Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Dec 1974

Vol. 276 No. 5

Transport (No. 2) Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide statutory authority for subvention payments to CIE amounting to £11.3 million in the nine-month period ending on 31st December, 1974, which are additional to the annual grant of £2.65 million payable to the board under the Transport Act, 1964 (Section 6) Order, 1969. This is in accordance with the views expressed by the Public Accounts Committee earlier this year, in the course of its consideration of the appropriation accounts for 1971-72, that supporting legislation is desirable when moneys to supplement CIE's statutory annual grant are being provided by the Oireachtas. The Bill also makes certain necessary amendments to existing transport legislation arising from the provisions of EEC regulations governing State aid to transport undertakings.

At the outset, I propose to review briefly the position of CIE in recent years. The progressive deterioration in the board's financial position continues to be a cause for concern. Since it was fixed in 1969, the board's statutory annual grant of £2.65 million has proved to be completely inadequate due largely to the effects of inflation. The board's losses increased from over £3 million in 1969-70 to £11.67 million in 1973-74; the estimated net loss for the nine-month period ending 31st December, 1974, is almost £14 million. The main portion of these losses is attributable to the railway system, but the position has been aggravated by a decline into a loss-making situation of hitherto profitable road services.

As announced in March, 1974, the Government has decided that the railway system should continue to be preserved subject to further concentration and re-organisation in accordance with the general concepts outlined in the McKinsey Report on CIE, as developed in further studies made by the board, and has approved, in principle, additional capital investment to enable CIE to implement their proposals. The Government accepted that there was an acute need for modernisation and rationalisation of the railway system, particularly in the freight sector, in order to contain railway losses and to avoid a continual erosion of traffic. CIE's plan for the future development of the railways, involving modernisation of stations and depots, introduction of new equipment and handling methods and redeployment of manpower, was announced by the board last July. The plan will take six years to implement and will cost in the region of £27 million.

No fundamental alteration of the passenger network is proposed for the present, other than normal timetable adjustments. The plans for freight movement involve the introduction of new types of trains on which economic loading and high utilisation will be achieved. Twenty-two railheads throughout the country are scheduled for reconstruction and development and will provide a comprehensive freight service for containers, small freight and bulk traffics. A further 27 railheads are scheduled for major alteration and development to cater for specialised freight traffics. Freight facilities are being withdrawn on a selective basis from a number of lightly used stations, some of which have handled negligible volumes of traffic in recent years. CIE are fully conscious of the need for adequate communication with all parties concerned in relation to proposed changes and an extensive programme of consultation with staff, trade unions and customers has taken place and it is the board's intention to keep interested parties advised of progress.

In the year 1973-74 over 12.7 million passengers were carried on CIE rail services reflecting continued buoyancy in rail passenger carryings due, no doubt, to the board's new promotional fares, the increased number of passenger trains daily and the attraction of CIE's new supertrain services. Over the past three years the number of rail passengers has increased by 23 per cent.

Rail freight tonnage at 3.7 million tons in 1973-74 was over 1 per cent higher than 1972-73. Significant increases occurred in general traffics, mineral ores and gypsum but reductions occurred in fertilisers, sugar, grain and cement traffics. There was also an increase in CIE's road passenger carryings. Dublin city buses carried 220 million passengers in 1973-74, an increase of ten million over the previous year. Sixty-three million passengers were carried in 1973-74 on the board's provincial bus services, excluding special school services, an increase of one million over the previous year. In the road freight section, the total tonnage carried in 1973-74 was six million tons, representing an increase of 6 per cent.

Nothwithstanding the fact that most of the services showed continued buoyancy, this has not, unfortunately, been sufficient to counteract the prevailing economic forces, and the board's deficits still continue to grow. The energy crisis which occurred in late 1973, while it created additional demand for passenger services and highlighted the importance of public transport in a situation of world energy shortage, nevertheless, added considerably to the CIE's fuel bills and adversely affected costs. Of greater significance, however, are the continuing increases in labour costs, which together with higher materials costs and increased social insurance and interest charges, contribute substantially to the board's deteriorating financial position.

The latest estimate of CIE's net deficit for the current nine-month financial period ending 31st December, 1974 is £13.95 million. Of this amount, £9.25 million has already been met by way of subvention payments to CIE, the necessary provision having been made in the Estimate for my Department. The main reason for the excess of £4.7 million in the board's deficit over the Estimate provision was the decision of the Government to ameliorate the impact of the July, 1974 increases in CIE rates and fares by limiting the increases in Dublin city bus and suburban rail fares and provincial city and town bus fares to 20 per cent instead, of the 33 per cent increases proposed by CIE and approved by the National Prices Commission. This, combined with a delay of three months in the implementation of the increases, resulted in a reduction of an estimated £3.3 million in the anticipated yield from the increased charges. Other significant factors were the nine-week bus strike in Dublin city and a general decline in economic activity, resulting in heavy revenue losses to CIE.

The statutory annual grant to CIE of £2.65 million is, therefore, inadequate to the extent of £11.3 million and statutory cover for payment of this amount to CIE is provided in section 2 of the Bill. It is proposed to provide in a Supplementary Estimate which will be introduced before the Christmas Recess for the amount of £4.7 million, not already covered in the Estimates provision. Pending provision of these additional moneys, CIE with my consent, given with the approval of the Minister for Finance, have been availing of temporary borrowings to meet their serious cash deficiency.

Under EEC regulations governing State aid to transport undertakings the existing blanket subvention arrangements for CIE are no longer appropriate and provision is therefore being made in section 5 of the Bill for the repeal of section 6 of the Transport Act, 1964, which provided for a fixed annual grant for CIE, subject to review at five-yearly intervals. Consequential on the repeal of this section an amendment is required in section 2 of the 1964 Act and this is provided for in section 3 of the Bill. Henceforth grants to CIE will be paid in accordance with the relevant EEC regulations and provision for these payments will be made in the Estimates for my Department.

There are three relevant EEC regulations:—

(1) Regulation 1191/69, which provides for payment of compensation to transport undertakings in respect of losses incurred on services operated under public service obligations which are deemed essential to ensure the provision of adequate transport services.

(2) Regulation 1192/69, which provides for compensation in respect of specified financial burdens borne by railway undertakings which are not borne to the same extent by other transport undertakings, for example, cost of level crossings, retirement and welfare benefits and so on.

(3) Regulation 1107/70, which specifies certain additional circumstances in which State aids may be paid to transport undertakings. This regulation enables the grant of State aid to cover, inter alia,

(a) public service obligations not coming within the meaning of Regulations 1191/69;

(b) railway infrastructure costs, to the extent that competing modes of transport do not bear their full share of infrastructure costs;

(c) balancing subventions to meet the residual deficits of railway undertakings.

These EEC regulations are merely part of a comprehensive structure which is being built up in the development of a Community Common Transport Policy. One of the aims of this policy is to eliminate disparities liable to distort conditions of competition in the transport market and for this purpose it is necessary to harmonise laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to transport.

Proposals for a new subvention structure for CIE to comply with the provisions of these EEC regulations have been submitted to the EEC Commission and arrangements are being made for the introduction of the new subvention structure from 1st January, 1975.

The main features of the proposed new subvention structure are as follows:

(1) It is proposed that compensation will be paid in respect of the losses remaining on rail passenger services after fares increases and any possible economies in operation, on the grounds that these services are being provided under a public service obligation within the meaning of regulation 1191/69. The obligation will be subject to whatever conditions I may decide to impose with a view to reducing losses.

(2) Losses on rail freight services, in so far as they cannot be met by rates increases, economies, et cetera, will be covered by a combination of payments under the provisions of Regulation 1192/69 and Regulation 1107/70 including a balancing subvention as provided for in the latter regulation. Every effort must however be made by CIE to operate these services on a commercial basis.

(3) Losses incurred on the board's road passenger services, including the Dublin city services, which cannot be recouped by way of fares increases or eliminated by economies in operation, will be met under the provisions of Regulation 1107/ 70.

(4) It is proposed that losses incurred on the maintenance of the canals will be met under the provisions of Regulation 1107/70. Separate provision will be made in my Department's Vote for losses on the Galway/Aran service operated by CIE. As regards CIE's other services, I would expect the board to operate at a profit or at least break even, taking one year with another.

The new arrangements for subventing CIE will be subject to review at regular intervals and will of course come under scrutiny each year in connection with the Estimate for my Department.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Barrett

We appreciate the necessity for this Bill and the importance of having it passed expeditiously. We have not yet had an opportunity of discussing the Estimate for the Minister's Department, but we look forward to having that opportunity in the very near future. The Estimate will of course provide us with the opportunity of having a wider discussion not only about CIE but about all the other matters involved in the Minister's jurisdiction. However this Bill gives us an opportunity for a short discussion on CIE.

CIE is very much in the public mind and has been for the past year. During the past year the overall efficiency and the public image of CIE have sunk to a level lower than any level since its formation. There seems to be a falling-off in dynamism, drive and innovation at management level. That has been commented upon by others. Drive and dynamism and innovation were features of the organisation which now seem to have disappeared. I do not know the reason for this, but that is certainly the position.

We have had two bus strikes which inflicted very widespread hardship on people already affected by the adverse economic situation. Little progress has been made in the establishment of sound industrial relations between management and workers. The labour force feels uncertain about its future because of lack of direction.

There are certain questions one must ask. What has happened to the plans drawn up on the future of the railways? What has happened about the Dublin commuter rail system? CIE were given to understand that moneys would be available for the system. We have had announcements as to intentions and so on but there is no clear evidence of anything happening. We would like to see something happening in the proposed reorganisation, something to the advantage of the country as a whole and to the advantage of the taxpayer. If operations could be made economic and this recurring subvention could be reduced that would certainly be an advantage. The subvention this year is higher than it ever was in any other year.

Undoubtedly within CIE there is a fear of redundancies. How extensive the redundancies will be is another question but the fear is there and uncertainty is created at all levels. Perhaps transitional plans have been discussed with the staff but they have not been finalised. These are priorities which should be dealt with and should be seen to be dealt with, with the minimum delay. Announcements have been made but CIE and the public want to see that something is happening. As the Minister knows, when his party were in Opposition they were calling for a complete inquiry into the affairs of CIE. I trust the Minister is devoting considerable time to inquiring into the whole concept of CIE. I appreciate that he had others matters to attend to during the year due to the oil crisis, and so forth. CIE have been allowed to drift into heavier and heavier losses. While the service must receive a subvention from public funds, overall direction and policy have been sadly lacking. The public are paying for this service and they deserve information on policy.

Has consideration been given to separating the various sections within CIE into distinct entities? This has been done in other countries. It was done in Britain under a transport board. This concept of dividing the different sections into different entities each with a definite and defined role to play within CIE or under a transport authority should be studied. The policy on fares can no longer be applied straight across the board without reference to the individual characteristics of the separate services being provided. Should the Dublin bus services be subsidised by the provincial operations—or vice versa, but I think the former is the case—when the economic and social aspects of the rural services are taken into consideration? Should a fares policy be formulated for country buses? Is it right that Dublin commuters should be subsidised in some way by the school bus services? If we are serious in saying that we want to maintain our rail system we must ensure that it can operate in its own right. These are matters on which we should like to have some clarification.

I have heard a rumour and I should like to know if there is any foundation for it. It is that there is a possibility of the timetable being curtailed in the new year. If there is any foundation for that rumour I should like to know to what extent it is likely to happen, its financial effects and its effect on the public service.

Another big financial problem for CIE is the transportation of what are known as "sundries" on the railways. Would CIE look into the question of having these sundries transported by road freight since they involve such tremendous losses for the railways? A great deal of the company's resources are committed to this activity which gives such a bad return. We would like to know when it is envisaged that the plans which were published will be put into effect. I do not want in any way to decry the present chairman of the board but I understand he is working on a part-time basis. Would it have been more beneficial for the company and would we have got better results if we had a full-time chairman as we had in the past? I am not saying anything personal against the gentleman concerned.

Are CIE in touch with the EEC and with their thinking with regard to urban and rural transport? It is important that there should be proper liaison between them. The EEC are very conscious of the problems of urban transport. There was a rapid increase in the number of cars on the roads between 1963 and 1970. Within the EEC the number of cars doubled in that period. Goods traffic has also increased by 42 per cent. The EEC are looking into these problems in great detail. I hope CIE are involved and know what is going on and are playing their part in trying to identify and eliminate the inequalities which exist in the different national transport systems within the Community.

Problems which cause grave congestion in cities and on access roads are being studied by the Commission. The results will be very important to us. We should avail of any knowledge or suggestions which can be made available to us. They have certain guidelines and regulations with which we should be fully acquainted. They are looking into two important aspects: the protection of transporters and, even more important, the protection of the labour force. They are making comparisons between different nations regarding investments and infrastructures. I hope that CIE and the Department of Transport and Power will keep in touch with the Commission.

There is an urgent need for this Bill. When the Minister's Estimate comes before the House—and I hope it will not be very long before it is introduced —we will have more time to discuss CIE and other semi-State bodies.

Mr. O'Brien

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, particularly when we realise the amount of money involved. We rarely get an opportunity to speak on semi-State bodies here. As I mentioned before, the time has come when a Committee of this House should be set up to examine the functions and operations of our semi-State bodies. It is not good enough that they should be able to come here and ask for vast sums of money for which they are not accountable. One is not even allowed to put down questions.

It is time there was an inquiry into the operations of CIE. I do not mean that this should be in any sense a witch hunt. This inquiry could ensure that the company are operating in the most efficient manner and that we are getting value for the money we are giving them for their operations. It is very easy for them to say that they are losing X number of pounds and to ask the House to vote them a certain sum of money. A proper scrutiny should be made of their operations. The Minister should have a look at this aspect of CIE.

During the year we had two bus strikes in Dublin. During those strikes I got the impression that CIE sat back and said it was not their affair but an inter-union dispute. It is their affair to ensure that bus and train services are operating. At the time I was very concerned they took this indifferent attitude, a Pontius Pilate attitude of washing their hands and blaming the unions for their problems. When there were problems with the ESB, we had the Fogarty Report into staff relations.

We should ensure that the staff in CIE are making the maximum effort and that there is a happy and effective staff relations position there.

I am always surprised at the lack of initiative by CIE. There is a chaotic traffic problem in Dublin city. We never hear of ideas to co-ordinate with the local authorities on what should be done to ensure that we have an efficient bus service. We hear that the cost of fuel is very high. The cost and the waste involved as a result of chaotic traffic conditions represent a big problem. It is incumbent on CIE to put forward a realistic traffic plan for all cities, particularly Dublin. The position will not get better; it will get worse.

As the principal operators of the commuter service CIE have the obligation to push the Government and the local authorities into taking action in order to ensure that as far as possible we have free roads. This can be done quite easily by developing busways which will move passengers quickly in and out of towns.

Are we developing our rail commuter traffic in Dublin? In my view, we are not. As a capital city we lag very far behind in a rail commuter system. Harcourt Street station was closed. We never hear a word about it now—not even a word of regret. We all know that the people of the city are crying out for a link in that very densely populated area from Harcourt Street to Bray. There is still a vast amount of derelict land in that area. It is still not too late to develop this railway link. There are other links which could be operated, such as Ballyfermot, which has a vast housing scheme waiting to be tapped. This would take a great deal of traffic from our roads. CIE have fallen down on this. This is because they can come here looking for money and get it. They say they are responsible only for the running of buses and trains and have an obligation to provide an efficient service. They should plan with the local authorities and central government to ensure a service of this kind.

Now that we are in Europe the international traffic is increasing. We must rely to a large extent on foreign companies to transport our goods. Are CIE doing enough to get into this market? Are they doing market research? Are they making sure that they will get a large share of the market? CIE should ensure we will have an effective transport system to deliver our manufactured goods to European countries. If enough is not being done in this regard the Minister should initiate plans so that CIE can get involved. I do not know how it would affect them as a semi-State body but if there are no impediments CIE should be carrying on a haulage service to European countries. They have the expertise and the capital resources to enable them to move into this field. As far as I know this is a lucrative and profitable market.

In my view CIE are a little arbitrary when it comes to closing stations. In most cases the stations are closed without any effort being made to keep them open. In my constituency Westland Row was closed as the central point of departure for the west of Ireland. People travelling to the west must now cross the centre of the city, which is congested at most times, to Kingsbridge. We all know how difficult it is to get through the city particularly if one has to catch a train departing at 5.30 in the evening. A person has not a hope of getting through the city traffic within 20 minutes. The decision to cease to use Westland Row as the departure point for travellers to the west had the effect of closing a number of businesses in that depressed area. CIE closed that station without any in-depth investigation. In my view this highlights CIE's inability to expand in a proper way. The attitude of the company seems to be to close rather than to expand.

In asking the Minister to hold an inquiry into the operation of CIE I should state that we do not have to apologise to CIE when asking for such an inquiry. We are voting a considerable sum of money to CIE and, therefore, we should ensure that Deputies are aware of the way the company is run. I look forward to the Minister's Estimate, which will give me a further opportunity of speaking about CIE.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I am glad of the opportunity of commenting on the operations of CIE. One is rarely given this opportunity and, since I became a Member of this House there has not been an Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power. We all appreciate the necessity for the introduction of this Bill to make money available to CIE. In speaking on this Bill one has to give consideration to some of the points made by the Minister, or to some of the points not made by him. One has to sympathise with any Minister for Transport and Power who has to wear two hats when dealing with a national transport company. There is a necessity to make it self supporting and there is also the social need which has to be catered for.

The Minister made an encouraging start when he informed the House that he intended reviewing briefly the position of CIE but I was disappointed that the Minister did not review it as deeply as I would like him to have done. Because he has not done so the Minister has left many questions unanswered and these questions are worrying the staff of CIE and people in many areas. I hope the Minister did not deliberately avoid these areas, which may be regarded as being slightly controversial. The Minister stated that in order to contain railway losses and to avoid continual erosion of traffic the Government accepted that there was an acute need for modernisation and rationalisation of the railway system, particularly in the freight sector. I should like the Minister to elaborate on that statement because it worries me. The Minister should tell us the reason for this erosion of traffic. Has this been investigated by the company and can progressive action be taken in order to have the trend in the other direction?

An important question that arises in this regard is that relating to redundancies. I hope the Minister will refer to this. There is a fear and concern among staff in that sector regarding redundancies they may be facing. I am not anxious to see any further redundancies in our transport system and I am sure the Minister will endeavour to make certain that they do not occur. I am all for rationalisation and modernisation but I warn that these beautiful words which are applied broadly today can create many social hardships. A year or two hence the rationalisation or modernisation may become far more inefficient than what it originally replaced. This is a danger, particularly in the transport business, and the haulage and movement of goods and materials.

The Minister informed us that no fundamental alteration of the passenger network is proposed for the present. I would have preferred if the Minister had not included, "for the present". The number of passengers carried by rail in 1973-74 was 12.7 million, an increase of 23 per cent over three years. What is the annual increase there? How does it compare with last year's figures? There has been a vast improvement in CIE's rail passenger service. The Cork-Dublin service is one we can all be pleased with. It is regular, efficient and easy to travel by. The staff are courteous and one travels in comfortable surroundings.

The Minister also informed us that rail freight tonnage at 3.7 million tons in 1973-74 was over 1 per cent higher than 1972-73. I would not be happy with an increase of that order. Surely a 1 per cent increase represents a setback and is not reasonable.

Mr. P. Barry

That is the whole point.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I accept that and I am glad the Minister highlighted it but has the Minister any reason to offer for this? Was it the lack of sales effort? Was the present system the reason for it? Even with the present system I could not accept the small increase. I suspect the Minister is talking about the period up to 31st March, 1974, which, in my opinion, makes it even more serious.

I notice also that no reference was made by the Minister by way of figures to the school bus services although such was done in respect of the Dublin city bus service, and it was done also in respect of the provincial services which specifically included school bus services. Something is happening at present with regard to school bus services being operated by CIE. There was mention of this in the House today by way of parliamentary question in regard to a different county from mine. I am aware of many cases where children are not now being carried in a school bus. I can think of one specific case where six members of a family have been and are still getting transport to a particular school. The youngest member of that family commenced school this September. Somebody makes a decision, whether it is CIE, or the Department of Education I do not know, but CIE operate the scheme and that young child, the seventh in that family attending the same school, is not given a free ticket or carried in the bus because apparently that child is nearer to some other school although still over two miles distant. This is very common. I am disappointed that the Minister, when he spoke about the school services, did not say whether the numbers being carried are down or whatever might be the reason for these occurrences.

The Minister referred to the topsyturvy, backwards-forwards situation of the Government. We are told that the delay of three months in implementing an increase in bus fares meant that an additional £3.3 million are required to be passed by this House. In other words, the Government played hide and seek with the general public for three months. The Minister for Industry and Commerce would not sanction a price increase. He was making himself so popular with the ordinary people that it would have been wrong to have sanctioned an increase in fares for CIE. But now the House is being asked to pass another £3.3 million of the people's money to compensate for that inactivity on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That does not make sense to me.

Reference was made by the Minister also to the loss of revenue resulting from the Dublin city bus strike. I would merely comment here that never was a situation so bady handled. Possibly the Minister for Transport and Power is not the Minister to be blamed in this regard. But I heard a previous speaker in this debate say that CIE said that from beginning to end it was an inter-union dispute. The man I heard say this time and again in this House was the Minister for Labour. He repeated it many times here. Despite pressure being brought to bear on him from this side of the House, the Minister for Labour failed absolutely to get both sides together over a nine-week period. That, surely, was a ridiculous situation in a public transport service. He should have been working day and night until a solution was found.

The Minister mentioned Community Regulation 1192/69 regarding compensation being provided for, among other things, retirement and welfare benefits. The present CIE pension scheme is deplorable. It is a legacy inherited by the Minister. Nevertheless that does not alter the situation that annually a huge profit is being made on this pension fund. A very significant fund is being created which is being contributed to by the ordinary workers employed by CIE. Men who have worked in CIE, who have driven buses, who have been conductors, who have worked as labourers, lorry drivers and so on receive a mere pittance by way of pension, a pittance to which young men contribute from the day they enter the company's employment. It is an injustice to think that the pension fund of a transport company is earning huge amounts of money which will never be paid out to its employees. I would ask the Minister to re-examine this situation and endeavour to make the pension worthwhile, make it comparable to that operated by, say, local authorities and other semi-State bodies. It is an insult to offer to any man who has worked so long in CIE the pension he is being offered at present.

Road freight has been given very little coverage in the Minister's brief. I wonder why. However, as I said earlier, possibly this is one of the fields in which there are controversies at present and in respect of which, certainly, I should like to hear certain questions answered. Earlier I referred to the fear of redundancies in the railway system. At present there is concern about redundancies in the road freight sector.

Is there anything wrong with management in CIE? Are they au fait with the situation? What is the present utilisation of the road fleet? Are we absolutely sure that every effort is being made to sell the usage of this fleet, or is it being allowed stand idle? Again, I emphasise that no redundancies should be allowed in this field because they are unnecessary. What effect has the change in the lime subsidy had on the road freight haulage sector of CIE? Has it affected the revenue? Are lorries standing idle because of it? Is there a danger of jobs being lost because of it? These are questions that must be posed.

For that reason, if for no other, I agree with the previous speaker when he said that a Committee of this House should have an opportunity of examining the operations of semi-State bodies. He mentioned an inquiry. I am not very much in favour of inquiries. My political life has been a short one but I have heard about this report in one Department, that report in another Department, another report in yet another Department and, God knows, we have enough reports on which to work. What we need are men with a bit of dynamism, flair and enterprise to push CIE, because CIE have a lot to offer.

Before I entered political life I happened to have experience of road freight. I had "on the spot" experience of the heavy haulage section of CIE road freight. Both at management and operational level it would not be possible to find a better group of people. I pay those men this well deserved tribute because I have seen them operate. In that section, because of its very nature, they operate under very severe handicap at times. That section was a fine one. They were operators who knew what they had to do and who set out to do it. It is possible to have the same spirit in all sections of CIE with the proper dynamism at the top and the proper usage of certain services.

There is one point I should like to mention to the Minister, particularly since he is a Cork man, as warranting examination. There should be greater utilisation of single-decker buses on some of the Cork city services where, perhaps for one reason or another, a double-decker would not be the answer.

There are many other aspects of CIE which we could discuss but we will have another opportunity to discuss them when we come to debate the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power. We all appreciate the need to give this money to CIE but we are concerned about how this money is spent. The Minister will find from this side of the House, unlike the time when some of the present Ministers were in opposition and shouted about inquiries into the need for money for CIE, that he will get constructive opposition.

I fully appreciate the difficulties of a transport company trying to fulfil a social need and still trying to give a return for the money which they receive. It is a responsibility to ensure that in all areas in CIE a genuine effort is made to see that the company are as near self-supporting as possible.

Mr. Staunton

The Minister's speech on this Second Stage of this Bill paints a rather gloomy picture on first reading. We note the enormous increase in losses by CIE. Indeed, the level of increase is greater than might appear on first reading the Minister's speech. The net loss for this year refers to a nine-month period so that if one takes a full year into account the net loss would be £19 million. This is a staggering increase over the loss for the previous year.

This Bill is very necessary and must be passed by this House. We will have an opportunity when we deal with the Estimate for the Department of Transport and Power to discuss the activities of CIE again. As a new Deputy I have noticed the rather haphazard selection of Estimate debates. The result is that some very important areas of activity, such as transport and power and many semi-State organisations, are not discussed as often as they might be.

I would like to refer to a few remarks of Deputy Fitzgerald. Most of the time he was very critical of the Government and then finally he said the Government would get more constructive opposition from his party than the Opposition of a few years ago gave the then Government. Last July, CIE sought an increase of 33 per cent in fares. This increase was recommended by the National Prices Commission but the Government decided to limit the increase to 20 per cent. Deputy Fitzgerald's analysis was absolutely right. Some of the reasons for the increase sought by CIE are outside our control. The Government are placed in a very difficult position when the National Prices Commission come along and recommend substantial price increases. They have to make the decision whether they should accept their recommendations. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is placed in a very difficult position with regard to some price increases recommended by the National Prices Commission.

I agree with Deputy Fitzgerald in his comments about the staff of CIE. It has been my experience in my capacities as a passenger and in my business capacity outside this House that most of them are sensible, reliable and competent people. The problem we have with a very small population is that we are attempting to run a transport company on the same lines as in a country with a vastly greater population than we have. This creates a most serious problem for us. I realise that the Cork-Dublin train service is superb but I wish I could say the same about the Westport to Dublin service. We cannot expect to have supertrains in every area of a small country like this but there are many other types of trains which apparently are equally as good as the supertrains in terms of suspension and comfort.

However, if we cannot have supertrains for the time being the least we might expect is that every carriage on a train travelling between Dublin and the provinces would be of a superior type. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. I know this from my experience as a passenger. At times during the past I have been appalled on seeing some of the carriages on some of these trains. This situation is not good enough. Normally I travel standard fare but I have noticed from time to time that the carriages in the firstclass compartments are appallingly bad. If CIE are serious in offering first-class services, they should ensure that these are provided. Otherwise, a great deal of damage could be done to the company's image. This may be a relatively minor matter but it is one that is worth mentioning. We would welcome the superior type of carriages until such time as it is possible to have supertrains. However, I accept the point that CIE make, that is, that there is a problem, relative to population, regarding the availability of these supertrains.

Regarding subsidisation there is one point I would like to put to the Minister and, again, this concerns the part of the country in which I live. A few years ago when the situation was more gloomy than it is now regarding industrial development, there was consideration given to the different types of subsidy which might be introduced by the Government to improve the position of the west. At that time statistics were produced to show that of every nine freight wagons coming into County Mayo, complete with goods, only about one was going back to Dublin full, in other words, only 12 or 15 per cent were going back full while the rest were going back empty. At the time the point was made that in an effort to have better regional and industrial development west of the Shannon, the situation of these empty trains returning to Dublin presented the Government with an opportunity of providing a subsidy on the freight of industrial goods on the basis that the net loss to the Government would be almost nil and the task would merely be one of loading at stations in the provinces and offloading at Dublin. It would not involve any additional expense in so far as CIE were concerned. Representations were made to the then Government in this regard and if memory serves me right, Deputy Colley was involved in the matter at some stage.

It was suggested that doing something like this might not be compatible with our EEC obligations. However, since then this has not been proved to be correct because I gathered from one or two people from the EEC who spoke in this country that some types of rail subsidies are in operation at present in respect of freight from the Bavarian area of Germany to the ports. Therefore, it would seem that there is a precedent in the EEC for such subsidy. In any case the idea is worth examination. As we have this enormous level of subsidy which is costing this country a great deal, the possibility should be examined of introducing subsidies on the lines I suggest.

The last matter to which I wish to refer is one that has been referred to already by other Deputies. I agree entirely with them when they say there is a necessity for more parliamentary control of our semi-State organisations. When the semi-State system was introduced the founding fathers were not aware of the enormities that lay ahead. At that time the semi-State organisations represented only a very small proportion of national activity but the picture is very different today. If we examine the budgets of recent times we realise the degree to which there is control of national bodies of immense proportion and the degree to which there is an immense power in the semi-State area of which CIE are merely one example.

Having said that I hasten to add that I do not think the Government have been negligent in any sense in this area because the Minister for the Public Service, since his appointment, has made two or three speeches referring to this issue. He has referred to the need for greater control of semi-State bodies and he has mentioned that the Government are carrying out a detailed examination which he hopes will result eventually in a system of such control. It is control that is vitally necessary. If we are to continue as a Parliament to rubber stamp matters relating to semi-State companies we shall erode the relevance of the Dáil. However, today we are not rubber-stamping anything; we are having a sensible discussion about CIE but there are many other issues which do not see the light of day in this House. Until such time as there is introduced a committee system whereby it will be possible for Members of the Dáil to engage in dialogue with the principals involved in semi-State bodies, we will not have a healthy situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is moving on to something that is much more general than what is contained in the Bill before the House.

Mr. Staunton

I appreciate that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I shall conclude by saying that the public would welcome developments of the nature referred to by the Minister for the Public Service regarding semi-State organisations. Both the Government and the Opposition appreciate that this Bill is necessary. It is a Bill that is indicative of the present problems of our economy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair regrets not noticing Deputy Geoghegan offering earlier.

Mr. Geoghegan

I accept that fully. This Bill is for the purpose of making available money to CIE to keep them on the rails, as it were. On an occasion such as this a hard look should be taken at the whole area of CIE activities. We should give serious thought to how the money is spent. There is not much information in this regard in the Minister's speech. I suppose he has given us all the information available to him but the House is entitled to have more details. However, as I have said on other occasions, it will be necessary always to subsidise CIE because it is not likely that they will ever be able to operate is a profitable concern.

At the same time the Minister should ascertain if CIE are top-heavy. We know that their workers are among the best in the country but we must investigate what is the position at the top so as to ascertain if there is overloading at that level. Also we should make every effort possible to ascertain where the losses are being incurred. Are they being incurred at any individual station or depot? This is the sort of information the House is entitled to have. Perhaps the Minister will deal with the matter more fully in his Estimate speech. On that occasion he may be able to tell us whether the losses are being incurred in Dublin or in the provinces and to what extent the losses are occurring in any area. For instance, if there is a loss in Dublin the Minister might tell us what percentage of the entire loss that represents. Let the board stop playing this cat and mouse game once and for all.

CIE are encouraging people to use the rail service. They tell you that if you travel on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday you can come back free. Why cannot this concession apply also on the other days of the week? Possibly the Minister's officials will tell him that Friday begins the long weekend for civil servants, that they want to get home and that the trains are overcrowded, but I can say that there are plenty of trains from both the south and the west during the day with probably 50, 60 or 70 passengers and perhaps even fewer sometimes. Could not one or two coaches be left over to carry the extra people going home on Friday evening or returning on Sunday evening for work on Monday morning? The powerful engines CIE have are certainly capable of taking more carriages; nobody can deny that.

When we examine our road traffic we find many articulated trucks carrying huge loads north, south, east and west. What are the CIE board doing to get this traffic on to the railways? Are they doing anything? If they have given the Minister no explanation he should demand one and he should ask what areas they have explored. These goods can be carried as cheaply, if not more cheaply, by CIE than by any other form of transport. You can meet on the road a conveyor carrying six or eight new cars from Cork to Dublin or from Dublin to the west. Surely if the CIE board were about their business this would not be happening.

Surely these cars could be conveyed more cheaply by rail than by carrier trucks—although I have nothing against the carrier trucks.

The CIE board are not doing their job. I would go as far as to say: "Scrap it completely; take over CIE, as a Minister of State and run it as it should be run." That is fairly strong talk but I mean every word of it. I am sick and tired looking at what is happening and knowing where the losses are. There are too many men in high places. If the job were left to the ordinary worker in CIE the company would be better run.

About two years ago the CIE board decided to cut out the west completely and start all trains from Heuston station. Pearse and Connolly stations were dispensed with although these stations had been providing a good service for the west which provided a considerable number of passengers. These stations were within easy reach of O'Connell Street and Grafton Street. Five minutes could take one from Westland Row to Kildare Street. Now you come to Heuston station and get on a double-deck bus. If you want to go to the south side of the city you are dumped out south of O'Connell Bridge in a little side street the name of which I do not know. If you want to go to O'Connell Street and you have baggage you must get off the bus and walk across O'Connell Bridge to reach O'Connell Street. Why not bring the buses from Heuston station at least into O'Connell Street where people could then change to another bus if they want to get to the south side? Dumping them south of O'Connell Bridge and leaving them to get to their destination however they like is a very bad arrangement.

All these matters must be examined. Pearse station, or Westland Row station is now practically a white elephant. Surely there would be nothing wrong in restoring the west of Ireland trains to both Pearse and Connolly stations so that the people would be brought nearer where their business takes them. They could come and go by either Pearse or Connolly stations whichever suited them best. At present if they are shopping in Dublin and want to catch a train to the west they must think about leaving at 4 p.m. in order to reach Kingsbridge in time, with traffic conditions as they are. I do not know where half the trains leaving Heuston at present are going or where those arriving are coming from. The CIE board must think hard or they must be scrapped. We should return to Connolly and Pearse stations and not dump passengers south of O'Connell Bridge.

Perhaps I have strayed beyond the limits which would apply to this debate and, if so, I ask the forebearance of the Chair, but I should like the Minister to have the benefit of what I have to say before his Estimate comes to the House.

For the past year we have had an excellent train service both to the south and to the west. As far as my area is concerned it means something like seven trains in and seven out. It is a very good service but I must ask if that is the service provided in the summer and it is carried on all through the winter are you not losing money? I should like the board to answer that question. It was proposed next January to cut down on services to the west. I understand that is now to be postponed until February. Also we had rail hostesses on the trains who did an excellent job for passengers, particularly the women and children. I congratulate them on the way they did their work. I understand now that they are being phased out. Is this just for the sake of the board being able to say: "We saved something here?" What is really happening?

I have referred to articulated trucks. If you get behind one of these God knows when you will be able to pass it out, especially between Dublin and Kilcock. You must be resigned to staying behind.

Are the board going after the traffic that is travelling 100, 130 or 150 miles in articulated vehicles? In future when the Estimate is brought in can it be shown exactly where the money is being lost? I know many people from the west who, because of the way they were treated in regard to Pearse and Connolly stations, decided to use their cars to travel to Dublin. They park a little way out of Dublin and they can travel in their own time. If a woman with a few children comes to Dublin by train to do some shopping she must leave the bus south of O'Connell bridge and then walk or take a bus to whichever part of the city she wishes to go. People should not be treated in that way. The buses from Heuston Station should turn left at O'Connell bridge and drop their passengers midway up O'Connell St.

A hard look must be taken at the board of CIE. Is it top heavy? I remember when a questionnaire was sent around to the working men of CIE. They were asked for suggestions for the betterment of the services, the timetables and so on. The men gave their honest opinions. A few people here in the capital city sat at a round table and decided the way things should be. However two years later they adopted some of the suggestions that had been made by the ordinary rank and file workers because they were sound and sensible. Who knows better what suits the public than the men who meet the people every day particularly on country roads?

I would ask the Minister not to have Pearse and Connolly stations as white elephants while the people from the west do not have a proper way of getting to Kingsbridge. At least bring all Mayo and all Galway back to Pearse and Connolly stations. I hope that when the Minister brings in his Estimate he will give us details as to where, when and how the losses are taking place. I believe that some of them can be overcome. While we have a bus service and a train service this House and the country will have to subsidise them. I would like to know how it is that the Aran service is losing money. Perhaps this happens during the winter. I know that in summer the two boats are choc-ablock each time they sail.

Mr. Taylor

This Bill was necessary because a decision had to be taken as to whether the travelling public should have to pay the increase of 33 per cent demanded by CIE. It has now been decided that the public will pay only 20 per cent and the Minister and the Government will carry the additional charges. The past year has dealt CIE a heavy blow. Fuel costs contributed in a big way to the outlay of the company and have made it necessary to increase freight charges and passenger charges on our bus services. It is worrying that this year there has been a loss of £14 million in CIE. Despite the fact that over the years many changes have been made in CIE's board of management and that the Government have in the past given pretty generous subsidisation to CIE they still show a frightening deficit. The Minister and the management of CIE at this stage should come together to work with the trade unions and all those involved and attempt, at this time when we all have to tighten our belts, to reduce the heavy loss which is an annual feature of our transport company.

Some of the things that took place in the last 12 months did not contribute to CIE's efficiency. I refer specifically to the nine weeks' bus strike we saw in this city which did not relate to any grievance in regard to working conditions or rates of pay but rather to an inter-union squabble. Personnel will have to give attention in the future to the question of whether there are too many unions and whether they should come together for the common good and accept leadership from one or two unions and see if this would improve relationships. I have seen the workers of this city and those who live outside the city being inconvenienced by bus strikes.

There is no point in closing the stable door when the horse has gone. We should see how such strikes can be avoided. This is only one factor. When the public are asked to subsidise losses annually they are entitled to request an examination of the factors which over a long period have caused those losses. Every factor should be considered. CIE have plans for rationalisation. Rationalisation to me means nothing but closing down stations, depriving areas of transport to which they are socially entitled. We have seen this in the west, including my own county, half of which is without a rail service.

If agricultural production does not increase in the year ahead—and this will be difficult because of increased costs for fertilisers and so on—there could be a reduction in freight in certain areas. The carriage of fertilisers brings great revenue to CIE, and I can see restricted purchases and therefore restricted income for CIE from this source. However, maybe that could lead us to explore areas where there are fertilisers and thus reduce transport costs. I refer specifically to the opportunity there is for developing the phosphate mines in north Clare which were a godsend during the war years. Unfortunately if they were developed there is no rail system to take out the raw phosphate. We must take the situation as we find it. We are now in a Community with a common transport policy, and from 1st January next we shall be operating the EEC transport policy, and any reliefs we can give to CIE must conform to EEC regulations.

There was a noticeable improvement in the standard of our train services with the introduction during the past 12 months of the supertrains, which cannot be criticised in regard to speed, heating and so on. Maybe the dining service could be improved. Better facilities should be made available for regular travellers, particularly from the west.

I have been told there is the intention to rationalise the service from Limerick station to Dublin by eliminating the 12.00 train from Limerick which arrives here at 2.30 p.m. at Heuston station. The cutting of this service, as I am sure other regular travellers like our shadow Minister, Deputy Barrett, would agree, will mean that we shall be rather late arriving here in the city for the Dáil sitting, and that people travelling on business will not be able to catch a train to return to Limerick that evening. We are opposed to this cut-back in service and would ask the Minister to ensure that this train is not cancelled. If we are to give the west equal opportunity with the east, it must be seen to be done rather than talked about.

There has been an increase in the rail passenger service over the years, and we can foresee additional users of the railway. That will be commensurate with the type of service, and some of the increase can be attributed to the introduction of the supertrain. People will use the service if it is comfortable and efficient.

The Minister should encourage people to make more use of our waterways, particularly the Shannon. If landing and other facilities are provided a greater interest will be taken in such a service. All our waterways should be utilised fully and encouragement given to people who show an interest in development of this kind.

I believe the Minister was right when he decided that CIE passengers should not have to pay additional charges, that the State should take its share of the responsibility. It is our social obligations to the people in remote areas to provide some of the finance to subsidise the service so that the full increase in costs would not be passed on to them. The purpose of this Bill is to meet that situation.

Mr. R.P. Burke

One thing which has become obvious from this debate so far is the need for a system of Select Committees of both Houses to examine in detail the operations of the various semi-State bodies. A debate such as we are having now places certain restrictions on speakers and is therefore inadequate. One is not in a position to get down to the nitty gritty detail into which one should go and I would suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider, with his Cabinet colleagues, a system of Select Committees to examine the operations of semi-State bodies.

We are talking here of a sum of £11.3 million on the backs of the taxpayers. One subject that should have been discussed over the last nine months at some stage was the nine-week bus strike. Our hands were tied from the point of view of discussing that strike. A Select Committee could have gone into immediate session and examined the workings of the company and the reasons for the problems which brought about the strike. The Minister said that one of the significant factors for the increase in expenditure was the nine-week bus strike and the general decline in economic activity resulting in heavy revenue losses to CIE. It was not only CIE which suffered heavy losses; the economy generally suffered. Industry, traders, workers and others suffered. These are things that should have been discussed and could have been discussed by a Select Committee. The time is overdue for the operation of such committees.

With regard to the reorganisation of CIE in the greater Dublin area, there is need for fast suburban rail links to serve the growing populations in areas like Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Fingal and Swords. There is a rail link to Balbriggan, serving Skerries, Rush and Lusk, Malahide and Donaghmede. A rail link would make it attractive for motorists to travel by rail and leave their cars at home. That would solve parking problems. There could also be a rail link from Dublin Airport to Portmarnock and Howth Junction. Air passengers could then step on to a train which would bring them right into the city or even out to their hotels in Ballsbridge. That would remove the need for buses, taxis and cars to serve the airport. Workers from Ballymun would be able to get by train to the airport or into the city and out into Tallaght. A circular route would be the proper solution and there would then be no need for improved motorways in the city centre with consequent damage to areas like the Liberties. Because of high petrol and fuel costs it is absolutely vital that people should be transferred to the railways. One train could carry a couple of hundred people. The same number travelling in cars causes chronic congestion, to say nothing of polluting the environment.

The overhaul of CIE services in the city is overdue. CIE have not changed their schedule in years. New estates have developed and local representatives press for an extension of bus services: after five years the service is extended. I suggest to the Minister— he can pass the suggestion on to CIE —that a circular route from Howth to Portmarnock, Malahide, the Airport and right into Ballymun would make an enormous difference. CIE seem to think that every bus must go into the centre of the city. People living on the north side and working on the south side have to take two buses to get to their places of employment. A circular route would make this sort of transfer unnecessary and it would also mean a better and more intelligent use of the facilities and manpower we have.

Workers at the moment have the burden of massive fares travelling to their places of employment. Added to transport costs they have to meet the costs of electricity and gas, plus high rents. The time has come when we must take a long look at the operations of CIE to see where economies can be effected and to see whether operations can be made more efficient and more economic. The result could well be a reduction in fares.

Mr. P. Barry

I will give the Deputy one figure to think about: 66 per cent of CIE revenue goes in wages.

Mr. R.P. Burke

There is no point in talking about wages only, and saying that wages are the cause of all the ills. It seems to be the Government's suggestion for the coming year that workers should not ask for increases in wages.

Mr. P. Barry

Look at it the other way around.

Mr. R.P. Burke

The Minister can look at it any way he likes when he is replying. There is no point in the Government or CIE blaming the workers. The workers are only getting enough to live on and, as prices are going up, they are not even getting enough to live on. The workers are the backbone of the CIE organisation. They are the people who keep it ticking over.

Mr. P. Barry

That is my very point.

Mr. Dowling

An anti-worker approach.

Mr. R.P. Burke

It is an anti-worker approach from the Government. More efficient direction of the workers by management would make the whole organisation more efficient. Sub-committees should be set up to give Deputies and Senators an opportunity of looking into the operations of the semi-State bodies and they could advise on efficiency.

Debate adjourned.