial road passenger services. They increased from £271,000 to £941,000, in the past year, almost £1 million. This is a terrific achievement, and I think it vindicates what I said here last week, when I see that the profit on the board's hotels, one of the few parts of the board's services that were making a profit eight or nine years ago, has gone up from £40,000 to £240,000. It vindicates my view, because the board's hotels are not unreasonable in their charges and are exceptionally good hotels.
They may not be unreasonable so far as the Deputy's standards are concerned—£6 per day.
I am comparing them with comparable hotels. I certainly do not go to that kind of hotel any longer.
The total expenditure by CIE for capital purposes is being increased from £6 million to £17 million, only a very small part of which is explained by the Minister. However, that is neither here nor there, because it is obvious that if you have no transport there is continual renewal of the rolling stock and there is no reason why, therefore, there should not be continual capital expenditure on the railway.
The Minister makes this point on page 6 of the brief.
Nothing has happened since 1964 which would suggest any changes necessary in the Government decision taken at that time to preserve the railway system subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might prove practical and desirable.
Again there is this word "concentration". What is really meant is "subject to such further reduction in the number of miles of railway line". I am all for plain words.
The Minister then goes on to speak about the campaign for more commuters. I would not be human if I did not refer to what happened the Harcourt Street-Bray railway line when the Minister was Minister for Transport and Power. I believe the reason why that line was closed was simply to show that they treat Dublin in the same way as they treat the rest of the country. However, that is not what worries me. What really worries me is the planning opportunity that was missed at the time. Many people have said this and I thought it myself at the time, and it has been done, I understand, in certain cities on the continent, particularly in Germany. There was an opportunity to create a toll road from Harcourt Street to Bray. It can be said it could only take oneway traffic, but it could have been traffic into Dublin and out of Dublin from 2 o'clock on, and it certainly would have made the situation on the Bray road and the coast road very different from what it is, judging by the complaints I hear from my colleagues coming from Bray.
Many people have told me that if they want to arrive into the office at 9.30 from Killiney or Bray, they have to leave home long before 8.30, that if they left home only at 8.30 they would not be in Dublin until 9.45, that the congestion is something shocking. It may have eased off in recent times, but a few years ago you had to leave Bray an hour and a quarter in advance. Of course, if you did leave at 8.15, you got into Dublin at 8.50 or 9 o'clock, but if you delayed even five minutes you were caught in the jam. CIE do not have control of this, it is a matter of overall planning which is the prerogative of the Government. It has been pointed out that the Ballymun housing scheme is remote from any railway, and I think this is a just criticism. There can be no question but that travelling to work by train is much better than travelling to work by bus when one lives a fair distance out.
I understand that CIE has recently spent £¼ million on ten steam heating vans for passenger trains. These vans were manufactured in Holland and assembled in Dundalk. I understand that CIE intend to buy an additional 40 steam heating vans. Tenders have already been advertised and inquiries have come in from all over the world including Japan. I want to protest very strongly that these vans are not being manufactured in this country. In 1956 over 50 heating vans were built at CIE's enormous works at Inchicore. Every part of these heating vans was constructed there except the boilers and I see no reason at all why these 40 heating vans should not be built in this country. CIE's existing railway stock was manufactured in England and if we start buying stock from all parts of the world we will be in the same position as we are over our electrical plugs where we have two-pin, three-pin, 5 amp and 10 amp plugs. CIE may well find itself with three or four different kinds of rolling stock.
Deputy O'Donnell asked for information about the normalising of accounts—as he put it—but this is not an easy matter. He was in fact requesting that some kind of cost benefit analysis be carried out but this is not an exact method of thought. The cost end of it is easy but the benefit is the trouble, because the benefit is very often in the mind of the beholder and it depends how he approaches it.
CIE's Dublin city garages are very badly located, but as land has got so dear I think it is probably too late to do anything about it. The main garages are in Clontarf, Summerhill, Donnybrook, Ringsend and Conyngham Road and, with the exception of Conyngham Road, they are all badly located. I was told by a former employee of CIE that the bad locations of these garages costs a good deal of money because these buses have to be brought all the way in from these garages in the morning and taken out again at night. Obviously we should have a big garage on the north west side of the city and on the south west side of the city.
It is remarkable that the Minister now openly admits that £2? million a year are required for the next five years in order that CIE might balance its accounts. We see nothing wrong with this. In 1959 the Minister claimed he had "done it", but he had not really done it, because he had written off the real property of the railways. As the railways were dismantled this real property was sold. It was current income and, as it was current income, it enabled CIE to balance its accounts for a few years. Railway tracks were of immense value because of the Korean war, and this all helped. The chairman of CIE and the Minister were both patting themselves on the back at that time, but as Deputy O'Donnell has said the problem was insoluble. It was not realistic for the Minister to talk as he did at that time. I do not say the Minister's rigid attitude did not help to make people more efficient and in that way the Minister may have achieved something but he did not make CIE balance in the longrun. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the realism of the Bill.
It is a pleasure to come into this House and listen to the constructive speeches of Deputy O'Donnell and Deputy Dr. O'Donovan. We all know Deputy O'Donnell does his homework on transport and power and his speech was very constructive. Deputy Dr. O'Donovan was right in questioning the meaning of words because there can be many interpretations on the meanings of certain words. I do not think the Civil Service were trying to be "with it", I do not think they were trying to give us some gobbledegook. What they were trying to express was quite difficult to express in some cases without using officialese to put across what they wanted to put across.
As one who travels fairly regularly on both buses and trains I am very satisfied with the services provided. That is the main reason why I am speaking now on this measure. When things go wrong, when things are not going the way we would like them to go, many people will criticise but, when things improve, silence becomes eloquent. I come in some mornings from Glengarriff to Cork by bus. Everybody is intimate and friendly. This is due mainly to the driver and conductor being so interested in the passengers. They will tell passengers where to alight, if the passengers are not familiar with the area, and they will talk about places of interest through which the bus passes. It is only when one has experience of this that one appreciates the wonderful service these CIE employees are giving the people. I suppose the cynics would prefer them not to do this but I should be remiss, indeed, were I not to mention the trojan work done by the ordinary driver and conductor on our buses to make the journey interesting for their passengers.
I have always felt the buses were the poor relation of the trains. Deputy O'Donnell said our train service was as good as, if not better than, the best train services in Europe. I honestly believe we have got the best train service in Europe.
Deputy O'Donnell also referred to the heating vans. If anyone could criticise the trains, then the only criticism is that sometimes the heating is not what it should be. That may be because they have not got adequate heating vans. If that is the explanation, then the sooner these purchases are made the better.
When music was introduced on the trains there was a good deal of criticism. The music is both elevating and relaxing. It is an added comfort for passengers because it makes the journey more enjoyable. The beautiful and charming hostesses are a tremendous asset, particularly to mothers travelling with young children. They look after the children while the mother takes a meal. They will heat bottles for babies. The service is very much appreciated.
Deputy O'Donnell referred to the tourist buses and the couriers and drivers. They are doing an excellent job from the point of view of the tourist industry. They are dedicated to making the tourist happy. They are knowledgeable about the history and geography of the country; they can identify ancient castles and important historical monuments. They provide an excellent service, one that is greatly appreciated. The success of tourist buses is due in large measure to the crews of these buses.
I have one request to make. As Deputy Murphy will verify, we have in west Cork probably the most beautiful scenery in Ireland at Glengarriff. It would be an excellent idea if CIE were to build a hotel there. There are many small and medium-sized hotels.
A Deputy
Ask Dermot Ryan.
We may do that. He has done a very good job in providing hotels and, if he comes down to Glengarriff, he will be very welcome indeed. We could do with a large luxury hotel. There may be complaints about prices in the case of CIE hotels but, on the whole, they give good value. If they did not, then they would not have made a profit in the region of a quarter of a million last year. Visitors would not patronise these hotels if they did not get good value.
There may be some justification for some of the criticism of the prices charged, but the success of the hotels should answer this. There has been criticism of the prices charged on trains for food and drink. There is, I am told, an increase of ten to 15 per cent in drink prices. Being a total abstainer, I cannot speak from personal experience on this, but I am reliably informed that a half one costs 7d more on the train; that is outrageous.
It is a bit Irish.
It is a bit Irish right enough. I should like that that part of the price structure of CIE would be reconsidered.
There is a criticism in regard to the train service that on excursion weekends, if there is a match in Dublin and the poor Cork people want to partake of refreshments in the bar, the prices charged are even greater. I wonder is this the policy of CIE or is it accidental or is there any harmonisation of monetary policy in CIE? As Deputy O'Donnell said, it is very important that before our entry into the EEC there should be harmonisation of policy and of accounts. CIE should start harmonising their own prices. It is time that that matter was considered.
I want now to refer to the workers in the road freight section. When the west Cork railway was closed down there were certain men who became redundant, some of whom were then employed on the road freight section. And as a result they had to come from Skibbereen, Clonakilty and Bandon to Cork every morning to work in the road freight section. It is the normal practice that CIE employees are entitled to free transport on buses but these poor people were doubly unfortunate in that they became redundant and had to pay for their travel to Cork. I made representations at two stages to the Minister and to CIE, that free transport might be given to these employees and was informed that this could not be done. This matter should be reconsidered and these workers should be given every consideration and, if possible, be granted facilities on buses going to Cork.
I was very pleased to see that CIE employ psychologists in the selection of candidates for positions. In this age, in a company with 20,000 employees it is vital that the management should be not only of the highest calibre but be suited to the job of management. Up to recently the selection of candidates for managerial positions was a matter of instinct. It was a haphazard type of selection.
It would depend on what party you are a member of.
That is a ridiculous statement. Is the Deputy implying that there is discrimination in CIE in the employment of people?
Yes.
In that case I should like the Deputy to substantiate that by giving the names and addresses.
I would not like to interrupt the Deputy.
I assume that when he is not giving the names and addresses, he is withdrawing the remark. I hope Deputy Collins was only joking when he said there was discrimination because there is no discrimination, as he very well knows. The utilisation of psychologists to analyse and select suitable persons for management positions is well worth while. I hope that CIE will benefit as a result of this scientific approach to the recruitment of personnel.
Even though CIE may be criticised frequently, we hope that it will continue to act in a humane manner with employees. In a big concern like CIE work can become dehumanised. The major reasons for strikes have been the dehumanisation of work for employees. I know that CIE is very vigilant and is aware of the danger of this type of situation occurring.
Occasionally market surveys are carried out on CIE trains and passengers are asked to state the time they should like trains to arrive and depart and whether or not they would avail of car-hire services in Dublin or Cork. I should like to know the results of these surveys and if they have influenced in any way recent decisions by CIE. We in Cork are very satisfied with the train services. The trains always arrive on time; there is a dining-car service; there is a speedy service from Dublin to Cork. I wonder if we will ever see the day when it will be possible to go from Dublin to Cork in two hours. I should like to know if the surveys were in any way allied to that type of attainment. Probably the whole of the tracks from Dublin to Cork would have to be relaid if trains were to travel at the speed that would make that possible.
I should like to reiterate that CIE should be complimented on the job it has done. It is giving a good service to the public and its employees are presenting the best possible image of the country to tourists. We hope they will continue to do that.
As I come from the west of Ireland I have a few criticisms to level at CIE but first of all I should like to wish the new Minister for Transport and Power every success in his term of office. There are many loyal ex-employees of CIE who have given very many years of divided service to the company who are finding it difficult to live on the meagre allowances given to them. These are the people who built up CIE when it needed loyal servants. I have met men who have given 30 years service in all types of weather and in all road conditions. They find themselves with just enough to pay the landlady and go out day after day with barely £1 to spend. That is enough to make any person feel disappointed after giving long service. I ask the Minister to consider the large number of ex-employees who find themselves in that position. The Minister will be rather surprised at the number. When you consider what it takes to run a home or pay for board and put the income of the ex-employee against that, there will not be much to spare.
I put down a Parliamentary Question recently which was disallowed— rightly—but I can take the opportunity of speaking on it now. It concerned the heating on trains to Sligo and particularly the late train from Dublin to Sligo. I do not know what happened on the 6.20 train to Sligo but I had the experience on three occasions of travelling twice from Sligo to Dublin and once from Dublin to Sligo without heat and I made up my mind that I would try to avoid it in future. A long journey of 140 miles on a cold train is an experience you will not forget. I want the Minister to note this. A heating system is installed but it had broken down. This is something that should be looked into immediately. Some speaker mentioned that £250,000 had been spent on heating and that more is about to be spent on it but I am giving the Minister facts. This is not a complaint that was made to me: this was my own experience. I spoke to other people and they agreed that they suffered keenly on these trains on long journeys. I am sure the Minister will be glad to check on this situation.
In the large centres like Galway and Limerick we have trains leaving each Sunday in the morning or at midday but from Sligo, which is a key position, we have no trains. Many people have asked me to bring this to the Minister's notice and I am now asking him to consider it so that he may arrange transport from that area.
A rather peculiar problem was brought to my notice recently. A train goes from Dublin every Sunday and the fare is £1 8s. If any passenger brings a friend back from Sligo to Dublin or if anybody boards that train at Sligo that day he must pay £2 11s. It seems strange that a train can come from Dublin for £1 8s. return and that for a single ticket from Sligo to Dublin you must pay £2 11s. That is not fair. When the cheap rate applies on Sunday it should apply to everybody.
Having travelled for the last few months by CIE I think the Minister would be well advised to introduce more cheap rate tickets. It is very noticeable that when such tickets are issued for Thursdays and Fridays the number of passengers can increase so much. Hallowe'en broke all records for CIE due to the fact that there was a cheap weekend fare of which people availed. The return ticket to the west is about £3 10s. but if people got the cheap fare they would avail to a much greater extent of CIE than they do when they must pay the full fare. It would be more profitable for CIE to have a greater number of passengers at lower fares. It is very encouraging to see on Christmas Eve 700 or 800 or perhaps 1,000 passengers leaving Westland Row for the west instead of running a train for 70 or 80 people. CIE would be well advised to have more cheap fares. It would encourage people to avail more of the service. Hundreds of them would leave their cars at home and travel by rail. Driving is a nightmare with the present state of traffic and the number of accidents and many people would be glad to avail of the railway if these reduced fares were obtainable. In this connection also I would particularly emphasise the necessity for a good heating system. Many people might travel on the 8.20 train from Dublin at night if it was a comfortable service.
We hear much about the tourist industry and I think that in order to attract industry to the West of Ireland CIE should provide cheaper transport. This should apply to the whole of the west from April to October when we are giving all the encouragement we can to people to holiday in this country. I want to compliment any semi-State body that can boast of having on its payroll about 19,500 people. That is a very creditable figure especially when wages are high and conditions of employment must be good. We cannot wonder if the Minister has to subsidise the running of the enterprise. One might expect it to pay for itself but we have strikes, shorter hours and so on and CIE have often gone through tough times and kept going. Having that number on the payroll speaks for itself. Knowing CIE and their methods of recruitment and promotion I am certain that promotion is fairly dealt with. Every young driver is judged on his merits and promoted when his time comes. That happens in my area.
The biggest loss suffered in the West of Ireland was the closing of railway lines. We were told at the time that it was in the interests of economy that lines were closed. We often wondered since if it was economic and I am sure that the Department frequently discovered that it was far from economic. Worse still, it deprived many parts of the country of a lifeline enjoyed for many years. Local towns had a number of employees and bigger centres had a service coming in; shopkeepers, business people and cattle traders all availed of the small type of line that branched throughout the west. When that branch line went, much hardship was caused because the man with the private lorry also went and it was then a question of having to wait for a CIE lorry wherever it could give a service.
That was the greatest tragedy which befell this country in our time. The Government are now paying for it because in the west, where there are boggy roads and a rough type of country, it is almost impossible to keep roads up to standard in order to carry the traffic. We have become very mechanised and roads which were never meant to carry this traffic now have to carry it. The entire bill for this now falls on the local authorities. We were led to believe that the Department of Transport and Power would bear a substantial amount of the cost but after a few years the whole responsibility was left to the local authorities. The value of the railway lines can be seen several times a week in the wagon loads of livestock heading for Dublin. One can imagine how much road transport would be required to bring that quantity of livestock to Dublin and what the cost would be to the people involved. For many years to come we will rue the closing of many of those lines which were shut down in the interests of economy.
Today we have the Great Southern Hotels being run by CIE and they give a considerable amount of employment. Recently plans were drawn up for the erection of a show-piece hotel in Sligo town. It was to be a 14-storey hotel having all modern amenities. However, with taxation at its present high level, people are beginning to question the advisability of such an undertaking. There is a great demand for housing and many other necessities and the taxpayer is asking should such a show-piece be erected until more deserving matters have been dealt with. We have in Sligo a hotel which is a credit to CIE, and its staff is also a credit to them, and while I would not be against the erection of a fine hotel CIE have made no mistake in postponing the erection of this new hotel. We have plenty of hotels and new hotels are going up elsewhere and there is no great need for a large new hotel in Sligo.
When the school transport system was introduced CIE co-operated and took on many young men who are now in part-time employment which is something envisaged for many small farmers in the west. As it is outside the scope of this Bill I will not dwell on the fact that I consider that CIE should always pick up children in their school buses. Sometimes you see buses passing a group of children on the road although the buses may be half empty.
CIE are providing a very good service generally and their train and bus staffs are excellent and they are always very courteous. During the tourist season tourists appreciate the efforts of conductors to keep them informed about the places through which they are travelling. The drivers are conscientious men and their managers will testify to their fine records. They have a very responsible job. Even though it is costing the taxpayer £2½ million CIE are giving good employment and security to a considerable number of people. Finally, I would like to repeat the need for action in regard to the price of the single ticket from here to Sligo, as against the price of the return ticket.
I cannot follow the trend of this debate at all. I understood that the issue was to ask the taxpayer to ensure that £2,650,000 will be paid annually as a subvention to CIE over the next five years. That has been lost sight of because so far the debate has consisted of a few platitudes in regard to minor matters which scarcely come within the ambit of the Bill. The Minister is a lucky man that Mr. Patrick McGilligan is not a Deputy now because if he were I am sure his contribution to this debate would last not less than four hours. Why should his contribution last four hours? My reasoning is quite simple. I assume that, if he were here, he would go to the Library and dig up the various volumes of debates dealing with CIE subsidisation and dig up the paragraphs of Ministerial pronouncements on CIE subsidisation. Seldom if ever do I proceed to the Library. The former Deputy McGilligan used to do it all very effectively. He was able to come into this House well briefed and to give quotations of statements made in previous years. In so doing, he was not just speaking of the past or inviting the comment: "Why talk of the past? Think of the future." We must remember who is in charge of CIE. We must remember the party in Government in this country. We must remember to whom CIE is responsible. Therefore, it is quite in order to go back over a number of years.
I have a fair idea of the general trend of discussions in this House over the years on CIE problems. I am a Member of this House now for 19 years. The present Minister for Health was Minister for Transport and Power for some years and, while he held that portfolio, we heard much from him about CIE, about how it should be run, about what the future held for it and about subsidies to it.
My research was of the most limited nature. I picked just one volume— no more—at random. The same thread of thinking runs through the Ministerial pronouncements in the 1950s and up to 1962. Had the then Minister for Transport and Power, Deputy Childers, some central point? When a minister of religion is starting off on a sermon he usually takes a text. What was the Minister's text at that time? I just found it in this volume. When he was referring to people who, at the time, were supporting the subsidisation of CIE, what did the Minister say? His text was, in effect: "It does not matter. The Government will pay". That is a quotation from the Minister. That was his line, replying to representations by Members of this House, on the advisability of subsidising CIE, if CIE were to continue services. The Minister had some very interesting points to make at that particular time and even when he closed the railway lines in the late 1950s. When he was advocating the closure of the West Cork railway, the Waterford-Tramore line and the West Clare line, when he was advocating the disappearance of the 126 miles of rails, he told us that CIE would pay its own way and that there would be no need to ask the Irish taxpayer for any help.
I remember stating at that time that the recommendations he got from the board and the assessment of the future of CIE so far as subsidisation was concerned would remind one of some type of assessment one might get from Portrane or Grangegorman. I am quite sure that one would get as accurate an assessment on the future of CIE from a group from either of these institutions as was made by the Minister and his advisers in the Department at that time. Again and again I have said here that there is an obligation on State-sponsored bodies to give an account of their stewardship; to tell the taxpayers, through this House, how they have expended their money, what plans they have for economies and what they propose to do for the future. Unfortunately, it is impossible for the taxpayers to get information as to the actual administration of such State-sponsored bodies. Questions in this House bring forth little news, little information. We are told that CIE is an autonomous body; that its day-to-day affairs and its general policy are more or less matters for itself. We are told, sometimes not too politely, in effect: "It does not matter to you. Mind your own business". I say to Members of this House that that is what the Government are saying, through us, to the taxpayers of the country.
It may be said that it is a very soft, easy job so far as the head is concerned, so far as the brain and the mind are concerned, to be in charge of the board of CIE or of the board of a State-sponsored body as compared with a private concern. As the Minister mentioned, if CIE lose money, it does not matter: the Government will pay. That is the saying of the day. That is what the Minister said, with derision, on 14th November, 1962—seven years ago: that is quite factual, quite truthful.
Today, if CIE wants an increase of £650,000 per annum over and above what was allocated in the past five years and if, by virtue of incompetence or any other type of mismanagement, further losses are incurred, then, what about it? The salary of the director is assured. He will get his £X per annum: he will get all the "perks" attached to his office. I am not reflecting on him in saying so. I am making a comparison to show how easy it is for him as against the private enterprise man who has to ensure that his company or business will survive and make a profit, whether it is transport, grocery, drapery or any other type of business. Unless it pays, the private enterprise man will find himself out of business and in the bankruptcy court and his employees will find themselves out of work.
That is the type of picture we must conjure up here, the picture of the man assured of his money irrespective of whether or not he mismanages his business because our taxpayers must pay and he is assured of a sympathetic Government in this House to put further proposals to the Irish people to increase the subvention. Furthermore, from what I have learned of the debate, he is assured of support also from the Opposition to help him to get that subsidisation.
I do not agree with the kind of empty platitude about this, that and the other thing to which I have listened here for the past few hours, that, just because a body is State-sponsored, just because it is nationalised, that, in itself, must make it efficient. I have never accepted that because a body is nationalised or because a group is State-sponsored it is necessarily efficient. There is nothing to indicate that it could not be efficient. First, we must examine CIE from the point of view of efficiency. If this debate were on the ESB or on any other State-sponsored body I should be making the same remarks because what I have in mind and what I have asserted here over and over again, year after year, is that we must get more information on the expenditures of public and State-sponsored bodies. We must get to know more about their business; whether there is waste; whether there is waste in the different sectors of their business or whether there is no waste whatever; whether everything is working well or whether the opposite is the case.
Why can we not have a Committee of this House to look into the affairs of CIE, the ESB, or any of our State-sponsored bodies to see if they are working smoothly and efficiently and giving good value for their money? Surely such bodies would welcome a committee of this House to inquire into all aspects of their business? I maintain that, in providing this big amount of money to subsidise CIE, the Minister is under an obligation to give more information about the working of CIE and other State-sponsored bodies to the elected representatives of the people than we got in past years.
What about subsidisation? We can read in the Library what the Minister for Health had to say about it. What had he to say on 14th November, 1962, about subsidisation? Much the same as he had to say in 1958 and in 1959. At that time I accepted that he was genuine in what he said. I believe that the Minister is a man of integrity but, assuming that he is a man of integrity, then, in my opinion, he is not fitted for his job because his past statements prove him to be a man with little business capacity and devoid of foresight. He must be one or the other. When the Minister spoke in this House in the 50s and 60s, if he was speaking honestly and sincerely, as I believe he was, then it is quite clear that he lacked knowledge of the work of his Department of Transport and Power. At that time his assessments were completely out of plumb and completely out of place.
I will take nothing out of context. I will read a chapter from volume 197, column 1229 of the Official Report. I will read the entire chapter. I will not do the clever thing and pick out a sentence because I do not believe in that. As I said before, I seldom give quotations. The Minister said:
We have had to subsidise CIE very substantially over a period in the hope of getting the undertaking properly on its feet.
That is quite all right, is it not? He went on:
At no stage, however, has the Government or the Dáil ever contemplated a situation in which the undertaking will be permanently in receipt of subsidies. I know of no reason why, in principle, transport should be subsidised. It is no more essential to the public than many other commodities or services which no one would dream of subsidising. It remains firmly the Government's policy, therefore, that CIE, like other State bodies whose task it is to provide productive services, should pay their way. Deficit financing of the kind envisaged by the authors of this Bill—
That was a Private Bill which was introduced in 1962
—would be as bad for CIE as for the public.
What does subsidy breed? The Minister said:
Subsidy inevitably breeds inefficiency and encourages excessive staffing and feather-bedding and the whispering voice of "It doesn't matter; the Government will pay" is destructive of the morale of the staff, high and low.
That is the Minister's considered view on subsidies. He went on:
Subsidies deprive the taxpayer of capital, of purchasing power and of savings which he could otherwise put to better use. It is "robbing Peter to pay Paul" and while operating subsidies might maintain staff in uneconomic and non-productive services in CIE, they would deprive people of employment elsewhere with the new or expanded industries that the purchasing power or capital diverted to subsidies might have financed. May I point out that for every man employed in CIE as a result of an operating subsidy another man will be disemployed, or a young man or girl will fail to get employment somewhere else. Deficit payments leave their trail with irrevocable and implacable regularity.
I could continue but that is sufficient to show the Minister's trend of thought on 14th November, 1962. In making that statement he was resisting efforts to ensure that CIE would be guaranteed a subsidy to continue their work. It is just seven years since 1962, and what is the position now so far as the Minister's statement is concerned? Two years after making that statement he had to come to this House and to some extent eat his own words and say: "We must give CIE a subsidy of £2 million per year. Otherwise their work will be discontinued. There is no hope that these people can be made self-sufficient even though they have a monopoly of the greater part of the services. There is no probability in the foreseeable future that CIE will break even".
As I said before all the Minister had to do to make CIE economic and self-sufficient was to wipe out the rotten lines on which they were losing so much money. Once they were torn away from the system everything in the garden would be rosy and CIE would be able to pay their workers a decent rate of remuneration. They would be able to provide decent services and, into the bargain, they would be able to do that without any help from the taxpayer.
I am making these statements to show as clearly as I can that there has been a great deal of incompetence in the Department of Transport and Power down through the years and, in my opinion, a great deal of incompetence in the board of CIE. Surely people who made those statements seven years ago cannot be said to have much foresight, and surely we can say that they were not competent to hold the high offices they held in our transport system. That is part of the reason why the Irish taxpayer is being asked to pay £2,650,000 for the next five years, having already paid £2 million for the past five years and, for years before that, having paid several million pounds to keep this nationalised body going.
I want to emphasise again—and I may be charged with repetition— that we must have more accountability from State sponsored bodies. We must be able to pry into their business to a far greater extent than we are allowed to at present. If the Irish taxpayers, through this Parliament, establish a State-sponsored body to deal with any sector of our activities or our public affairs, there is an obligation on that body to be accountable to the taxpayers and, the only way they can be accountable to the taxpayers, is through a committee of this House.
There is none of us here, despite all the bouquets cast around the House, who can say whether or not everything is efficient so far as CIE are concerned. We can only give a general assessment. Possibly some sectors are working smoothly and efficiently and possibly some others are not. We do not know. We are not allowed into their secrets. Any assessment of the position given here is not a true or factual one. Let us make the comparison again. What has the managing director of a private company to do? He has to render an account to his shareholders. If it is a family business he has to render an account to his family. They have to access between them whether the business is being managed properly, whether their rate of profit is sufficient to maintain their business at an economic level. Otherwise they would find themselves in the bankruptcy court.
In 1958 or 1962 there was no question of CIE being a social service. The then Minister for Transport and Power, the present Minister for Health, would not hear of such a suggestion. He always maintained that CIE was a transport service that should pay its way without any help. I remember agitating in this Chamber for the continuance of a bus service to Goleen, a village ten miles from where I live in Schull. The request was refused repeatedly by the Minister because he said a bus from Schull to Goleen, making a round trip of 20 miles, would not be economic. Statistics were submitted to him showing that sufficient people would not avail of the service to make it economic. That is what the Minister had to say about that service ten years ago. Now what has he to say? The wheel has turned full circle. I quote from the Minister's speech:
The problem of viability of the railway is common to all European countries and has been faced more realistically here than in most other countries. There is no ready solution but it is clear that the railway can never be operated without State assistance.
That is a direct contradiction of what the Minister, Deputy Childers, stated nine or ten years ago or any number of years since he first took office.
Times have changed.
I shall give my view, and then the Parliamentary Secretary can give his. "The railway plays an important role in the social and economic life of the country and will continue to do so." That is what I was saying 14 or 15 years ago. Such a statement was made from the Opposition Benches then but it was not heeded. It has taken the Minister that number of years to find out that selfevident fact, that the railway as a public transport service plays an important role in the social and economic life of the country.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Geoghegan, has said times have changed. Let us examine the changes that have taken place since 1962. I do not see any major changes. We have had no war, no civil disturbance. So far as general affairs are concerned, it could be said they are moving along smoothly. The Parliamentary Secretary has very little case for saying that things have changed. No upheaval of any kind has occurred that would put us off the rails, so to speak.
Headlong inflation.
Did the Minister anticipate headlong or any type of inflation in 1962? Organisations covering every aspect of our activity were demanding and demanding. Did the Minister take any notice of that or did he anticipate the attitude the Government would adopt? Surely the Minister could see that happening in 1962 or in 1958, that we would have demands from all sections of the people? We have had these demands and there was very little resistance on the part of the Government, because probably they were afraid that if they resisted they would find themselves here instead of there. It is as simple as that. Was there not the fear: "If I say something out of place this will cost me votes"?
The Deputy is perfectly right in what he says about what I said, and there I am in good company with practically every Minister for Transport in Europe who miscalculated the rate at which motor car traffic would grow. There is hardly one who did not believe in the early 50s that somehow the railway might be able to pay. Deputy Morrissey believed it and so did Deputy Norton, so I can quote them, too. My predecessor, Mr. Lemass, was also optimistic. I am sorry I was as optimistic as all the others. The Deputy is perfectly at liberty to criticise the Minister for Transport at that time for having wrongly predicted the situation. I admit it; I cannot deny it.
I shall have to wait until the morning to analyse the Minister's statement. If what he says is the case, then when we appear before the higher tribunal later on we can say: "I only made the same mistake as so-and-so. Why blame me?" No, that is not good enough. The circumstances are different in every country. We are speaking about Ireland, a comparatively small country with a population of fewer than three million. It should be easier to see into the future here than in many other countries where possibly they have more upsets than we have here.
Debate adjourned.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11th December, 1969.