Through this Bill the House is being asked to provide additional money for CIE which will not be able to function without it. For that reason, all Deputies will be prepared to support the Bill, at the same time offering criticisms of CIE. One of the morning newspapers today quoted a comment by a Deputy that CIE are usually the victims of knock-out criticisms, that Deputies have gone out of their way to be highly critical.
I want to put on record that I was a Member on the occasion when CIE were conceived. I remember the debate here on the proposal to take over the old Great Southern Railways and to give life to the new company. The Bill was introduced by the late Seán Lemass and I recall the long determined criticisms offered, particularly by the late Jim Larkin, senior, the Lord have mercy on him.
I can also recall the solemn promises and undertakings given by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that the bringing into being of CIE would give the country a cheap and highly efficient transport service of which there would not be any cause for complaints. He said the new company would provide the people with efficiency at a cheap price. As the son of an employee of both the GSR and CIE I have always been concerned about the economic and financial mistakes made by CIE. We all make mistakes in business and privately but we should all learn from our mistakes. Repeated or recurring mistakes in a public company are not in the national interest.
The present CIE board, their predecessors and their successors, unless drastic action is taken, will have recurrences of the economic and financial mistakes of the past if the board of management do not begin to learn from past mistakes. If they do not we will not have an efficient transport service.
One of CIE's greatest blunders was the closure of branch line stations and the dismantling of branch lines. Economically it was wrong to do that, particularly in the west, because such dismantling denied the people the benefits of a public transport service. It prevented the industrial development of those areas. It brought about high charges for road freight transport, particularly in areas where there were no roads that could carry the freight fleets.
When the GSR operated, all connected with the railways were highly dedicated transport people. When a division occurred here on the 1943 Transport Bill, as an Independent Deputy I had difficulty in making up my mind whether, in the interests of public transport, I should vote for or against the creation of a monopoly. Sixty-four Deputies voted against it and sixty-four for it. I voted against and we put the Government out. I have never regretted that decision because as the years rolled by I learned that it was wrong to give a transport monopoly to CIE.
When the old GSR operated, a number of private bus owners also provided a highly efficient service, far more efficient than the State company do today. In the midlands, for example, you had the old Slievebloom bus company which provided at the time a very efficient transport service for midland people to and from Dublin. In the anxiety to create this great transport monopoly all those people were bought off the road, bus companies and those who operated private transport services for passengers or commercial goods. It was not for the good of the country that private enterprise was put off the map completely. We may well pay tribute to those who provided a highly efficient transport service, extremely limited during the war and immediately after it, companies such as the Slieve-bloom company operated by the Dooley family in the midlands and numerous others that were gobbled up. They were told they could no longer enjoy the right to operate public transport. This was all done in the name of democracy and freedom under which the individual and private enterprise should have the right to operate freely without let or hindrance. This country would have been far better off today and we would have fewer transport difficulties and a much better transport service if the buying up of private enterprise and its dismantling in relation to public transport was not encouraged and developed in the creation of a monopoly.
Monopolies are dangerous in any country or State because when nobody else can operate a service the general public suffer, the ordinary passenger requiring a public service to get to and from work as well as the industrialist and the businessman who requires public transport to transport merchandise from one area to another either by road or rail. In the event of a breakdown in industrial relations, such as we see at present and have seen in the past, the country can be brought almost to a standstill in regard to transport. If private enterprise were operating at least some transport would be available to provide the services to which the people are entitled. A majority of Deputies on all sides must agree that monopolies are wrong and should not be encouraged to the extent of destroying private enterprise which is the life and soul of the country.
I expressed these very opinions in this House in 1944. That is a long time ago but those opinions are as relevant today as they were then when CIE was being conceived. It would be wrong to say that CIE had not fulfilled a very important role — they have. They fulfilled the role that Parliament gave them by the creation of a monopoly so that when they were out of business due to strikes or failure in industrial relations it was the country that suffered, the businessman, the factory owner and above all the ordinary citizen who requires public transport service. Parliament had not the wisdom at the time to see that. Probably this Parliament has not the wisdom to see it today but which is more important, provision of a public transport service or the creation of boards of directors, giving them powers and responsibilities and handing over to them tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money and saying that it is for a transport service which you must run but we will not interfere with your day to day working. Did Parliament really consider that it was in the interest of democracy and of those advocating private enterprise that it should hand over taxpayers' money to a number of people who have no responsibility to the House or the country as to how the money is spent on public transport? This House issued a blank cheque. We are now providing a further cheque in the spending of which we have no say no more than we have had as to how money was being spent since 1944.
Many Deputies, particularly from the west, appealed here to save the railways. Did their appeals not meet the deaf ears and blind eyes of faceless company directors? How long will Parliament or the people put up with what can be described as a disabled, semi-paralysed public transport service? This is not the fault of the workers employed therein. I can remember those who were actively concerned in all branches of the Great Southern Railway and those who enthusiastically took on the new tasks they faced with the birth of CIE. They included people like the late Mr. J.B. Martin who was responsible for the Dublin United Tramways Company at the time — I remember calling to see him many times when he had his office in O'Connell Street — and other early founders of CIE allegedly obtained from the Great Southern Railway. These were transport experts. They knew their job and they recruited staff to do a proper job. They had the interests at heart of the ordinary man and woman who required transport service.
Today little is thought of the person standing in the bus queue or of the place marked X where once stood a railway station and where once steel railway lines provided public transport. These rails were torn up in Ireland and sold to Europe, and today trains in Europe are moving over them hourly or half-hourly. Can anyone say this was not a blunder in regard to the public transport service? Yet those responsible for it came to this House and to various Ministers with responsibility for transport services and said, "We need money, more money and more and more money".
What control had this House over the expenditure of that money? That money was spent while this House sat idly by and allowed a group of people who did not have any responsibility to the House to bulldoze railway stations out of existence, pull up steel tracks and deprive our people, mainly those living in the west of Ireland, of a rail service. As a result those people were responsible afterwards for depriving many areas of full participation in industrial development. I can recall an incident many years ago — something similar happened within the last six months — and the details of it should be of interest to the Minister. I am referring to the discussions which took place when the Tullamore-Banagher branch line was being closed down and when the Birr-Roscrea line was being torn up. Public meetings were called throughout that area and CIE sent down one of their experts to inform the people of their decision. The expert sent to the meetings in Birr was the late Mr. Leslie Luke. When he was asked to give CIE's reason for closing down these lines depriving the people of Offaly and North Tipperary of a public transport service they enjoyed under native Governments and under a foreign Government, he said this was being done in the interests of efficiency and to exercise economies on the part of the State. He went on to promise that there would be a road transport service cheaper than CIE were then providing. It has transpired that some of the road freight charges from Tullamore to Dublin are the same as the transport cost from Shannon Airport to New York. Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that we have various organisations such as the local chamber of commerce, and business people making the case that the cost of transporting merchandise from the midlands to Dublin is on a par with the cost of transporting merchandise from here to the United States?
Business people are expected to put up with that situation. They do not have any say and can only rely on Members of Parliament to air their complaints and do something about them. It is our duty to do something about this matter because if we fail in our duty we must remember that a day of reckoning will come, perhaps not in this life. We take on a responsibility at election time to look after the interests of our people and surely we will have to give an account of our stewardship if we fail in that regard. Public representatives on all sides have failed to provide a proper, efficient and cheap transport system as was promised in this House by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce on the birth of CIE. People like the late Mr. Luke were let loose around the country to dismantle the services then in existence. The scripts they were given to read out at meetings have turned out to be false silence our people.
At one of the meetings I have referred to, which considered the CIE depot in Birr, it was clearly demonstrated to us that not alone would the depot be left in Birr as compensation for the dismantling of the Birr-Roscrea line but it would be developed, the staff would be increased and it would prove a greater asset to the town. We were told it would be a greater business asset than the railway from Birr to Roscrea, which was the only rail link to Dublin. How long did Mr. Luke's pledge and promise last? It lasted until recently when the transport depot was built in Athlone and another built in Thurles. In order to justify the depots at Athlone and Thurles CIE turned their attention to cutting down the services at Birr and held a threat over its future although that was part of an undertaking given as a gob-stopper, as a pacifier, as a silencer to the people of Birr some years ago. I am the only Member living who was present at those negotiations and I was happy in the past six months to be able to place those facts before CIE officials, who did not deny them. They gave an undertaking that for the time being nothing would happen in relation to the Birr depot but they have not fulfilled their promise to expand, extend and take on more workers at the Birr depot.
Would it not have been wiser to develop an existing depot rather than concentrating on the building of new depots at the expense of what was already in existence? I should like to warn the Minister for Transport and Power, as I have warned his predecessors — I hope this warning carries on to future Ministers in this post — that any attempt to close down the CIE depot in Birr will be resisted having regard to the history of that depot and the fact that the people in that area were cheated out of their railway station and cheated out of a transport service they enjoyed when the Birr-Roscrea line was in operation. We will also resist it because they brought up and put out of business a transport service provided by the Slieve Bloom Bus Company thus depriving the midlands completely of a proper transport service they had enjoyed down the years. If the Minister reads the history of CIE he will see that promises and pledges were broken when the monopoly was first created.
I should like to pay tribute to those involved in CIE whose fathers and grandfathers also worked in CIE in the forties and fifties and who were associated with the Great Southern Railway. They were men who were only interested in doing a job well. They were not interested in limiting hours. They were not interested in anything but serving the country and the people and providing this country with a good service. They did an excellent job. They were not too well treated by CIE either because when it was time for them to retire they were thrown on to the retirement scrap heap with what can be described as paltry pensions. How many times did I speak in this House about the manner in which CIE were squandering tens of thousands of pounds worth of taxpayers' money without consultation? Yet the older workers, those who were being retired, were given paltry gratuities and pensions which amounted to half-pence in comparison to the pounds of today. Ireland never experienced anything like the manner in which the old CIE workers were treated by CIE in relation to pensions. Where was this House to provide the money to give them their pensions at the end of the day? There were always excuses. There were always limits and prohibitions in relation to the CIE worker who gave his life in service and dedication to CIE. He deserved much better that the scale of pensions which was meted out to him.
I have great admiration and great respect for railway workers and CIE workers. But again there is a great danger. The gap is widening between the board of directors and the ordinary workers on the tracks, repairing the bridges and standing at the stations and on the buses. How are we going to close this gap? The industrial relations in CIE over the years have been disastrous. What has been done about it? Very little, if anything. I hope that during the period of office of the present Government an effort will be made to bridge the gap between the board of directors and the workers, the bus drivers, engine drivers, railway guards, station masters, cleaners, and porters. CIE could be a better employer if there was a better degree of understanding and reason on the part of the directors towards the less fortunate people who are doing all the work and trying to keep things moving while CIE divorce themselves from the real facts.
The people of Dublin city, Waterford and elsewhere are going to have to put up with a continuance of this disorder within the company until the company are brought to realise that they have a responsibility towards their workers. Above all they must realise that they have a responsibility to the public to provide a service as this House has authorised them to do. The directors of CIE are ignoring their responsibility to provide, as the late Deputy Lemass said, highly efficient and cheap transport. I recall questioning the late Deputy Lemass in this House when CIE were initiated. All he could see was a bright and pleasant future for everyone connected with CIE, particularly the country, the economy and the public. The public have suffered and are suffering. Private enterprise is gone in relation to transport and there appears to be complete chaos and disorder in relation to the administration of the company.
How many members of the public do we hear frequently complaining of the dirt in railway carriages and comparing them to trains on the Continent? Let anyone travel on the Brussels-Strasbourg train via Luxembourg — I am sure the Ceann Comhairle has travelled on that train — and nobody could deny that it is highly efficient and spotlessly clean. Have CIE completely thrown in the towel and given up the ghost in so far as keeping trains and buses clean is concerned? Have they cut down on the staff of cleaners? There are 130,000 unemployed people in Ireland. If we are going to give money to CIE we want to know how it is going to be spent. Why do they not increase the cleaning staff to give the people hygienic and clean transport on rail and road.
I am not happy with the extent of the road freight section of CIE, nor am I happy with the present situation regarding railway carriages. Vast numbers of new carriages are needed which can and should be manufactured here to provide work for those who need it. I hope and trust that there will never be any question of CIE being allowed to purchase wagons, coaches or railway carriages unless they are built, in so far as is humanly possible, by Irish labour in our own country. There is little use in our passing money to CIE to allow them to make purchases from abroad. That keeps overseas workers, who have no allegiance to this country and care nothing about it, in employment while our own people are walking around in need of and searching for work.
I hope the Minister will arrange an early meeting with the board of CIE who seem to have forgotten that there are people here. Parliament also fails to remember that there are people in the country. We speak of companies, State and semi-State, and we speak of wealth and riches and property and values. But all those pale into insignificance in comparison with the importance of the individual, the man and woman, the boy and girl, living here who are entitled to the services which CIE do not seem to be capable of providing. If CIE cannot provide the services, if they cannot hold the workers and pay them and if they cannot bridge the gap between workers and the boardroom at Kingsbridge, surely we have the right to say that must end. We have the right to insist on a return to sanity and common sense and to ensure that a transport service is available for the people.
We cannot expect the directors of CIE to do a somersault with regard to their policies unless this House, through the Minister, puts certain facts before them. Many of these people are living in cloud-cuckoo land; they have never experienced the hardship of paying very high freight charges, they have never had to wait in all kinds of weather without the benefit of shelter for bus and train services that are not punctual. With regard to the train service, the carriages and coaches are relics of the last century and they are not even kept clean. It appears to be the policy of CIE to save money at the expense of the ordinary people of the country. However, the people are asked to put their hands in their pockets and pay increased transport charges to CIE. The taxpayer is asked to pour money into the coffers of CIE irrespective of whether there will be any return for that money.
This cannot continue if there is not an efficient service available for the people. Such a service is not available at the moment and it is unlikely to become available unless drastic changes are made in the boardroom at Kingsbridge. One of the tasks of the Minister in that connection is to get rid of the nonsense and the false economies adopted by the CIE boardroom. That must be replaced by common sense, intelligence and some consideration for the public. In particular, the industrial sector must be considered. We are told frequently that CIE lose money on their services. Of course they do when they have a road service and a rail service competing with each other. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul but both Peter and Paul have to foot the bill.
The backbone of any country is its transport service. We have got only a skeleton service and what a maimed, poor service it is. I should like Members of this House to show concern about this problem. We should consider what are the basics of a real transport service. The problems that exist have been cloaked over. The files of complaints at Kingsbridge have been put away—they are covered in dust and cobwebs. It is about time something was done to provide the country with an efficient transport service. In 1943 or 1944 we were promised in good faith that such a service would be provided. However, faith without good works is useless. The faith was there but the works did not materialise.
I hope the Minister will bring together the directors of CIE and have serious consultations about the administration of the transport services. I hope he will consult with all interests involved with regard to private transport. It should be put on the line to CIE that if they cannot provide a service private transport should be allowed to give the people the service they need. That is a task the Minister should undertake and he should use the opportunity afforded him by this Bill to do something about the matter. He should also consult with the trade unions who represent the workers and he should take the steps necessary to bridge the gap between workers and management. That must be done if we are to have a healthy and sound transport service.
In some areas of the country CIE stupidly dismantled services and did not replace them. If private enterprise is prepared to take on that task they should be encouraged to do so. In addition, there should be a full investigation into road freight charges which are completely out of line. More people would avail of CIE services if they could get value for money. All CIE are concerned with are charges and raking in money. It would be the best transport service in Europe if they gave the same thought to providing road and rail services as they give to filling the coffers and tackling the ledgers in the boardroom at Kingsbrige. It is time for a change in public transport and that the man in the street was considered instead of letting him walk or thumb lifts.
It would not be right to compare the record of Great Southern Railways with that of CIE. We are living in a different time and age. However, they gave a better service. It would be far better to have a reasonable charge for carrying freight on the railway lines rather than by road. In most cases the roads are incapable of carrying heavy merchandise. Were there ever consultations between Ministers of Transport s to how this might be done? Have we the organisation or ability to handle it? Our roads are becoming like blasted country lanes. No road here could compare with any in Europe. Yet Eurotrucks with all their capacity travel on our roads.
What did we get from the EEC to develop transport services? What case was made to provide money for a highly efficient transport service here? We may have volumes of reports and typed memorandum but I doubt if we will get much money to help us give the people an efficient transport service. Can anyone deny that the people are entitled to such a service? They have been cheated out of it and denied it. CIE blindfoldedly decided to discontinue and dismantle services where they existed. I appeal to the Minister to take a new look at the record of CIE and if necessary introduce legislation to ensure that people get the road and rail service for which they have paid dearly. They are not getting value for money.
I make these points for the record having viewed with a certain amount of grave apprehension the activities of CIE in the past. Can we hope in 1981 that some steps will be taken either by private enterprise or CIE to give value and service to the public? Are we satisfied that the money that will be given to CIE will be put to good economic use or will it go down the drain as all the moneys that have been voted to CIE have since 1943? Some time somebody must say "halt". What we want is value, service, speed and efficiency. The businessman can no longer wait. Our roads are overcrowded. We must look at methods of transport. The position in Dublin is chaotic. We must have a look at the transport system from Bray to Balbriggan or Skerries. We must look at the central depots in Dublin. We must have a look at how, where, why and how much CIE have spent in rural Ireland. Then we must put that side by side with the destruction they carried out by closing branch lines. If such lines were in existence today they could be in operation. Let us say "amen" and endeavour to forget the blunders and mistakes of the past. Let the House seriously consider an entirely new look at transport here where we lack cheapness and efficiency.
I do not desire to be anything but courteous to CIE. Those who are doing business with them are entitled to a high degree of courtesy. Perhaps it exists but it is no harm to ask that it be extended in order to encourage business, that they express appreciation for current business and try to restore lost business. There are many items of general administration which need serious thought. I hope the House will be given an opportunity at a later stage to have further and fuller discussions in which all Members of the House can participate fully. Every Deputy must agree that an efficient transport service is desirable for his constituents and for the people in general.
