Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Dec 1983

Vol. 346 No. 7

Transport Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. R. Bruton

Before the adjournment of the debate I expressed concern that the growth in the subvention to CIE had emerged not so much as an explicit social subsidy decided by the Government for worthy transport services but rather due to a decline in passenger numbers of the various modes of transport provided by the company. This is a worrying feature particularly at a time when the public have to face fare increases five per cent higher than the inflation rate.

I also questioned the Minister's response to the problem of the CIE deficit in establishing a global subsidy that would not take account of the different types of service, not all of which deserved equal treatment in terms of taxpayers' subsidies. I was concerned about this global subsidy because I believe it is the Government, not CIE, who should decide which parts of the transport organisation should attract subsidies. If social needs are identified by Government it is only right that the Government make sure that the subsidies go to that social need. I felt that ultimately decisions about fares and major changes in services would be forced into the political arena and we could not hope to leave them to be decided non-politically by CIE. There is a role for Government in deciding such issues of policy as McKinsey and the NESC pointed out. The essence of the McKinsey or any other proposal for structural reform within CIE involves not a single global approach to the various types of transport service provided, but rather a separate approach setting different targets for each and deciding subventions should they be necessary separately. While the global approach adopted by the Minister is admirable in that it is providing a framework within which CIE should work, I would be anxious if this were envisaged as a permanent structure for CIE's financing. The Minister must take on himself much more refined instruments for setting policy for public transport.

I was asking the new executive chairman of CIE, Mr. Paul Conlon, when he takes up office, to look in particular at the service levels provided for patrons of the Dublin city bus service. The lack of any market analysis as to which passengers are using the service, what market penetration he would have with school-goers, working wives or working women, has prevented CIE coming up with the proper response to the needs of passengers and it is urgent that he address himself to getting that type of knowledge.

A review of routes and the frequency of Dublin city buses is long overdue considering the changes in population and the car owning patterns in the city. There has been a lack of attention to Dublin city buses within CIE. There is a lack of promotion effort to encourage travellers to use the city buses while a well known loss-maker for CIE, namely, the rail service, has been substantially advertised by CIE. Following a review of the service being provided, the frequencies and the type of people who are using the buses, the real task for CIE will be to provide a more flexible service to attract passengers. The fare structure is one area where very definite changes could be made. With the one-man buses coming on stream and the likelihood that CIE will have smaller and more reliable buses, it is important that this opportunity be taken to provide for greater flexibility in the service. The idea of expressway limited stop services from major centres to the suburbs and greater feeder services into either such expressways or the suburban rail should be pursued and CIE should look for greater flexibility in providing for the occasional market. To date, CIE have not been able to change schedules to expand in a certain area where there might be a sudden pressure of demand, such as people wishing to go to the beaches on a sunny summer's day. That flexibility should be sought within work practices in CIE.

Having said what CIE could do themselves, I believe the time has come for a totally new approach to Dublin city transport. If we are to provide a decent bus service in the city, it is essential that it be sensitive to passenger needs, but we must go even further. We must bring the public into the picture to a greater extent. That means detailing exactly what services and routes are losing money. We need closer public involvement both through their elected representatives and at community level on the disbursement of the taxpayers' subvention to various services and in looking at other options that could be pursued in order to cut losses without seriously damaging the passenger service. That dimension of bringing the public into the picture has been sadly lacking.

If we are to put Dublin city transport on the right road the Government must give a clear direction in regard to what they will pay for and what they will expect in return. Action should be taken on traffic management improvements, which have not yet been taken up by the task force. I am convinced that the way to do this is to bring about devolution in the running of the Dublin city bus service. There has been a widely expressed commitment from all sides of this House to devolving government towards the community, local groups and locally elected representatives. The Dublin city bus services provide us with a unique opportunity to do just that.

The responsibility for Dublin city bus services and the suburban rail should be handed over to the local authorities. They should be given a block grant from Government funds and given a clear mandate to do two things: to improve passenger services and usage and to use the grant to top-up socially worthy services that would be losing money if they were decided purely on commercial grounds. There are enormous advantages in using Dublin Corporation, Dublin County Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council to do this. For a start, it would force attention on public needs in a way that has not been the case with a semi-State board responsible and reporting to the Department of Transport.

Mr. Wilson

Why not wait for the Dublin Transport Authority?

Mr. R. Bruton

We do not have to wait for them.

Mr. Wilson

Cracked.

Mr. R. Bruton

The function of this debate is to provide new ideas in regard to what we can do.

Mr. Wilson

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but what he is suggesting is so crazy I had to intervene.

Mr. R. Bruton

The Deputy will find that members of his own party have gone on record as supporting that idea.

Mr. Wilson

They are crazy too.

Mr. R. Bruton

That may be, but let us wait and see. It has advantages not only because it directs attention to public needs but it gives the Government an opportunity to set clear operational targets for Dublin city buses, demanding that passenger utilisation be maximised subject to the Government's subvention be it £22 million or £25 million. The figure of £22 million would be the figure for this year. I presume some increase would be in order there. It would avoid the Department of Transport embroiling itself in the detailed route by route review. I am not saying that is unnecessary. It is very necessary, but under such a scheme that job would devolve down to locally elected representatives and an executive similar to Dublin Corporation.

Local authorities will be able to take up not only with the users but also with CIE as the provider of the service the various options that are there. It would be very desirable that it should be an elected group such as the existing local authorities who would undertake frequent route reviews and look at the options, such as the one-man bus, as a way of reducing costs and improving services. I would not rule out the possibility of using private contractors where CIE find services uneconomic. There is plenty of scope for mini-bus services in Dublin, supported from public funds, services CIE cannot consider taking on. Such a group would consist of the local authorities if they were given this responsibility since they would be able to look at wider and more flexible services.

As Deputy Wilson said, the transport consultative commission proposed the Dublin Transport Authority which would integrate the various roles, particularly the local authorities, CIE and the gardaí, as well as the two Departments, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport, but I do not see the necessity for going to a new body necessarily to undertake this task. After all the local authorities have already taken on considerable responsibility in the area of transport since they have responsibility for roads and for traffic management.

Mr. Wilson

Would they look after DTA? That is the point.

Mr. R. Bruton

I am not suggesting that is necessarily the best way, but there is the possibility that we do have an existing local government structure where we have an elected group directly answerable to passenger users. In many other jurisdictions the task of running public transport has been part of the local corporation. That would be the system in London. There is nothing revolutionary in that. I believe the local authority is the logical place for such responsibility to lie. If, in the event of local authority reform, we move towards the two-tier system which recognises there are some tasks within Dublin that have to be approached jointly by all three authorities, and that is brought in local government reform, such a structure would be all the more appropriate for handling transport. If we have to bring three or four authorities together, as envisaged by the transport consultative commission in the DTA proposal, obviously that would be more unrealistic than if we moved towards a single local authority acting for the whole of the city which would naturally take up a role like transport as one of the natural things of which they would take control.

There was a reference to the Howth-Bray line. The Minister set up a permanent committee to look at capital proposals coming forward from CIE and monitor their programme. That is to be welcomed. The Minister provided an explanation of the apparent over-run but, whatever about that, there are places where big mistakes have been made in the public sector because of the absence of just such a committee. I would ask the Minister to go a step further and bring the Oireachtas Semi-State Committee in on any new capital proposals. The public and Deputies should be given an opportunity of looking at the assumptions underlying such large-scale proposals. There would be a clear responsibility on the proposers to defend publicly their schemes. That would be a worthwhile step.

There is then the social side of transport. I refer to the school transport scheme and the free travel scheme which was set up in 1967. At that time it was confined to the over seventies and social welfare recipients. Quite a small number was involved. It has expanded considerably over the years and now covers about three times what was originally envisaged at about 380,000. We must ask ourselves whether this is an appropriate scheme in its present form. It costs about £53 for every passenger carried. I doubt if we have any real information on utilisation. We do not know as to whether it is the low income groups who are getting the benefit. The Department of Social Welfare should carry out some research into this. I doubt if the less well-off are taking a significant number of visits up and down the country whereas the better-off would have greater opportunities for such travel. I doubt if the greater part of the benefit is going to the most needy, and a question mark must be raised as to whether a direct cash payment restricted to a smaller number, to social welfare recipients and old age pensioners, to the extent of £2 per week extra, would not be a better use of funds. A sum of £20 million is a very big subvention.

The school transport system also needs to be examined. It costs almost £250 per pupil. There is a very low utilisation of the buses involved; 2,500 buses carry about 116,000 pupils. Of these buses 900 are State-owned. Compared with the 900 buses in Dublin city transport that is a frighteningly low utilisation of school transport carrying about 25 million passengers while Dublin city buses carry 160 million. These schemes are now coming up for replacement. The comprehensive programme on public spending says about 800 buses will have to be replaced before 1990 and 200 in the next year. That will involve us in very heavy expenditure if we continue the service as it exists. Greater flexibility will have to be introduced into the use of these buses. Various recommendations have been made by all three of McKinsey witnesses on the Oireachtas Committee of Semi-State bodies to integrate the service with provincial and rural buses. This is a suggestion that should be pursued vigorously by the Minister and CIE.

I welcome the Minister's move, for the first time I believe, to take the initiative in giving CIE a clear framework in which to move. I should like him to refine it considerably before we can say we have established a proper transport policy for the various public transport services.

Mr. De Rossa

CIE are a much maligned body. Possibly they come second to TDs. They are certainly the most maligned of the State companies. This has arisen from the belief that public transport can make a profit. It is interesting to note that the Chairman of CIE who is leaving his post at the end of the year went on record a number of years ago as saying it was his belief that CIE should concentrate on providing a social service, a non-profit making service, and that anything which could make a profit should be allowed to go into the private area. In other words, CIE should concentrate solely on the non-profit making services. To my mind and to the minds of most people, that is a recipe for disaster, a recipe for breaking up completely the national transport system.

Economists from whom we hear a great deal about CIE argue that there is no reason why many of the services should not be run by private enterprise. When you examine what services are being talked about and what services should be handed over to private enterprise, you find they are not proposing that the rail services should be handed over to private enterprise, or that a regular bus service from Dublin to some small town should be handed over. They argue that services which could make a profit at peak hours in Dublin city should be handed over. This shows the contradiction between what private enterprise want to do and what a national transport operation should do.

Private enterprises are interested in providing services which will make money. The national transport company should be in the business of providing a service which covers the country as a whole and which moves people and goods as effectively and as efficiently as possible. Many rural areas have a right to a transport service to get people to and from different parts of the country. Owners of factories in remote parts of the country have the right to a reasonably priced transport service to get the goods they manufacture to the market for sale. Obviously there is a conflict of interest between a private enterprise transport service and a national transport service.

Government policy on the national transport company cannot be separated from their policy in other areas. This comes out clearly in discussions on the question of the rapid rail system which CIE are proposing to provide and part of which they hope to provide in the spring. The national transport company are proposing to provide a fairly comprehensive and sophisticated rapid rail system in the city. At the same time, Government policy appears to be aimed at developing a detailed and expensive system of roads in and around and through Dublin city. There is a conflict of interest there. If we are serious about having an effective transport system to move people and goods, public transport is the best system. If it is Government policy to build dual carriageways in and around the city of Dublin, they are encouraging the development of private transport at the same time. There is a conflict of interest between what the Government are proposing in relation to roads and public transport.

Given the present financial stringency it is clear that the road proposals for Dublin city are not moving ahead as fast as many engineers and others would like them to move. There should be a moratorium on the development of further roads and the road plans which are in existence in the Dublin city area until the Government sort out exactly what their priorities are in relation to transport for the Dublin region.

The social function of public transport must be kept in mind when we are discussing whether private transport or public transport should be developed. It can be argued that private cars are owned by a large proportion of the population. Even if a family can afford to run a car, only one member of the family can use it to go to work or to go to town. Normally that leaves the wife — or perhaps the husband in some cases — the children, old people and disabled people without the use of a car and dependent on public transport. CIE have failed to cater for that market. I referred already to the policy of the chairman and his philosophy on public transport. Previous Governments failed to accept the fact that there is a necessity for a rational development of the transport system. It is not good enough to say to the company every year: "Regardless of how much money you need to develop the transport system, this is all you are getting and you will have to make the best of it."

In discussing the question of private versus public transport, the social costs of one as against the other must be considered. I am thinking particularly in terms of the Dublin area and the fact that fairly large areas of Dublin city have been made derelict by a policy of road development planned perhaps for 20, 25 or 30 years ahead. This has laid to waste large areas of the city. Here and there we find stretches of wide roadway stuck between narrow thoroughfares. The buildings along these narrow stretches are usually derelict, and generally the corporation have plans to widen these roads and provide dual carriageways as soon as the money is available. The social cost in terms of the communities which are destroyed by such policies can be far out-weighed if proper public transport is provided. Buses and the proposed rapid rail system would reduce the need for private transport.

This is not confined only to the centre city area. In recent years a dual carriageway was built in the Finglas area, part of my own constituency, and it was driven right through the centre of Finglas village, effectively cutting the area in half and creating two communities in Finglas East and Finglas West, joined by a footbridge across the dual carriageway. Practically all the facilities are on one side of the dual carriageway and there are virtually none on the other. Road development has a social cost, and this should be weighed against calls for greater privatisation of transportation.

Deputy Wilson mentioned the provision by CIE of buses across the Border for people who wish to benefit from the cheaper prices. He criticised CIE for providing this service because they are a subsidised State company. I am somewhat dubious about such criticism, because we are told that CIE must respond to the market demand, yet when they do so they are told they should not spend money in this way because they are subsidising people who wish to spend their money outside the State. If we were to extend this logic, we would criticise Aer Lingus for ferrying people to Spain to spend money on their holidays. We could also criticise B & I for ferrying people across the water to Great Britain. We should consider that until CIE responded the demand was being met by private bus owners. I have yet to hear anybody call on the private bus owners to refuse to accept the contracts to ferry people across the Border.

Mr. Wilson

I challenged the cost — whether it was economical or not. It is crazy.

Mr. De Rossa

One could spend the whole day discussing how to arrive at an economic cost for running a bus across the Border.

Mr. Wilson

It costs a person £4.50.

Mr. De Rossa

In the case of private bus owners, we could discuss whether their buses are roadworthy and whether they are paying proper wages.

Mr. Wilson

They are dearer.

Mr. De Rossa

Many different matters would have to be examined in order to compare one with the other. There is also the question of whether CIE have a responsibility to provide a transport service to people who require the transport, for whatever reason. The revenue might be used to meet the cost of their overheads and they would be using more fully the assets available to them rather than leaving them idle.

Mr. Wilson

It is crazy.

Mr. De Rossa

I am convinced that the low morale among CIE staff results from constant attacks made on CIE by people who, in many cases, have a vested interest in ensuring that the more profitable parts of CIE are hived off. There is also the matter of the pensions payable to staff who have been in receipt of wages. I understand that some men who spent up to 30 years working for CIE are receiving pensions in the region of £16 per week. That is deplorable.

There is a grave need for an adequate insurance scheme to cover bus crews in Dublin who may be injured during the course of their work. Bus services in a number of Dublin suburbs are restricted because of fears by crews that they may be injured after certain times at night. One of their strongest arguments is that if they are injured, perhaps permanently, there is no adequate compensation for them or their families.

The question of bus fares should be examined, particularly in the Dublin area and during off-peak periods when buses run from terminus to terminus with very few passengers on board. They could be collecting some money from people who walk or take the car when it might be more convenient to them to take the bus.

The route structure in Dublin must also be examined. Huge working-class suburbs have developed during the past ten years and family connections can range from Kilbarrack to Blanchardstown and Tallaght and right around the city. In order to travel from, say, Ballymun to Tallaght people must get two buses. Even to get to Blanchardstown they must go into the city centre and get another bus. Some serious thought should be given to the creation of circular routes. There is a 17A bus travelling from Kilbarrack to Finglas, and I know there are physical problems in relation to the roads from Finglas to Blanchardstown. Proposals to extend that service and make it more frequent should be examined. I regularly meet people who are thumbing lifts while waiting for the 17A bus because there is such a long gap between buses.

A Dublin Transport Authority is essential, and the sooner it is introduced the more likely we are to have an efficient service in the Dublin area. I do not agree that Dublin Corporation could cope with the problem of providing an adequate transport service. The city boundary is far too confined. Half of my constituency is inside the city boundary and half is outside. The corporation have experienced untold problems in attempting to run a bus service outside their own jurisdiction. Other problems have been experienced by local authorities in this regard, which I have not time to mention now.

I ask the Minister to indicate if progress is being made on the Heuston to Tallaght rapid rail link. Is he planning to go ahead with that? Because of the large population in the Tallaght area, at present 90,000 but a planned 100,000, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to those people who need this service and are not getting it at present.

Mr. Kenny

The Minister's speech introduces a note of realism, on the one hand, in relation to Córas Iompair Éireann and a note of hypothesis on the other. He speaks of the inevitability of change and says that the unwise alone will seek to resist when the wise will seek to fashion it. He speaks of putting a halt to the gallop of the growing deficit of CIE.

Mr. Wilson

A stylish bit of writing, that.

Mr. Kenny

He speaks of curbing meetings of deputations, of handing over the reins of power to the chief executive officer and of having met all the various interested groups in his 12 months as Minister. I congratulate him on his realism. He has struck a new note, not employing the old cliches generally used about semi-State bodies. For that he is to be congratulated.

That CIE are now deemed to be providing a social service to the order of one-third of their expenditure should be recognised by everybody. The Minister makes us aware that a 12 per cent reduction must take place within the next five years and the consequences of that reduction will be very serious for some areas. I wonder what the actions of the newly appointed chief executive officer will be, when he comes to grapple with that problem.

Much criticism has been levelled against the Howth-Bray electrification scheme, much of which has come from the deputies from the west. Coming to understand the reason for the decisions arrived at makes one aware of how flimsy the operation of Government is in determining decisions which account for vast sums of money. The Minister indicates that the original decision was to grant assist by the method of non-repayable grants. A few short weeks later, the Government decision was changed to put it on a capital loan basis. Having gone through the motions, CIE were faced with an enormous financial problem, the consequences of which are now very obvious.

While I do not wish to complain about the Howth-Bray electrification scheme we should learn a lesson, as a Parliament, from this type of decision.

Mr. Wilson

A good, sound decision.

Mr. Kenny

Other facilities are provided throughout the country by the same method. There is no point in complaining about them because they are in existence and we must use the talents and expertise available to us to make the best possible financial use of these services. I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to set up a committee which will review expenditure in this area. There is no point in continuing along the old road of hypothetical, Utopian dreams of a wonderful transport service employing everybody and providing every possible facility, without taking cognisance of the cost and who has to pay in the final analysis.

There is no point in making decisions like that of the Howth-Bray line and similar operations in the future. We should learn our lesson and get our priorities right.

Mr. Wilson

It was an excellent decision.

Mr. Kenny

In fairness, if electricity is to be one of our cheaper sources of energy within the next 30 to 40 years, and if the carriages and equipment to be used on that Howth-Bray line are long lasting, it might turn out to be a cheaper investment over a longer term. From that point of view, it might have been a wise decision, but we are not in a position to judge that as yet.

The Minister refers to the appointment of the new chief executive officer for CIE. He has given due credit to the outgoing officer, Mr. Devlin, while welcoming the appointment of the new CEO. When this officer — who is an accountant, I understand — comes to grapple with a 12 per cent reduction over the next five years, I trust that he will understand the social nature of the service provided by CIE. CIE at present are strangled by administration. Many of their problems have arisen from the regionalisation of management back in the early sixties. The growth in the number of their administration offices leaves a lot to be desired. The work which was being done efficiently by a small number of skilled people at that time is now being carried out by an enormous number with a much smaller workload. This has added to the bureaucracy within CIE and to the strangulation of the efficient service which CIE should be providing.

With regard to the competition for CIE which has arisen in recent times from private firms, the numbers of young people who travel to the west and south every weekend from this city are phenomenal. For various reasons, social and otherwise, people travel the length and breadth of the country every weekend. On certain days from my own town at least four fully laden buses leave for Dublin, with a return same day fare of £7.50 or £8. CIE charge for the same return journey £21 by train. In a time of recession when young people might not have the finance available, they will certainly use a cheaper form of transport when it is available. While in no way running down the system, CIE naturally enough regard these people as being the equivalent of the pirate radio stations. They question the legality of the fares charged, the low cost of labour, the lack of maintenance and many other things. They question whether these services are within the terms and realm of the law. It is fair to say that CIE have recently begun to advertise reduced fares on particular days for travel to Dublin. It is also fair to say that, from statistics compiled by the various station masters throughout the country, the numbers who travel by train when fares are reduced have trebled. If that is any indication of the direction in which CIE should be going, it should be examined very seriously.

Recently, on a Tuesday, I travelled by train to Dublin. At one of the smaller stations on the western line there were 92 people on the train. Two of those were CIE employees, four were schoolboys, 36 were pensioners, and 50 were fare-paying passengers. On that morning, at least three buses had left my town fully laden with passengers, not to mention the numbers who would leave from other towns and cities in the west by buses which would take returning working people and shoppers coming from Dublin. If CIE are to attract back people to their mainline services, they must do something about the quality of the services and, naturally, about the level of the fare. The stark fact is that when they have advertised reduced fares the public have availed of these. That is a lesson in itself.

CIE have been maligned in many cases, as other Deputies have already said, by those who might have a narrow, subjective, or vested interest from a particular point of view and much of the criticism is neither relevant nor fair. If Mr. Conlon in his new role is to effectively bring about a 12 per cent reduction over five years does that mean a high level of cut-backs in staff? There have not been any great recruitment campaigns in CIE in the last six years. As time goes on the existing staff get older. If there are not any further recruitment campaigns Mr. Conlon will be left with a structure within his employment which will be in the upper bracket. I assume that when he takes up his very onerous task he will grapple with this problem in an open fashion which will allow us to understand where his trend of thought lies. As an accountant he will probably bring a change of emphasis to the running of CIE, as the company up to this were run by engineers and people of that qualification.

I am a little bit anxious about the Minister saying that he does not want to receive any further deputations about CIE. It is quite in order for a Minister to say that, but if there are to be cut-backs in staff and in the service, railway stations and so forth there will have to be political considerations. I trust the Minister will bear in mind that the voice of the people has to be projected through the public representatives in this forum, from whatever side of the House we come from.

When I was elected to this House approximately eight years ago I raised questions about the quality of the service to the west. The answers to those questions were inevitably that CIE would provide new carriages, they would pack the line, they would have a monorail all the way down and the carriages to be provided would be air conditioned. The carriages at the moment are air conditioned to an extreme degeee. It would be in Mr. Conlon's interest, before he takes up his new position, if he took a trip on a Friday evening on the western train incognito and saw for himself the efficient method of the air conditioning. I know of people who have travelled to Dublin for orthopaedic operations who were meant to go to a particular hospital in Dublin but on arrival at Heuston Station had to go into Dr. Stevens Hospital because of the damage to the pins and plaster caused by the shaking of the line.

Mr. Wilson

A chip off the old block.

Mr. Kenny

To drink even a cup of tea demands skill from an old age pensioner or very young person because it continues to wave in front of one. If Sally O'Brien were to walk the length of a carriage you would not have time to notice the way she might look at you. As Senator Lyons used to recite in his own inimitable fashion, the train that left tomorrow or the hell train would be an apt description at times for the western train line. When my colleague Deputy Flynn was Minister he introduced shortly before a general election the supertrain. That train still travels on a Sunday morning and comes back on a Sunday evening. While it does not provide the service on a general basis the people who avail of the service on Sunday deserve that level of comfort and it might attract them to travel by train in future.

The quality of the service to the west leaves a lot to be desired. The level of fares must be looked at if CIE are to get back passengers on their trains. The Minister referred to the development of the new carriages and their quality. I would like him to indicate when he expects they will come into service. He says they will come into operation early in 1984. Would he let us know on what lines those carriages will be used? Will they be used on the southern line or the northern line, because the quality of service on those lines is quite high? The worst carriages and the worst facilities are left to the boys on the Atlantic.

The Minister said that we are now approaching the anniversary of his appointment. May I congratulate him and wish him many years in a ministry, either this one or some other ministry. He says he spoke to the inland transport people, users, outside experts, academics and commentators. He did not say if he spoke to the plate layers, the people who walk the line every day checking to see if the nuts and bolts are held in position for the trains to pass over, the store keepers or the people who walk about the different railway stations throughout the country. I believe if the Minister or any of his officials went down the country to any station and spoke to any of the ordinary CIE workers they might get much more commonsense suggestions than they would get in many cases from commentators, academics or experts. Experts are ten a penny and they float in and float out by the dozen. Many of their suggestions are simply not worth hearing at all. It would also be in the interest of the new chief executive officer to at least hear the voice of the ordinary worker in CIE, the man down on the line, because such a person hears on the grapevine what should be done. An expert might put nice phraseology on it, but direct talk in a time of recession, when CIE are in the state they are in, is very necessary and the viewpoint of everybody should be taken into account. Probably the Minister has done that.

School transport and the old age pensioners' scheme have been mentioned. We had debates on the school transport problem in this House and the Minister of State indicated that it will take a vast sum of money to replace the existing school bus fleet owned by CIE. That problem will take a lot of sorting out. It must be said, in fairness to CIE, that they are one of the few administrative bodies who have the capacity to implement, however inefficiently, a school transport scheme taking into account the complexity of school catchment areas, school boundary areas and all that type of thing. They have acquitted themselves reasonably well in that area. The suggestion made about private bus owners taking on pilot schemes is very worthy. If they can provide a service up to the same standards and with proper insurance they should be given a chance.

The question of old age pensioners using the facility in the proper manner has been raised. Many retired people, who in many cases have a high income, use CIE transport for business or social contacts. I am anxious that many of the pensioners who have not the facility to travel to a pick-up point or a public service point never have the opportunity to avail of the free transport they are entitled to. Some old age pensioners have to travel very long distances to hospitals for medical check-ups and they have to get taxis at very high cost when they are not near any public transport pick-up point. I am not suggesting that the scheme be terminated, but many pensioners who use the free transport scheme could afford to pay for this transport, and I am making the point that some of the pensioners who qualify for the free transport scheme never have the opportunity to avail of it. That should be borne in mind.

I believe the Minister has faced up to his position realistically. The section of the McKinsey Report on railway stations, whether to keep them, reduce them, expand them or close them, will have to be grappled with by the new executive chairman. Many railway stations are a distance from local towns and if they are to be closed an alternative efficient service will have to be provided. We all know that people will not avail of water schemes until the pipes are laid in front of their homes and the same applies to alternative bus services. It is not enough to say that an alternative service will be provided by express buses because it may not work out. The only time a congratulatory programme was done about CIE was during the petrol strike when the bus service was run efficiently. The moral of that story is that if an efficient public transport service was provided it would be used by the public. Dublin City traffic is strangled with cars and it is impossible for CIE to operate an efficient service even with the advantage of bus lanes. Cars are parked at angles in those lanes at all times.

Mr. Wilson

Put them to jail; put them away.

Mr. Kenny

In many cases the express bus service would not provide as good a service as that provided by mainline rail if it was operated efficiently. One can carry more passengers and freight per hour by rail than on any other transport system. Private transport companies are cutting each other's throats and going into business and closing down daily to the detriment of CIE and our roads are in a dangerous condition due to the increase in the number of articulated trucks using them. Those factors should help to make rail transport more popular with passengers and those moving freight. The new executive chairman of the company should bear that in mind when he takes up office. In fact he might consider putting the title Córas Iompair Éireann in abeyance for some time and call it Consider Improving Efficiency or Conlon Investigates Everything.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

I welcome the Bill but I was disappointed that the usual Explanatory Memorandum was not circulated with it. Its absence leaves me at a disadvantage.

Mr. Wilson

I forgot to complain about that.

Mr. E. O'Keeffe

In congratulating the new executive chairman on his appointment I should like to add that I do not envy him his task. It appears that the Government are intent on cutting back but I would like to see the public transport service strengthened. Our people will endure a lot more hardship if the Government continue with their policy of cutbacks. The major problem with CIE is that there is too much bureaucracy and red tape. That must be eliminated and the new executive chairman should educate his executives to get rid of that. We are all aware of the inconvenience that is caused to passengers and those using the rail freight system because of red tape. That will have to be eliminated if the company is to win the goodwill of the public.

Our transport system is the most heavily subsidised aspect of our economy. One matter that causes me great concern is the deplorable state of some of our railway stations and derelict lines. Many of them have been unused for years and are shabby. CIE should embark on a programme to improve those unsightly scenes. Many unsightly stations and derelict lines can be seen on the Cork-Dublin line. I suggest that the youth employment scheme be considered when a programme of improvement is being prepared. The Minister, the overall boss of CIE, should insist on improvements being carried out in that area. The CIE rail service is excellent but much of the rolling stock is in a bad state of repair. It is ramshackle, it cracks and creaks and the carriages do not join properly. That is a source of danger to the many people who use the trains. We are fortunate that we have not had more accidents as a result of that. We must correct that speedily.

There has been a serious cutback in the service from Cobh to Cork. The shortage of rolling stock has caused grave inconvenience to those who commute between Cork and Cobh, one of the country's busiest commuter services. The Cork area has been allowed to deteriorate. Many of the workers at Cork dockyard use the Cobh line and so also do Army personnel and school children who attend at the Cork colleges. The Minister should request CIE to restore the service to what is was some years ago. Many people have to wait for a long time in wind and rain because there is a bad return service to Cobh. I accept that a bus leaves Cork at 9.45 p.m. but that is not satisfactory. The problem would be solved if more rolling stock was made available. It is the Minister's duty to insist on the public being treated properly. Fota Island is a major amenity in the Cork region with about 100,000 people visiting it annually. There must be a proper transport service to that area.

Children from Cobh travel to Cork for post-primary and third level education but they suffer a lot of inconvenience because of the lack of a proper public transport service. This is a source of great embarrassment to all public representatives. I appeal to the Minister to do everything possible to improve this. Extra stock should be provided because of the importance of the area.

I welcome the Bill. I congratulate the new executive chairman. I do not envy him his job. It will be a difficult task. But I should not like to see him use the same guillotine methods he did in Nítrigin Eireann Teoranta bringing hardship on many of the people employed and the public.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

It is clear from what the Minister said outlining the present financial position of CIE that there is need for a radical change in the whole of their operations. Obviously one's viewpoint will vary as to how such change will be effected. For example, one's viewpoint will be coloured by one's job, profession or otherwise. There will be one point of view from an accountant who would probably feel that some services should or must be eliminated. One will have another viewpoint if speaking as a Deputy with experience of the urban bus or rail service, and another looking at it from the rural point of view, taking into account how our mainline rail services operate at present and the bus services between our towns and cities and their cost. Obviously any such decisions will, of necessity be difficult ones.

As the Minister aptly said, we must ask ourselves if we can afford a given service. It must be remembered that there is a duty on the part of the State and on any public transport authority to provide certain areas with transport so that the public can get from one place to another in the fastest possible time at the most competitive price. But the fact of the matter is that a certain amount of the expense involved will necessarily lead to a loss-making situation, particularly when one considers that, say, a rural bus service vying between two towns, perhaps with a driver and a few passengers, will involve certain expense a couple of times a day. In such circumstances one will readily see that a taxi would have been a lot cheaper on the same individuals.

In 1969 there was a deficit in CIE of approximately £3.2 million which has increased at an enormous rate until 1982 when it was approximately then £109 million. At the end of each of those years inevitably the Government were asked for more money by way of subsidy. Inevitably also it transpired that in the long run it was the taxpayer who virtually wrote the cheque for such subsidy. In many areas this led to a certain attitude to the various services. I do not intend to criticise any one aspect or any particular individual because everybody is involved in the fact that the services have not been satisfactory. Certain aspects overall must be applied to any type of service but, above all, it must be and be seen to be a reliable service. It must be the type of service the public know exists, can be used and at a reasonable cost.

For far too long it has been a haphazard type of service not operated on any basic commercial lines. For example, at present weekenders going home to, say, Cork city pay a return fare of £18.50 while, at the same time, a commercial bus company can offer a £10 return fare. We must ask why this is so, why it takes nearly double the amount to return by train. Another aspect of that matter is that if by any chance one gets a lift down on a Friday afternoon, with a view to coming back to Dublin by train after the weekend that single fare will cost one no less than £24.

It is hoped that these radical changes may be announced at the time of takeover by the new chairman. But we must ask ourselves what exactly do the public want and what can we afford. There is no doubt but that some savings can be effected and that some services could be improved enormously, provided the public know such service can be availed of.

The electrification of the Howth-Bray line has been mentioned. It would appear this will cost a great deal more than was envisaged, rising from something like £46 million to the latest estimate of approximately £114 million. But the decision should be welcomed in principle. If it proves to be a reliable commuter network service within the city and its environs it will have unlimited possibilities but only if properly operated. Most of us who have visited other cities are aware that commuters from outlying areas leave their vehicles on the fringes of those cities and use the public transport services provided where there is a reliable service. But here, with buses so unreliable, anybody who has to be in a certain place at a certain time will suffer enormous frustration; they may get into Dublin some time in the morning but do not know when they will get home again. If the hoped-for passenger usage of a possible 80,000 by 1987 transpires it will bring enormous benefits to Dublin city, in regard to car owners avoiding the bumper to bumper rush hour traffic, five days a week, and the fact that parking within the city will be confined to the commercial type vehicle or to people who travel at awkward hours and must use their cars at all times. It will be vital that, when this service is initiated it is seen to be reliable, and receives the necessary public response, with increased parking charges on the fringes. With the constant increases in the price of petrol and the general running costs of motor cars I think people will respond to such rail service knowing they will have a comfortable journey in and out of the city with the added advantage of many stations sited along the route.

It will be important also that the new chairman examines the various aspects of our mainline rail services and ascertains why they are failing. Another matter which must be examined is that of the whole area of industrial relations. Much too often we have seen the public affected by individuals who take the law into their hands, placing pickets on a bus or railway station, thereby ensuring that no transport can operate in the city. This results in many people being caused inconvenience, discomfort, people either not getting to work or getting there late with resultant work losses.

Debate adjourned.