Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jul 1979

Vol. 315 No. 11

Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Second and Subsequent Stages.

, Dublin South-Central): I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

The main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the permanent closure of the navigation spans on the Brian Boru and Clontarf bridges in Cork city and for the transfer of ownership of the bridges from CIE to Cork Corporation. Certain provisions are also included in the Bill in relation to the members of the board and the general manager of CIE.

The Brian Boru and Clontarf bridges, which span the north and south channels of the river Lee in Cork city, were constructed under the provisions of the Cork City Railways Act, 1906. The bridges were so constructed as to be able to carry road as well as railway traffic and, in addition, the Act provided that the bridges were to have opening spans to allow for the passage of vessels along the river.

Under an agreement made in 1948 between CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners under the provisions of section 134 of the Transport Act, 1944, it was provided that the cost of working, control, management and maintenance of the bridges would be shared equally between the three parties, subject to the contribution by Cork Harbour Commissioners being payable only so long as any portion of the bridges continued to be moveable.

The navigation spans on the bridges have not been opened for vessels since 1961 in the case of Clontarf bridge and since 1963 in the case of Brian Boru bridge. Any craft now using the portions of quay upstream from the bridges would be small and would not require the opening of the navigation spans. Cork Harbour Commissioners agree that the opening spans are no longer needed.

In recent years, with increasing road traffic in Cork city, it became apparent that to improve the traffic flow over the route, and to alleviate the severe traffic problems caused by the necessity of frequent repairs to the existing bridge surfaces, the provision of a stronger and more durable type of decking on the bridges was necessary. The introduction of one-way traffic over the route aggravated the problem because road vehicles which might otherwise choose not to follow the route were compelled to do so in the one-way flow. The operation of trains over the bridges on the line between Albert Quay station and Glanmire station, which had been used by CIE for the transfer of certain freight traffic, became increasingly difficult, and the line has not been used by CIE since 1976. The freight traffic is now transported by road vehicles direct to Glanmire station for onward distribution on the rail network.

Following consultations between CIE, Cork Corporation and Cork Harbour Commissioners, CIE prepared proposals to have the bridges converted to fixed bridges and to have the railway lines removed completely. The three parties have concluded an agreement dated 12 July 1977 to give effect to these proposals and to provide for transfer of ownership of the bridges to Cork Corporation. The implementation of the agreement is subject to the enactment of this Bill. As Deputies will note from the provisions of the agreement, which is attached as a schedule to the Bill, CIE will convert the bridges to fixed bridges within six months and will remove the railway tracks and other equipment from the bridges within twelve months of the passing of the legislation.

Pending completion of these works, CIE and Cork Corporation will bear equally the cost of maintaining the bridges. Cork Harbour Commissioners will be relieved of any obligation to contribute to the maintenance of the bridges from the date of enactment of the Bill.

On completion of the works to be undertaken by CIE, and on payment by the board to Cork Corporation of a sum not exceeding £12,000 towards the cost of providing a more durable road surface on the bridges, ownership of the bridges will be transferred from CIE to Cork Corporation, who will then become exclusively responsible for their maintenance. Cork Corporation will indemnify CIE and Cork Harbour Commissioners against any possible claims for compensation for loss of private rights arising from conversion of the bridges to fixed bridges.

In addition to the provisions concerning the Cork bridges, the Bill makes certain provisions in relation to the general manager and members of the board of CIE.

Section 7 of the Bill arises from the general policy of taking control of the remuneration of the chief executives of State-sponsored bodies as and when the opportunity arises. The intention is to allow the CIE board freedom to fix the total remuneration of the chief executive—i.e. the general manager —within the range approved by me with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service. The present ranges of remuneration for chief executives of State-sponsored bodies are those set by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector in their report of 11 July 1972, updated by the addition of increases in pay agreed under the various successive national pay agreements.

Under section 7 (2) of the Transport Act, 1950, it is provided that every member of the board of CIE shall hold office upon such terms and conditions as shall be fixed by the Government "at the time of his appointment". I have been advised that until this section is amended it is not open to the Government to alter the terms and conditions of a member of the board as fixed by the Government when appointing him, without his resignation and reappointment. Hence, to apply the normal approved increases in remuneration it has been necessary for the chairman or other members of the board to resign and be reappointed by the Government at the higher rate. To overcome this legal technicality it is proposed in section 8 of the present Bill to amend the existing legislation by the deletion of the words "at the time of his appointment"; in addition, provision is being made for the fixing of the terms and conditions by the Minister for Tourism and Transport with the consent of the Minister for the Public Service rather than by the Government.

I recommend the Bill to the House.

There is nothing contentious in this Bill and we support it. It is apparent that the two bridges in question have not been open for a number of years and are unlikely to be used again by shipping. It makes good sense that they should be permanent structures, that the opening spans should be sealed and that the surfaces should be made more durable. Any of us who drive through Cork city will realise that it would not be a practical proposition to open the spans in question because of the traffic congestion, if not chaos, in the areas concerned.

It often strikes me as being strange that such a hardy race of people and such an astute race of businessmen as Cork people have allowed their traffic problems to multiply to such an extent as at present. The whole commerce of the city seems to be strangled at times by the lack of adequate traffic arrangements and the areas in the vicinity of these two bridges are often the major points of congestion. I would hate to see what would happen if we allowed a situation where these bridges had to be opened for shipping periodically. It would merely lead to a more intense snarl-up than we are having at present. I do not know if the Minister has any comments or suggestions to make on what is going to be the long-term solution to Cork's traffic problems, which are far worse than Dublin for the size of the city, but we certainly will agree with any proposal which will alleviate the chaos which exists at present.

The other section of the Bill, section 7, which deals with the remuneration of the chief executive of a State-sponsored body, is a section which we fully support. There should be far more freedom when it comes to fixing the remuneration of a chief executive. I do not see anything contentious in the Bill and am only too glad to support it.

We support the Bill also. We do not see anything unreasonable in it. It merely gives legislative approval to an agreement that has already been entered into by CIE, the Cork Corporation and the Cork Harbour Commissioners. It is said that this will alleviate the traffic in Cork to some extent. I must confess that while I know Cork reasonably well I would not have the same detailed knowledge as the Minister and Deputy Barry. Even if it alleviates traffic to only a small extent, it is welcome. I know the Minister of State is not responsible for traffic all over the country and we have this problem in all our towns and cities, but that is another day's work and work for another Minister.

We also subscribe to the proposal under section 7 in regard to the remuneration of the chief executive and members of the board of a State-sponsored body.

I welcome this Bill. Perhaps of all the Members of the House here at the moment I recognise most actuely the necessity for it. It is something that obviously should have been done years ago, but these things are easier to talk about and the theory of doing them proves far simpler than the practice of getting the parties together and getting agreement among them on what should be done. I will have certain regrets, of course, and indeed many of the schoolboys in Cork will too, because it was a favourite excuse if one were late for school to say that the bridge was up.

I do not know what the most astute businessmen in Cork will do about the traffic situation because unfortunately Cork is a divided city—the Lee divides just at the entrance to the city, providing an island in the centre, which is the cause of all the traffic problems in Cork. The land use and transportation study was commissioned by the three bodies mentioned here plus Cork County Council to study the problem, and it points a way in the future to relieving this problem, but it needs money. One of the proposals in that is that there should be at least one other bridge built at the eastern side of these two bridges nearest the mouth of Cork harbour. There is no bridge between those two bridges and Roches Point at the mouth of Cork Harbour, and one of the proposals in the land use and transportation study is that there should be two bridges immediately to the east of these two bridges to set up a ring road to divert traffic around Cork to the south and to the west and the other way to the north and to the east.

The Minister for the Environment, Mr. Barrett, was present at the launching of the land use and transportation study about 12 months ago, and he said at that time that he could not see that the amount of money involved would present any insuperable problem in having the plan accepted by the Government and implemented by them. That is very important, and everybody was very grateful to the Minister on that occasion when he so quickly put his shoulder behind the plan. Naturally he could not give any firm commitment about the money but he indicated that he did not see that the money was such a huge amount that it would prevent the implementation of this plan.

These two bridges are quite graceful and good looking bridges, made of either iron or steel and decked in wood with railway tracks running over them. Virtually every weekend for the last five years one half of these bridges was closed while the deck was being repaired. The Bill says that within 12 months the tracks will be removed and the bridge will be fit for the normal flow of traffic, and I am sure that will be adhered to.

I am not sure if I agree with Deputy Deasy about section 7 in relation to the salary of a chief executive of a State-sponsored body being fixed by the Minister. I know that when I was in this Department it was one of the first to adopt this decision by the Government at the time to accept the Devlin Report and fix the salaries of the chief executive as legislation came through the House including the section, as has been done in this, to fix their salaries. Having thought more about it since I think it has created more anomalies than it has cured. I am not sure if we did the right thing at that time and if we are right in continuing it. It needs more thinking about.

I notice that the review body that was set up last year to look at the two sections of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the telecommunications section and the postal section, recommended the hiving off of these two sections of that Department into the semi-State sector even though there was some doubt as to what the Government meant. But the proposal was to take them out of the direct control of the Minister and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. One of the recommendations was that the chief executive of either or both of these semi-State bodies would be paid a salary comparable with the salary he would get if working in private enterprise and that a chief executive officer should be a man of that calibre. Even though I am possibly one fifteenth responsible for the acceptance of the Devlin Report five or six years ago I do not think it was the right thing to do and we should look at that again. I can see the reason for it; I understand the theory behind it and I understand the thinking behind the old Devlin Committee that these people were not strictly in the private sector and they were not strictly subject to the same whims of boards to fire them if they failed to perform even though in theory they could be fired, so the same criteria could not be applied. They could not be measured by the same criteria as the chief executive of a private body, nor were they full-time civil servants. It has not become apparent if this is so because I can only remember one chief executive officer who retired in the last five years and that company were very fortunate to get a very good man. His term of appointment will be up in a couple of years and I do not know if he will seek reappointment or if the man who will replace him will be of the same calibre.

All parties might look at this again. It is only right to amend section 7 (2) which created unnecessary annoyance in the Department over a number of years every time there was a question of the resignation or reappointment of or higher salaries for the chairman and members of the board.

I welcome this Bill and hope all stages will be passed today.

, Dublin South-Central): I am grateful to Deputies for their interest in this Bill. Any step we can take that will relieve urban congestion is a welcome move. This may be a small contribution towards relieving congestion in Cork and, from my knowledge, the traffic situation in that city is chaotic and some positive steps will have to be taken in the not too distant future.

We asked the Transport Consultative Committee to pay particular attention to urban districts. It is very important that we do something positive about this if traffic is to move freely through our larger cities. Hopefully this Bill will relieve some of the congestion caused in the past. As Deputy Barry said let us hope there will be proper, permanent bridges there and that the congestion mentioned will be relieved. This Bill removes the anomaly as regards the resignation and reappointment of the chairman and board of CIE. This caused a certain amount of embarrassment because of the words "at the time of his appointment". These words are being deleted now and it will be possible for their remuneration to be increased. This Bill brings the chief executive under the review body's recommendation and under the Minister. This has taken place over a number of years. The majority of the chief executive officers of semi-State bodies come within the scope of the review body which was set up in 1973.

Only the best brains are good enough for the post of chief executive in any semi-State body. They have a very important role to play in the economic development of our country. There is nothing controversial in this Bill and I hope we get all Stages today.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment and passed.
Top
Share