Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Dec 1981

Vol. 331 No. 9

Supplementary Estimates, 1981. - Vote 44: Transport.

Minister for Transport (Mr. Cooney)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £9,006,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1981, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Transport, including certain services administered by that Office.

The main feature of this Supplementary Estimate, the second for my Department this year, is the provision of an additional £11 million subvention for CIE. The previous Supplementary Estimate for my Department in July last provided £9 million additional subvention for CIE. Taking both of these Supplementary Estimates together with the original provision of £65 million, CIE will this year receive a total of £85 million in subvention. This will not be sufficient to meet in full the board's estimated deficit for 1981 but is the maximum that the Exchequer can provide at the present time. The board estimates that the deficit on subvention activities will amount to £92.53 million and the shortfall of £7.53 million will be met by temporary borrowings.

A major factor in the requirement for the increased subvention in the current year arises from the actions of the previous Government who fixed the original subvention provision at an unrealistically low level and, in addition, failed to approve the increases in CIE fares which had been sought from January 1981. Unforeseen increases in costs which arose in the course of the year also added to the deficit.

CIE's financial position is, to put it mildly, alarming. As Deputies are aware, CIE's situation is being reviewed in the light of the McKinsey Report and, as I recently informed the House, I intend to have this report debated in Dáil Éireann in the near future.

An additional sum of £611,000 is required to meet the extra cost of salaries, wages and allowances arising mainly from acceptance in February 1981 of the findings of the Civil Service Arbitration Board on claims for certain general service grades and also the settlement of other claims at conciliation.

Provision is made under subhead H of this Department's Vote for expenditure in connection with the provision, installation and maintenance of electronic equipment for civil aviation and the marine coast stations and for power supplies.

In order to maintain the safety and regularity of civil aviation and to continue to meet our international obligations, as well as improving maritime communications, it is planned to replace equipment and navigational aids at the State airports and marine coast stations. The allocation for 1981 for this work is £1 million but it is now expected that expenditure will reach £1,265,000.

Expenditure for 1981 arises mainly on the replacement of the approach radar at Dublin Airport and the message switching computer at Shannon Aeradio Station, Ballygirreen, and the provision of a maritime VHF pilot network scheme. A large proportion of the total expenditure will be recovered from airlines through communications and route charges.

Subhead P provides for grants towards the cost of providing regional and local air services. The grant in this instance is for the operation of the Dublin to Derry scheduled air service.

Appropriations-in-aid are now expected to yield £16,893,910, as compared with the original Estimate provision of £14,799,910. The surplus arises mainly in respect of recoupment from the Eurocontrol Organisation of en-route facilities cost and from a cost-sharing arrangement between this Department and the UK Civil Aviation Authority for a radar station.

The total amount of the increased expenditure is £11,950,000, but there is an offset of £850,000 in savings on other subheads and a surplus of £2,094,000 on appropriations-in-aid. Accordingly, the net amount required is £9,006,000.

I recommend the Supplementary Estimate to the House.

Mr. Reynolds

What the Minister has outlined in the Supplementary Estimate in regard to the amounts involved is, to a large extent, the same view which I held in dealing with this Estimate at the start of the year. It is significant to note that, apart altogether from CIE, there are savings on various subheads of £850,000 and additional expenditure of £950,000 which clearly illustrates the very detailed work which went into the preparation of this Estimate at the start of the year. I am surprised that the Minister has not outlined the various savings that were made and for what purpose. Perhaps he will get the opportunity before the time is up to give us some idea where they come from. I can only speculate on some of them.

In regard to CIE, the Minister takes the same view as I do, and this has been proved by the Government decision that the total allocation to CIE subvention this year will be £85 million. The Minister says that this will not be sufficient to meet in full the board's estimated deficit for 1981 but is the maximum that the Exchequer can afford at present. CIE are a major problem for the economy and in relation to budgetary estimates. When preparing this Estimate at the beginning of this year I took the view that it was time to signal to CIE that they would have to adopt a better approach and that there was a fundamental responsibility on them to effect some savings so as to correct the deficit.

I am on record as expressing appreciation of the fact that it is very difficult to gauge the success or otherwise of CIE management when their deficit is dealt with in this way. During my short time in the Department of Transport I said that CIE have a social content and that that social content should be identified, that a price should be put on it and it should be shown above the line in CIE's accounts so that this House or people outside it who would be scrutinising the performance of CIE would be able to see at a glance how the commercial management is faring in such a very large organisation.

The day has come — I have said this many times — when the blank cheques cannot any longer be handed out to CIE or other semi-State organisations. We cannot go on indefinitely paying out taxpayers' money. Indeed taxpayers are the first to say that they are not getting the services they are paying for. Generally, people do not mind paying for services if they feel they are getting value for money. In an attempt to set the ball rolling for CIE, as it were, when I was Minister for Transport we set a subvention figure of £65 million. I knew at that time, and I said it here, that savings would have to be effected by CIE in this year's operations. At that time, when looking at CIE's subvention figures for previous years, I found that something in the region of £4½ million or £5 million was due directly to industrial disputes.

Following that I had two meetings with the CIE union groups inside and outside Congress. I told them exactly what my views were and conveyed to them the concern of the Government and of all sides of this House that something would have to be done. I told them at those meetings that the Government of the day were looking for a contribution from management and from the workers to a joint effort to effect some savings in the years to come. The trade union group in CIE, inside and outside Congress, accepted that a new approach had to be taken in the whole operation. I pointed out to them the cost of industrial disputes in previous years and that the figure I mentioned earlier could be saved if all the unions involved and the management worked out a peace formula to which they would all be signatories in an effort to ensure there would not be any lightning or official strikes in the following year. I told them that in that way they could all make a decent contribution to reducing the deficit. I do not know how that policy has been proceeded with since I left the Department. I attempted to raise the matter during Question Time but I was ruled out of order. I attempted to ask two questions that would give me some information for my contribution here today but on those occasions as well I was ruled out of order, even though when I was Minister for Transport most of the questions in this respect were taken by me. However, I have made the point. I accept the ruling of the Chair on those occasions.

To get back to the subvention to CIE which is the main part of the Supplementary Estimate, I appreciate that in Dublin traffic conditions are chaotic. No matter who operates the Dublin city bus service he could not efficiently make the system work in present conditions. For that reason I took the first step to tackle this major problem. I took an immediate decision on the report of the Transport Consultative Commission. A Government decision was announced within seven days of its receipt to set up the Dublin Transportation Authority and give them all the functions they required to co-ordinate all the traffic and transport services throughout the larger city areas. I decided to have them taken out of other Departments and to put them under the aegis of the Department to which they rightly belong, the Department of Transport.

Unfortunately the legislation to do that has not come to the House yet. I recall the Minister saying he would introduce it early in the next session, and I should like now to express the hope that the Minister fully appreciates that in setting up the DTA he will have to give it the proper teeth they will need to do the job properly and effectively. I hope he will appreciate that certain functions will have to be transferred from the Department of the Environment, from CIE and from the Garda Síochána to the DTA to ensure that they will be able to do their work effectively.

I was disappointed at a reply to a question in the last few weeks that despite a pledge given in the Fine Gael general election campaign the Minister has not got proposals to transfer functions from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Transport. Obviously the right thinking was there before the general election but minds have changed since. If the Minister does not go the full road along which the setting up of the DTA was the first step, he should go part of the road and give teeth in legislation to the DTA. The functions in regard to Dublin traffic are dispersed too broadly between the Departments of the Environment, Labour and Justice and the Garda authorities and CIE. That wide dispersal of functions has contributed to the ineffective action taken in this area.

I look forward to the setting up of a proper Dublin Transportation Authority with the proper teeth and powers to ensure they will be able to do their job effectively to try to solve the Dublin traffic chaos. Bus lanes, which many people thought would not be effective, were introduced and have been successful. The task force did a magnificent job. Despite many obstacles put in their way, they kept going and introduced a pro gramme of bus lanes which are working. I was glad the Minister gave me an assurance in the last two weeks that he will keep under consideration the observance of these regulations. It is only in that way they will be effective and enable CIE to run their services on time.

In my opinion, when the DTA have been set up and are working effectively the public will turn to public transport, because if they can genuinely feel that they can get from A to B on time they will not be bringing their cars in to choke up the city: they will gladly move towards public transport and public transport will get the priority it deserves in Dublin so that we can have a better city. Otherwise this city will choke itself to death. We must remember the damage being done to the environment and to the atmosphere because of the amount of lead being poured into the air from all the cars being used excessively. We must also think of the high cost of energy. In such circumstances is it not good economic sense for any Government to promote fuller use of public transport, which is more efficient? As I have said, if the public feel that public transport is being run efficiently they will support it.

There is a major programme going on, the Howth to Bray railway line electrification, and that in itself will provide an opportunity to show the advantages of public transport to the people of those suburban areas who at the moment are not getting value in relation to comfort in travelling. We all recognise the fact that the carriages are not in a good state. Some people have described them as cattle wagons. I hope that when the new carriages and the new service come on stream they will make a significant contribution to taking more and more people off the roads and make a better contribution to CIE's finances in the years to come.

When that service is introduced, which we hope will be in 1983, we will be able to assess what contribution a further extension of the electrification services can make. In the tight economic situation which exists, and which everybody recognises, it is foolhardy to talk about a rapid rail system for Dublin. That will come in the future. An assessment can be made of the Howth-Bray line by the introduction of feeder buses and the provision of car parks at the stations. We will then be able to assess how far further down the line of electrification we should go. In the satellite towns which have been built up around the city it is time commuter services were introduced where there is an existing asset which is not used. I recognise that the carriages on that service are temporary for the moment. They will serve in the interim. It would be interesting to know how many people used that service in the bad weather conditions of the past couple of days. I am sure it will be used widely. It has been welcomed by all sections living on the western side of Dublin.

In my time I asked CIE to give me an estimate of the cost of serving Clondalkin and Tallaght with a rail service. Clondalkin has an existing rail network out to it which should be extended to Tallaght. That is the only sensible way of trying to bring that expanding population into the city. When the electrification service comes on stream a better assessment can be made of providing a commuter rail service. We all recognise that there is not enough money to do it now. We would all like to think there was enough money to do all the things we would like to do. The constraints are there. Nevertheless the Department of Transport have taken a considerable step forward in many areas which lay dormant for far too long and which should have been tackled many years ago.

The real problems of CIE developed in the seventies when more and more people bought their own cars which, I suppose, was a reflection of the rising standard of living. The taxpayers, the Government and people in this House are now asking how long more CIE can remain in their present situation. I had hoped that during this session we would have had an opportunity to debate the McKinsey Report. The longer this matter is left undebated and unresolved, the more of the taxpayers' money will go down the drain. It is time that as responsible politicians we came to grips with this difficult and complex problem. I accept that many submissions did not come in as early as expected. All the submissions are in now and it is time we got down to the complex problem of sorting out the affairs of CIE to see how we can make better use of public money. Perhaps in next year's Estimate the Minister will be able to put a figure on the social aspects of the CIE services.

It is quite clear from the Minister's statement that he and the Government take the same view as we did. Earlier this year we told CIE that we could not subvent the total amount they needed for their deficit. The Government said that approximately £7.5 million will have to be raised by borrowing. That is the same philosophy I expounded in my time. Until somebody grabs this problem by the throat, the reaction will be to try to produce some areas of possible savings which are very highly politically sensitive. Let us be honest and realistic about it.

I remember CIE saying to me that they would cut off the services to the North, at a time when discussions were going on about more and more economic co-operation between North and South. Surely that service should not have been cut off at that time. I asked CIE to reappraise all their bus services. I suggested there might have been areas with a frequency of bus services they did not require. I know they have been waiting for some years for new rolling stock. I was glad to announce a Government decision last April to start the construction of new carriages at Inchicore. The expertise is there to do the job, and the carriages are badly needed. My colleague Deputy Flynn will be only too anxious to see the new super train going to the west as soon as possible. It is a welcome new industry.

Mr. Flynn

If only we were still in the Department of Transport.

Mr. Sheehan

It might be like the west Cork line.

Mr. Reynolds

I will be interested to hear the views of Deputies on that side of the House of the Youghal line. I know the rows which were kicked up last year to restore the Youghal line. We will see what they can do about it themselves.

Mr. Flynn

There was a personalised attack against Deputy Reynolds.

Mr. Reynolds

I was coming in from Ringsend in the past three days and I noticed what I believed — and I am not a technically minded person — to be a new bus, not a Bombardier bus, on that route. Is there a new bus on test in that area and, if so, why? Is there a problem with the new double decker Bombardier bus? I am not aware of it I heard rumours recently. Would the Minister confirm whether there is a new bus on test on that route? It appeared to be a new type of bus.

I have heard accusations many times in this House about the lack of capital for CIE. I am glad that in my short time as Minister for Transport that accusation did not stand up. It has not been made by the Minister, but it was made by many of his cohorts. This year we provided capital to the tune of £49½ million for a new bus fleet, for electrification and for many other improvements on the railways.

I should like the Minister to tell us how he followed up the recommendations in relation to the Buttevant railway crash. Have the recommendations been implemented? If not, why not? Will they be implemented? If some of them are not to be implemented, the general public and the House should be made aware of why they will not be implemented.

The savings made under the various subheads were not detailed. I see there were savings on subhead O. Where are those savings? The Minister and I have a personal interest in an amount of approximately £200,000 which was included in a Supplementary Estimate last June for the further development of the Abbey-shrule air strip. If that money has not been spent this year, perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it will be spent next year.

I also recall a figure of approximately £150,000 for Farranfore Airport development to enable it to take its place in the network of regional airports which we were glad to initiate when we were in Government. They can contribute very usefully to the regional development policy we were pursuing.

As we all know, Farranfore serves an area which demands long journeys for executives to get either to our capital city or to export markets. I understood that, in consultation with a private air company, they would be very willing to provide a regular air service from Farranfore to Dublin at no cost to the Exchequer. I notice an additional amount here also for the air service to Derry, initiated in my time as Minister. I want to make it clear that while £1,000 was included under that subhead it was done deliberately for the reason that negotiations were proceeding with various companies and tenders had been invited for the operation of this service. Had the figure of the estimated cost of this been included in the Estimates it would be clearly seen from the debate in this House and outside operators would know exactly what we had in mind for its subsidisation. We all know that in a commercial situation — especially in regard to a figure coming from the Exchequer — that is the figure for which everybody will look. I am sure the Minister and his officials fully appreciate the reasons behind that. Everybody was aware of them at the time.

I come now to another figure included under subhead O in relation to the Connacht regional airport. My colleague, Deputy Flynn, will have an opportunity to add his words in support of this project. There has been a very sinister propaganda campaign to knock this project from day one. I accept that the Government of the day have every right to change their minds about any project to which they feel they are not committed or which should not be proceeded with. But they stand indicted on the sequence of events in relation to this project. On 15 September 1980 this project was approved in principle when no voices of objection or concern were raised, good, bad or indifferent. In the Estimates for 1981 a new subhead, Subhead O was created in the Department of Transport Estimates to provide for the initial expenditure on this project. Everybody will recall and accept that all the various planning had not been done at that point. A reasonable figure was put on the project because nobody really knew how far it would be advanced during the year. Subsequent events have illustrated that this project received early approval. Indeed on 2 May I announced the Government decision for a 6,000 foot runway at a cost of approximately £8 million — this part of it is very important — at 1980 prices, a factor that has been ignored by everybody, especially those who tried to present a wrong picture in relation to this project. I repeat, at 1980 prices, it was estimated to cost £8 million. It was obvious then that work was proceeding fairly quickly. Consequently a Supplementary Estimate was prepared of £2.2 million and the Government of which I was a Member approved that Supplementary Estimate. This Government, on their first day in business — and I sat on this side of the House watching — allowed that Supplementary Estimate pass through this House unanimously, not a single word being raised in objection to the expenditure of the £2.2 million.

We all know the promises and commitments made during an election campaign. I have already recognised that the government of the day always are entitled to change their minds. But, having waited until September until a spokesman was found to hoist the banner and flag against this project and to give out selective information — I say selective because that is what he used — to denigrate this project from day one is not good enough. The Minister himself did not take part in those deliberations but selective information and propaganda were used in relation to this project. Then we had the hatchet finally fall when the Government themselves admitted that £6 million had now been committed to the project. I ask this House: is it not wilful neglect and wastage of public money to have waited until Thursday evening last to decide that they were not now in favour of that project? Everybody was in favour of it earlier this year during the general election campaign, and if the government of the day had any misgivings about this project it was their responsibility to stop it before £6 million were spent.

I want to come now to the final scenario in this respect — the Government said that it can be left there to be continued perhaps at a later date. It is quite clear that the Government have abandoned this project. In so doing I want to ask them and get a direct answer: have they carried out an assessment of the money spent, have their technical advisers informed them that this project cannot be left in its present state because weather conditions will totally dissipate the gravel compounded on the site? Furthermore if at any stage in the future this project is to be taken up again it will have to be started practically from scratch, from day one. All of this means that one will wind up with a gross misuse of public money, no proper assessment having been carried out before the decision to call a halt. If that runway is not sealed against weather conditions my information, not alone from the technical advisers on the site but from independent technical advisers, is that it cannot be left in that state or else, as some pressman has said, it will be a runway to nowhere. In my view the Government stand indicted in relation to a project costing £6 million already. They must have had doubts in their minds despite the fact that they hung out a poor Minister for the Gaeltacht to dry time and time again by allowing him make public announcements. When he spoke undoubtedly he had to do so with full knowledge of the commitment to collective Cabinet responsibility. At the same time it entailed the wastage of £6 million of public money. I should like to hear an explanation. I know that Deputy Flynn will go into this in more detail.

The Department of Transport have a number of semi-State bodies under their control, one being Aer Lingus. I endeavoured to get a question on the Order Paper in relation to whether or not the Government had decided to take up more equity in Aer Lingus and, if so, what amount. Perhaps the Minister would avail of this opportunity to inform us whether the Government have reached such a decision. We are aware that legislation must be introduced to provide for more equity. We are reaching the end of the calendar year and, if such a decision has been taken, we have not any knowledge of it. We would be most interested to know. It is interesting to note that events following on the July budget demonstrate that the Department of Finance now accept — as has been confirmed by Paul Tansey, a commentator in The Irish Times— that £132 million did not constitute savings at all but rather were transferred for decision next year. I have held the view, and said here on the Financial debate, that the figures did not add up at all. Quite clearly they did not because the Department of Finance now accept — and one can read this in a contribution of Paul Tansey in The Irish Times— that those figures were transferred for decision to next year. That is the type of information being poured out from time to time. As time goes on the true facts of the situation emerge, and they are not as was represented back in June or July. The figures I have been asking to be quantified have never been quantified, and here is another one affecting the present situation.

We are aware that the B & I have experienced a difficult year. We are aware of the price war existing across the Irish Sea. I noticed recently that Sealink was going to be sold to another ferries operator. I wonder if the Minister followed up my earlier discussions with the then British Minister for Transport, Mr. Norman Fowler MP when I went over to London and expressed our interest in taking a share of Sealink if it were to come on the market. He was not then able to tell me what the Government might decide in relation to it. Perhaps the Minister would tell me if that move was followed up and if so, whether they decided that Sealink was of no further interest to us notwithstanding the fact that it is a vital link between Ireland and England. The fear is that if it goes into other hands our interests may not be fully protected. I have no doubt but that the B & I at the time would have been interested to have a stake in it. In that way they would be fully aware of what the future might hold in regard to these services or any changes to be made in them.

Irish Shipping Limited are an excellent semi-State body doing an excellent job worthy of compliment. I am glad to note that they have engaged in negotiations on the possibility of operating the P & O service, or the now non-existent P & O ferry service, from Belfast to Liverpool. I expressed that view some months ago. I hope they will be successful because it will demonstrate to the people in the North of Ireland that we are serious when we say we want to improve economic co-operation and economic links between the two parts of Ireland. As I said at the time, this was an area where the Government could demonstrate their good faith. I hope the negotiations are successful and that the Irish Shipping flag, run as it is always on sound commercial lines, will be able to take up the ferry service from Belfast to Liverpool. It would prove to the people in the North that we are serious when we say we will give them our economic co-operation in whatever way possible.

It has been a difficult year for tourist traffic and international travel. Nevertheless, I look forward to Aer Rianta having a successful year, much more successful than last year. Shannon Airport has been used as a reason for not proceeding with the Connacht regional airport. Everyone looks at the two years when the downturn came but nobody wants to do a decent analysis of the performance of Aer Rianta and Shannon Airport in the past 15 years.

Circumstances changed for Shannon Airport in 1978. I took steps, and I know the Minister will proceed on the same lines, to develop new sources of business for the airport. That is the way forward. The Aeroflot installation is proving even more successful than was originally thought and it will bring additional business. Other projects are in the pipeline and we hope they will be attracted to Shannon. I mention the Federal Express project which would be a boon to Shannon, and there is also the pre-clearance project. I know the Minister has had the report for some time on where the balance of advantage lies, with Aer Lingus and Aer Rianta naturally making their own arguments in relation to the US Customs pre-clearance project. I do not know what is in the report. Perhaps there is a valid reason for the Minister not to disclose what is in it but it is my view that we are entitled to know. That project would be a major boost to the economic development of Shannon and would bring it back to the good old days when it did solid business which some people apparently now want to forget. We know of the faint-hearted people who were around when Shannon Airport was first being considered. At the time it was said by people of the same philosophy who knocked the Connacht regional airport that "it will be a rabbit park for Rineanna". When one considers what has happened in the past 20 or 30 years, can anyone say these people were right in their criticism? If we had not men of courage to take such decisions, there would not have been any development at Shannon or in the mid-west region. If the Minister has the courage to take the same action with regard to the Connacht regional airport, in 20 years time he will be seen to have made the right decision. Our approach has always been that the Connacht regional airport would be an instrument of regional development that would bring better communications to the area. We all know that there will not be a proper road network in the west in our time because the hundreds of millions of pounds necessary for such infrastructure will not be available. The spending of £12 million would have been a morale boost to business people in the west.

I refer the Minister to the NESC Report No. 59 which drew attention to this fact. As a result of a field test, it emerged that one of the greatest obstacles was for executives to get to the international export markets as quickly as possible. They put that factor on a par with good telecommunications. In the past two weeks the EEC Commission warned the Government that they should be very selective in their cuts in public expenditure and not to have such cuts that would hinder the development of the less well-off regions. The decision last Thursday night flies in the face of the warnings of the EEC Commission——

Mr. Cooney

The EEC will be very interested to hear that they have been quoted as being in favour of Knock airport.

Mr. Reynolds

That was contained in the submissions to the recent London Summit. Will the Minister state if any application has been made to the Regional Fund for money in respect of the Connacht regional airport? It is not Knock airport, as Deputies on the opposite side would like to label it. The only reason it was called Knock airport is that it is situated near that shrine, which is our only international Marian shrine. That is an added bonus. I wonder if the people who denigrate this project visited Lourdes 20 years ago? Do they realise that 5 or 10 per cent of the traffic going to Lourdes would make this airport viable? Have we no confidence in our ability to market this airport and attract 50,000 passengers per year, which is small when one considers the pilgrimage traffic. What we need in this country are builders, not the demolition squad. We need people who will take courageous decisions to help us out of our problems which are shared by many other countries.

We have responsibility in this House to make decisions not only for today but for the future. That is what the Government were elected to do. I hope they will see the folly of their way regarding their decision on the Connacht regional airport and that they will protect the investment already made before it is destroyed by the weather. If they do not reverse their decision it will be the hallmark of a bad decision. I do not know if that decision was taken in vengeance or to suit the whims of certain individuals in the Government.

Slide-rule economics will not solve the problems of our economy, and decisions based on such economics without regard to the repercussions will not help us. When economists put forward the data on which they base their decisions, the effect of such decisions should also be considered. The next 12 months will show that many of the decisions taken at the whim of the economists will be to the detriment of this small economy. Our economy needs help and nourishment to get through difficult times. Are we to apply the same policies that have been seen to fail across the water and that are seen to be failing in America? The director of the budget there resigned only in the last couple of weeks because he saw it was going in the wrong direction.

That is my contribution to the Supplementary Estimate. It is clear there is no difference of opinion between us, that the major factor in this Estimate was more subvention to CIE. The Government are not giving them the full amount needed to pay for the full subvention. I did not give it to them either because, like the present Minister and Government, I believed that the time had come to stop the blank cheque. An effort has to be made to effect savings in this area but we cannot deal with it in isolation. We need a debate on the McKinsey Report and on the Transport Consultancy Commission Report — they are interlinked — in solving this complex problem of our transport needs of today. That is the only way to approach it. I hope the Minister will take the very earliest opportunity in the next session to allow us to debate the matter in this House and let us know where we are going. It is interesting to know by the savings that could be effected that this Estimate was not gerrymandered, as many people labelled it earlier. It was done properly and effectively.

Finally, a Supplementary Estimate was introduced in this House for £9 million for CIE last June. Contrary to what spokesmen on that side said, that we decided that we would not give CIE a fare price increase because a general election was looming, the Minister is aware that we decided in May, not in June, not to give them an increase. The increase was sought from the beginning of the year. I personally was opposed to giving them that increase. I took that stand at the Cabinet table because I did not believe that was the time to increase CIE fares when their bad buses were breaking down — not through their fault but because the buses had outrun their usefulness. That was not the time for a good commercial approach to a situation where we wanted to attract more people back to public transport. Furthermore, when the Government were putting their anti-inflation programme together I was able to convince them that this area would contribute to the reduction of inflation and, that that was the right decision at the right time. The Chairman and General Manager of CIE were informed personally by me — and I regretted to hear them make statements in public that we did not give them a fare increase — in the Minister's office——

Mr. Cooney

It has not been made up to them.

Mr. Reynolds

——that they would be recouped for the fare increase which they did not get, but Deputy Kelly tried to make the best political capital out of that when trying to say that we would not grant them a price increase. I do not do business behind doors. I do it out in the open and I will be the man to admit anything out in the open in the House or anywhere else. I resent that sort of cheap political propaganda and their attempt to twist around the situation as they did with the ESB also.

Acting Chairman (Mr. J. Ryan)

I was told Deputy Flynn was offering.

Mr. S. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Are we not rotated?

Acting Chairman

The Ceann Comhairle on leaving here told me that the next Deputy offering was Deputy Flynn.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): My understanding is that the speakers were rotated. It is only reasonable that this side of the House should have their say.

Acting Chairman

I accept that, Deputy Barrett. Sorry, Deputy Flynn. There is rotation.

Mr. Flynn

That has not been the practice here.

Acting Chairman

The five minutes are going to be wasted on this.

Mr. Flynn

You understand why it is being wasted. It is being wasted deliberately so that I will not have an opportunity to bring to the notice of the House the serious situation that has been created.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): That is an unfair statement.

Mr. Flynn

This matter was raised with the Ceann Comhairle and the Ceann Comhairle——

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Flynn

I am on my feet. At least allow me to make my point.

Acting Chairman

I want to clarify the situation. At 12.55 p.m. I came in as Acting Chairman and the Ceann Comhairle told me that the next Deputy offering was Deputy Flynn.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): At that time.

Acting Chairman

At that stage, Deputy Barrett. You were not here. I am only carrying on the work of the Ceann Comhairle. I am only Acting Chairman and the Ceann Comhairle on leaving here said that the next Deputy offering was Deputy Flynn.

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): Are you allowing him to speak?

Acting Chairman

I must, or the Ceann Comhairle when he comes back will find that Deputy Flynn has not spoken after he had told me who was next.

Mr. McMahon

On a point of order, we had this situation last week and I was involved in it. The argument has gone on since then. I raised it on the Order of Business here on Tuesday with the Ceann Comhairle and I was asked to discuss it with his office. The Ceann Comhairle informed me that each Chairman was his own man and the Ceann Comhairle was not responsible for decisions of the Chairman at the time, whatever decisions were made in this House. I accepted that and took up my case then with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle who was involved in a similar argument last Thursday evening. I was informed yesterday evening that private arrangements cannot be accepted by the Chair.

Acting Chairman

It was not a private arrangement.

Mr. Reynolds

It was not a private arrangement. Do not waste time.

Acting Chairman

The Ceann Comhairle's last words to me on leaving the Chair were "The next man offering to speak is Deputy Flynn". I have been sitting here for half-an-hour and if Deputy McMahon wants to delay for another five minutes in that half-hour——

(Interruptions.)

Acting Chairman

I am only the Acting Chairman.

Mr. Flynn

On a point of order, Acting Chairman, I had to bring to your attention that I was offering and had indicated my willingness to contribute to this debate and was accepted by the Chair. Nobody else in the House indicated willingness to contribute. It has been arranged deliberately by the Government Party to deny me the opportunity of making a case on behalf of people who are being shown up as not being cared for by this administration.

Mr. Cooney

Why does the Deputy not put down a Private Members' motion?

Mr. Flynn

It is a bit too much to expect——

Mr. McMahon

I made my point.

Mr. Flynn

They are going to keep this up obviously until 1.30 and there is no point in your waiting for the Ceann Comhairle because he will not be down here before 1.30. I have every intention after my contribution of giving the Minister for Transport an opportunity to reply to allegations I have made here over the last two days. Now it has been arranged deliberately that I will not get an opportunity——

Acting Chairman

Unless there is agreement here for the three minutes I am going to adjourn the debate and accept this as being passed.

Mr. McMahon

Deputies have a right to be heard in the House and we are not going to be silenced.

Acting Chairman

When I came here at one o'clock Deputy McMahon was not here. I took over the duties of Chairman and I was told by the Ceann Comhairle who was offering next. Irrespective of what party is involved I will accept the Ceann Comhairle's advice.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Cooney

On a point of order I understand that under order of the House it is provided that Deputies are called in rotation from each side and between different parties. When the Ceann Comhairle left you a note that Deputy Flynn was next to speak nobody on this side was offering and Deputy Flynn would appear to have been the next Member offering in accordance with the order because there was nobody on this side. Because somebody on this side has now come in, in accordance with the order of the House that obviously must supersede the fact that the Deputy from the other side was offering. To comply with the order of the House the rotation provided for in Standing Orders will have to be supported on that point.

Mr. Flynn

That is not the agreement. Over the last week Deputy McMahon has deliberately contrived to bring the Chair into some dispute and even though he was asked to take the matter up with the Ceann Comhairle's office, obviously he is going to keep up this badgering. There was a calculated insult to the people of the west of Ireland which I am going to redress here and no opportunity has been given to me to do that. The Ceann Comhairle is being put in an invidious position whereby his rulings are not being adhered to by Deputy McMahon on a continuing basis in this House. It is a shame that Deputy McMahon should carry on in this fashion. Deputy Barrett was brought in—

Mr. Barrett

(Dún Laoghaire): I was not brought in. I was going to talk about the west of Ireland.

Mr. Flynn

——as the hatchet man of the west because there was nobody else there to do it. Of course, the Minister of State who started the whole business has now appeared on the Front Bench. No doubt he will have some collection of documents to offer as an excuse for this hatchet work on the people of the west of Ireland. The people of the west of Ireland have decided that this matter will not rest here. We are going to get an opportunity to voice our opinion so that this calculated insult will be withdrawn.

Acting Chairman

There is one minute left on the Estimate.

Mr. Flynn

On a point of order, you made a ruling. Are you going to stand over your ruling?

Acting Chairman

I was told by the Ceann Comhairle that the next Deputy offering was Deputy Flynn and that there were no Deputies from that side of the House offering.

Mr. Flynn

Thank you. Are you going to call on me?

Acting Chairman

I have called on you, but there is confusion.

Mr. Flynn

I would ask you to send for the Ceann Comhairle.

Acting Chairman

The time has expired. It is half past one. I am now putting the question.

Mr. Flynn

It is not half past one. Is the Chair going to abide by the rules of the House and ask Deputy McMahon to leave the House?

Mr. McMahon

Am I not entitled to speak?

Mr. Flynn

Certainly, but the Chair called me and the Deputy deliberately tried to prevent me speaking.

Acting Chairman

On the Order of Business this morning it was decided that the Supplementary Estimates would conclude at half past one. It is now half past one.

Mr. Flynn

The Chair is not abiding by the rules of the House and it is regrettable that Deputy McMahon can interrupt and prevent people getting their rights. The matter will not rest here you can be sure.

Vote put and agreed to.