The Minister for Transport and Power has gone to Brussels for an EEC Council meeting and I am replying on his behalf. This Supplementary Estimate relates to CIE. There were a number of points made during the course of the debate to which I would like to take this opportunity of replying.
First, a number of Deputies referred to the question of the termination of rail services. The present policy relating to railways is based on the Government decision of March, 1974, following the investigation by the consultants, McKinsey and Company, which showed that CIE's increasing losses were due mainly to inflation and growing competition from private transport. The consultants recommended that the best course of action was to retain the railways but selectively to modify them and develop the types of freight and passenger traffic for which the railways were best suited. The Government decided that the rail system should continue to be preserved, subject to further concentration and reorganisation in accordance with the general concepts outlined in the McKinsey reports, and developed in further studies made by CIE. Additional capital investment for the railways has been approved for the purpose of modernising operations with a view to providing faster, more efficient and more reliable services.
The House will appreciate that resources must, however, be concentrated on the development of those traffics for which the railways are best suited. In the context of a situation where railway losses increased from £4 million approximately in 1970 to an estimated £24 million in 1976—that is just for the railways, the total CIE loss is greater than that—it is obvious that CIE must examine the question of grossly under-utilised services. Increased losses of this magnitude could not continue to be met by the Exchequer. Unless the losses are contained, the future existence of the railway system as a whole will be placed in jeopardy.
This came about in the context of the speculation in newspapers as to the future of the Rosslare-Waterford line. The House will appreciate that this is just speculation because the consequences, the machinery and the amount of consultation necessary to close that line would take quite a time. It would be very hard to put an exact time limit when you think of the number of local authorities involved, the necessity to realign roadways, planning permissions for bridges, and if there were to be a toll bridges, there is a possibility that this might even require legislation. We are not talking about something that will happen within the next two or three months.
A number of Deputies raised the question of CIE's social contribution. In 1975 almost 30 per cent of the total revenue—£26.5 million—was provided by the State and other sources provided £63 million. As I said when I had responsibility for this Department, I want to see the railways held and, at the same time, I also want to see the taxpayers' contribution kept at as low a level as possible. The types of freight, their method of handling, the use of modern equipment for handling smaller freight, the service and the quality of the service provided for the ordinary passengers, are things that can make the railways attractive to both passengers and people moving freight, but this necessitates quite sizeable capital investment. It also necessitates a very high degree of morale and pride by the employees in their company, and it involves a commitment by whatever Government is in power to see that this capital is made available to CIE. The House will agree that this Government have, by their willingness to make available capital to CIE, possibly achieved all three objectives. By providing capital we have raised the morale of the employees and helped to provide better, more efficient, faster and, hopefully in the future, less loss-making, if not profit-making, operations by the railways.
As Deputy Barrett said, railways all over the world are losing money. The loss to CIE, as I said, has increased from £4 million to £24 million in 1976. Even though these are very significant sums, the country can feel they get value, provided people employed by CIE understand that the subsidy provided by the State is not in any sense a mark of no confidence in that undertaking. At the same time, it is incumbent on the board and CIE to see that the taxpayer gets value for money. Every citizen who pays taxes, directly or indirectly, is contributing towards that money, and the management and board must see that money is spent wisely to the benefit of the country as a whole. When one compares the losses in CIE, and the very scattered and less-dense pockets of population they have to serve, with other railway undertakings in Europe, the management of CIE are as efficient.
Mention was made of the productivity and the cost production schemes of CIE. It is right that CIE should look at every aspect of their operations to see where savings can be made and increased productivity achieved. I would like to refute a suggestion by one Deputy that the jobs being closed off under the nonrecruitment ban applied only to the lower levels. That is not true. In the last 18 months posts at management level became vacant and were not filled.
Mention was also made of Rosslare Harbour and the study being undertaken at the hydraulic research station about an extra berthing facility at Rosslare. This study will be available in the new year. It will then be a matter for CIE, in consultation with the officials of the Department of Transport and Power and the Office of Public Works, to decide first whether the extension to the harbour should be gone ahead with and, second, how it will be financed. We must be careful that any expansion in Rosslare Harbour does not interfere with the very attractive beaches and strands around Rosslare, and it must not interfere with the tourism potential of the area. It is not possible to say if we will go ahead until the results of the study are made available in the new year.
Plans for Cork Harbour were also mentioned. The £500,000 grant was made available this year, but for technical and financial reasons it was not availed of. The Minister is assured by the Cork Harbour Commissioners that the £2½ million being made available to them next year by way of a grant will be used in the calendar year 1977. I have no doubt that this investment by the State will be of benefit not just to the Cork region but to the State as a whole. It is an imaginative and very well thought out plan which has been brought about by the work of the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the local authorities there.
I take the opportunity to thank the various Deputies in the House, particularly the two who were opposite me when I was Minister for Transport and Power, and to thank the House generally for the courtesy kindness and co-operation showed to me during my almost four years in that Ministry. I would like to think that I gave courtesy and co-operation to all Members of the House and I am sure the next Minister will give the same courtesy and co-operation.