Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 18 Nov 1986

Vol. 369 No. 11

Transport (Re-organisation of Córas lompair Éireann) Bill, 1986 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Any Bill that is designed to improve services to the public is a welcome Bill. This Bill is intended to streamline CIE to make the company profitable or, should I say, less costly to the taxpayer and more efficient. With these aims I concur fully. However, I do not agree with some of the detail of the Bill.

Since their establishment on 1 January 1945 CIE have served the country well. Without their existence many of the rural areas would have been cut off because no private enterprise would have operated a transport system at a loss. In 1963 the "pacemaker" report stated that in a demand sector services can be provided at a satisfactory profit and in a need sector services cannot be provided at a satisfactory profit but that this lack of profit does not necessarily define the need sector. That report went on to state that public transport which caters for the need sector cannot recover the costs from the demand sector and so must be subsidised. Twenty three years later the need for subsidisation is still necessary. I would like to see the need sector defined in detail, as the Minister said, to make it transparent, not for the purpose of weeding out the need sectors or of closing them down but for the purpose of identifying public accountability. In this day and age of computers and computerisation the information necessary to do that should be accessible. It is important that Members of this House are given full and detailed information in relation to the expenditure of moneys collected from the tax paying public.

The Minister stated that under new measures introduced in June 1983 the Government devised a new basis for determining the CIE subvention which now limits it effectively to one-third of the board's expenditure. This is not the complete picture because the subvention the Minister spoke of excludes payments made to CIE for the use of school buses, for travel by old age pensioners, for travel by members of the Defence Forces and of the old IRA. These categories are paid for by the relevant Departments and the payments are treated as ordinary receipts by CIE. For the purpose of full disclosure of the social element those payments mentioned above should be identified and included with the subvention. Such identification would enable a judgment to be made on the economic performance of CIE.

Cross-subsidisation is an important issue because of the imbalances in our society, not least of which is the geographical issue. Most services are financed, to one extent or another, on the principle of cross-subsidisation. For example, posting a letter from Dublin to Dún Laoghaire costs the same as posting a letter from Dublin to Ballydehob, even though the costs incurred differ considerably. There is an acceptance of cross-subsidisation in most services. There is no reason the same should not apply to the transport field.

From the results of CIE over many years, the scope for cross-subsidisation was just not there. But there is a market where a profit should be attainable because the customers are there. That market is in the Dublin or the greater Dublin area where one-third of the population live. It is up to management to devise systems and organise themselves to ensure that they get the passengers they should get — and the passengers are there to be got if the proper service were given to them.

Since 1980 the number of people travelling by public transport in Dublin has dropped from 175 million in 1980 to 137 million up to 2 November 1985. That is a disturbing trend and will require a great effort on the part of management and staff to reverse it. However, the ratio between the operating expenditure and customer receipts has improved from 1.23 to 1.21 from 1984 to 1985, and I look forward to seeing the figures for 1986 to see if the trend of improvement here is continuing.

One of the new companies is to be named Dublin Bus. Dublin City Services has operated autonomously over the years and the problems of reorganising it into a separate company should not be as great as those facing the reorganisation of the railway company and the provincial bus company. Despite this the unions say that it will take up to two years to get Dublin City Services transferred and reorganised and working efficiently under the new company. If this is true the problems to be faced in reorganising the national bus company and the rail company would take a considerably longer period to sort out. Maybe it would be wise to delay their break up to allow difficulties experienced in the reorganisation of the Dublin City Services to be assessed.

From discussions which I have had with employees of CIE down the country, I gather they are not too favourable towards the break up of the National Bus Company and the rail company. Having studied submissions I feel it would be better if we did not split the rail side from the provincial bus services.

Road passenger services feed into mainline rail services and vice versa, and this co-ordination was one of the company's principal attractions. There are many examples of district managers, clerical, supervisory and operative staff attached to rail who have a direct involvement in road passenger services, and it is also a fact that in quite a number of provincial locations, control points, booking offices and other office accommodation and equipment are shared by road passenger and rail operative staff on the same premises.

In addition to the above, the same situation exists in relation to existing maintenance services provided by various provincial garages, and the division of all these services may cause great problems. Fear has been expressed with regard to the break up as to the effect of competition between rail and road. Besides the internal difficulties already mentioned, empire builders or gloryseekers in one or other of the new companies could lead to the demise of the other.

The Minister states that the parent board will adjudicate between rail and bus in the event of differences, but this would defeat the purpose of the Bill as I believe there will be many differences and the board will be continually involved in sorting out these differences. The purpose of the Bill, maximisation of profit and efficiency, will be neglected by the board whose main function is, after all, comparing and reviewing general policy and organising finances.

With possible duplication of services it is difficult to see how the new organisation would not result in raising instead of reducing the costs for the companies. I would like the Minister to explain how outright competition between the two companies will not damage one or other of the companies. It is very difficult to comprehend how two organisations that have worked together and are then put at each others' throats will not damage one another. The fear and suspicion of the workers is that the rail company will be damaged. According to the Green Paper published in October 1985, the Government decided to retain the railways in the medium term and said that the breathing space provided by this decision would allow time to consider whether the existing railway network should be retained in the long term, whether retention should be on the basis of a reduced railway network or whether it should eventually be closed down and that the retention of a railway network would be dependent on continuing support from the Exchequer, and that the trade off between the costs and benefits of these alternative strategies was a matter which it was hoped the publication of that Green Paper would cause to be debated further.

The White Paper is not out yet but from that statement the staff in the railway company are worried, and I do not blame them. There are 6,800 people employed in the rail section. From what I have been told the Transport Salaried Staff Association, representing mostly management, would find no great difficulty in dealing with the two companies rather than with three, that is, a joint rail and provincial bus service on the one hand and the city service on the other hand. I would like to hear the Minister's comments, as it seems the Minister is the only one favouring three companies. The unions also hold that two companies would be the most sensible approach in the reorganisation of CIE.

At present there is a need for the renewal of the school bus fleet. It is most important to do something on this level as many of the buses carrying the children are draughty and not in a fit condition to carry children in. Great concern has been expressed about the condition of the bus fleets throughout the country. There is need for renewal of the school bus fleet, and this is very important. Perhaps the Minister will tell us if he has any plans to re-activate the business of bus building here — I refer not only to school buses but those in general use as well as those for tours. It would be of benefit to the country if the Minister would organise and set up a company to produce buses. Another field in which production would be useful is the training of apprentices. Many young apprentices got training in CIE during the years and that was of great benefit to the company. I hope that under the new regime this role will be continued by CIE.

The capital invested in the new coaches for the inter city trains and the continuous welded rail for smoother riding on trains have made a tremendous contribution to the reputation of CIE and I have no doubt this will ensure increased numbers of happy customers. I am glad also to know that rail safety has been further improved by the extension of train radio to the total locomotive fleet and the installation of a continuous automatic warning system throughout the whole of the area covered by the new electronic central traffic system operated from Connolly Station. This has been extended over a large area of the national network.

In the financial summary on page 3 of CIE's Annual Report for 1985 we find that the profit/deficit position changed dramatically between 1981 and 1985. In 1981 there was a deficit of £9.45 million, in 1982, £13.423 million, 1983, £20.622 million, 1984, £.004 million, and in 1985 there was a profit of £6.79 million. Of course, we should not allow ourselves to jump over the moon in ecstasy over the 1985 figure because there was an extraordinary item of £3 million in Government grant and exchange rate benefits. Despite that, the 1985 trend is encouraging.

On page 10 of the report we see comparisons of ratios vis-à-vis operating expenditure and customer receipts. The ratio has improved from 1:43 in 1984 to 1:39 in 1985. A similar trend is noticeable in all sections — there has been an improvement in the operating expenditure compared with customer receipts. It is good to see this and I sincerely hope it will continue.

The Minister's argument that because we will have smaller units of management industrial relation will be better and more efficient does not hold up, particularly because there will be new competition. He has not given any basis for his argument. Difficulties might be caused because there is bound to be cross competition between the railways and the provincial bus services. It may take a long time to sort out the problems between those two companies if the Minister goes ahead with his present plans to break up CIE. The Minister should change his mind and keep the rail and provincial bus services under one roof. The Minister does not know whether the result of breaking up will be better services than at the moment. The real competition for CIE is from private motorists and coach owners who have forced a rethink on marketing in CIE. The Minister should tell us if he intends to introduce legislation with regard to private coach people. Each weekend coaches carrying young people from Dublin to the four corners of Ireland are evident by the score. Even during weekdays private coaches are bringing people to and from Dublin at cheap fares. They may have made CIE more competitive and I hope CIE will be able to fight them, but not at the expense of the Exchequer.

I cannot understand why the three companies being set up by the Bill will be subject to the Companies Act, yet still be under the control of the CIE board, a statutory company. I should like the Minister to explain in detail the reason for this. Even though he has tried to set people's minds at ease in regard to possible liquidation, that it will be up to the holding company to liquidate and that none of the three companies could engage in voluntary liquidation, what would be the position if the creditors tried to liquidate one of the companies? Will the Minister explain the implications of that?

Why did the Minister not consider it feasible to reorganise CIE under a two-tier system and why should there not have been internal reorganisation? In his opening speech the Minister did not clarify any of these matters. He did not explain why three companies under a holding company should be the way in future for CIE? Why did the Minister rule out other proposals before him?

I am glad to note that great progress has been made in the road freight sector. That service for many years had not been a successful operation for CIE but there has been a turn about in the past few years. I am sure the new managements in CIE will put new spirit into the company. Such a spirit was evident in the 1985 report. I hope that anything the Minister will do will not deter that progress. Going on his record, the Minister has not got a Midas touch and I hope he will keep his hands off CIE in future.

It is not often we get an opportunity under the Standing Orders of this House to discuss semi-State bodies. Dáil questions on the matter are disallowed and I appreciate that. In this debate people and the Minister especially have tended to focus on the nuts and bolts of CIE without looking at the facts and the historical reality that ever since 1945 our whole transport policy has been based on propping up CIE, ensuring that they are protected by having a monopoly and refusing people in the private sector licences to haul and draw for charge because that might infringe on the position of CIE.

I should like in this debate to touch on many issues. The first I want to put firmly on the record is that CIE have lost more money than any other semi-State company in the history of the State. Their record in that is second to none. Above or below the line they have had an historical problem. Second, the remarkable turning round in the fortunes of CIE since the arrival of Paul Conlon must be seen to be believed. He deserves enormous credit in this House not only for his work in NET but also for his remarkable achievement in the turnaround in CIE's balance sheet, as Deputy Ahern said. Apart from the hiccough of 1983 when they had a loss of £20 million he has moved from a loss of £10 million to a profit of £6.7 million.

However, at times like this when we are talking about breaking up into three companies one must examine and scrutinise closely what is happening in relation to the balance sheet and to cross-subsidisation between different companies and the apportioning of capital assets to the different companies. Perhaps the Minister when replying on Second Stage will tell us how the assets are to be apportioned in each direction and how liabilities are to be apportioned in the deficit carry-over to each of the three companies in terms of total borrowings to date. The policy in relation to CIE for the seventies was a disastrous failure and between the social cost and the economic loss over 12 years it succeeded in losing something in the region of £1 billion, which is remarkable by any standards.

I should like to turn to one aspect which represented a major possibility of turning round transport policy, the McKinsey report of 1979. Apart from what it had to say about the railways it was an excellent report. It went off the rails on the railway, but some of the things that McKinsey set out are enshrined in this legislation and their origins can clearly be traced back to McKinsey who recommended the disestablishment of the current CIE structure into three companies along the lines now proposed. One thing McKinsey said that is forgotten is that policy functions relating to national roads infrastructure and service functions should be in the Department of Communications. That has been completely lost sight of. Also, some of the pivotal and central role of the Department of Communications in relation to all public transport matters has been delegated to the board of CIE. More especially, the way McKinsey represented his report was in terms of the needs of the people who utilise the transport sector. Now we are talking in terms of the transport sector being an end in itself.

The most important aspect of transport in relation to freight is that haulage costs represent 10 per cent of total production costs. The average speed of rural traffic on the Continent is 44 mph and in Ireland it is 22 mph. McKinsey tried to put all of this in context and laid down clear areas where sectors of CIE should go into the private sector. McKinsey suggested that portions of CIE's rural bus services and freight services should be undertaken by the private transport sector. The consultants argued that the dominant role of CIE which has been enshrined in legislation and the extent of the board's autonomy were no longer appropriate given the greatly diminished share of the transport market which is now served by CIE and in particular the reduced role of the railway. I am quoting from a much maligned document The Way Forward which was produced by the last Government, not for what it says about CIE but in terms of stating the facts of what McKinsey said. All of that is lost sight of in relation to the development of our transport policy.

The Minister said in his speech that reference to privatisation was simply a red herring in the debate. I disagree with that. He has too narrow a view of the issues at stake here. I ask him, and more especially I ask the board of CIE who are pragmatic and commercial enough, to reduce CIE's borrowings by entering into new joint ventures. This can be done with the three new companies proposed under the auspices of the parent company CIE. I envisage joint ventures in such areas as looking at uneconomic routes. Let CIE specify the uneconomic routes and see if they can do business with private operations to supply the services. A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you come from a rural constituency as I do. Very often I talk to third level students and people working in Dublin who come home for weekends and invariably they say at one time or another that they find that private operators who are giving a service home are cheaper and have their buses full while CIE often have more buses empty and charge twice as much. Essentially the rigidity and inflexibility in CIE are difficult to deal with because of the company's sheer size. I welcome the proposals here for breaking the company into three companies, but there are new possibilities that the Government might not have the resources in terms of sanctioning new capital expenditure for CIE where joint ventures could play a role.

We must realise there is not a constituency where private bus operators are not running buses for bingo or for one private need or another and the capital investment tied up in those buses is often under-utilised. Similarly the capital investment in CIE buses is under-utilised. Surely there is common ground for CIE to enter into joint ventures — not entering into further borrowing, not incurring further deficits, not having the huge liabilities they have to face — to work together with the private sector.

Another element of privatisation surely relates to school transport. I see no reason why CIE should be involved in this especially when, outside the urban areas of Dublin, Cork and so on, the majority of school transport facilities are provided by private contractors. The Department of Education should enter directly into negotiations and I do not see why CIE should have a role in it.

I turn to industrial relations in CIE. A matter of public interest is the ridicule as demonstrated in the many jokes we have heard in relation to the reliability or otherwise of CIE. I am taking on board the point that over the past few years there has been a very rapid improvement in CIE's performance. In regard to industrial relations, the record shows that in 1983 there were 31 stoppages, in 1984 there were 15 stoppages and in 1985 there were nine stoppages. That is a significant improvement especially bearing in mind that in 1985 only two of the nine stoppages were for over a period of one day. What is absolutely extraordinary is that in 1985 just when things were getting better there were 2,343 meetings between unions and employer management representatives and rights commissioners. By any standards that is an extraordinary level of hours tied up in something unproductive, which does not improve either the service to the public or the financial performance of CIE. I do not apportion blame more to one side that the other but it is extraordinary that we had so many meetings in one year on industrial relations and I hope that something can be done about it.

From time to time Dublin Deputies have come into the House asking for Army involvement at times of friction. A way in which we could improve industrial relations which has been successfully tried in the UK is to try employee share-holding in the three new public limited companies. CIE employees should have an opportunity to buy shares in the company and in that way they would be more committed to their work. The Government have embarked on a policy of equity capital raising of funds through the business expansion scheme and through other means in the private sector, so I do not see why transport should be any different. I am concerned at the level of meetings taking place in relation to industrial disputes and this will have to be improved in the future.

The railways are very important for a number of reasons. If the Government spend of the order of £505 million between 1984 and 1987 on a national roads programme, that gives some insight into what a greater utilisation of the railways could mean in economic terms. If there is less wear and tear on the roads and less expenditure in maintaining and improving the national primary route network, a greater argument could be made for the railways, leaving aside social issues. In 1984 the deficit on the railways was £1.8 million. This had improved to £0.3 million in 1985. In 1984 customer receipts under the railways was £56.8 million and in 1985 it was £62.4 million. Not only do we have an improvement in sales throughout and greater occupancy of seats and profitability but an interesting study carried out by the Leeds University Research Unit between 1971 and 1981 showed that there had been a 60 per cent increase in the productivity of the railways and that in 1981 our railways were more efficient than the railway networks in the UK, France and Germany. That is a striking finding.

The railways have been much maligned because they have never been marketed properly on the basis of attracting customers with cheaper fares as has been done on the buses. If for instance one wanted to take a return ticket to Dublin from Enniscorthy by rail or by bus one invariably finds the bus cheaper. It is possible to fiddle the figures and rearrange the accounting system to present a certain point of view as is being done by the ESB for instance in their efforts to close down power stations. We need a greater commitment to the railway system. That is the only aspect of the McKinsey report with which I disagree. I would ask both the Minister and the board of CIE to give a categoric guarantee that the railway line between Rosslare and Dublin and Rosslare and Waterford right on to Limerick will be safeguarded. I would like to hear what marketing efforts will be made to improve its performance. The closure of a number of railway stations such as Ferns in County Wexford and many others has improved its efficiency. With a better marketing effort I hope the passenger railway line performance can be improved.

The most striking development in the railways has been the development of DART which had a huge capital overrun but which will be seen to be successful although costly. It carries thousands of passengers each day and the feeder bus system is coming on stream well. I am not an expert on Dublin city but since we do not have an underground system such as they have in many other capitals, the system needs to be extended to improve its viability.

There is change taking place in the transport and haulage sector, which is a substantial shift away from own account transport. The Oireachtas joint committee did a study on the retail and distribution sector and we found that a lot of companies doing their own deliveries were getting out of the line of business because it was not profitable and there was not the flexibility to be had in contract work and because of various industrial relation problems. I see a great opening here for CIE in terms of rail freight if they aggressively market their freight services and try to ensure that they can pick up own account facilities. In the same way as feeder buses have worked for rail passengers we need to put more thought into an equivalent for the freight system so that there will be more efficient door to door delivery. Unless we do that, given the programme for the replacement of diesel rail cars, the railways will be in jeopardy. It would be tragic to lose the railway and they could never be replaced given the cost of the network, not to speak of the carriages. Will the Minister give a solemn commitment on the future of the railways? In terms of the Building on Reality four point financial target, in terms of deficits and overruns, the CIE rail sundries and road freight services were to be discontinued by 1 January of this year unless they proved profitable in 1984 and 1985, but the improvement has been such that their future has now been assured. They have come through that test and it is time to develop them into a vibrant, efficient and professional service, especially in relation to freight.

I wish to make a few scattered points in no particular order in relation to CIE. Their pensions are appallingly low. Many of my constituents who have 40 or 50 years' service are on the minimal level. I ask the Minister to ensure that in future — I doubt if anything can be done retrospectively — even if contributions have to be made on a private basis, the system will be improved. A number of people in my constituency have been made redundant by CIE on the basis of disability. Relatively young people in their forties and fifties feel they still have something to contribute.

Hardly a week passes without its being mentioned on radio or television that the Dublin-Belfast line is closed due to a bomb being planted on the line, or a bomb scare. It is happening so often that something needs to be done about security to ensure that people using the service can rely on it, which is not the case at present. I should also like the Minister to clarify the tax position of CIE in relation to excise duties, VAT on oil, the licence fees on vehicles and how they operate their insurance. One way to ensure that CIE do well — if you look at it in narrow terms — is by imposing crippling taxation on the motorist. This is the case when one considers that capital allowances are restricted to £3,500 when a realistic figure would be £12,000. High levels of VAT and excise duties on petrol and vehicles could also ensure that people use CIE. There needs to be a far greater integration of where we stand exactly in relation to the pricing policy of CIE and taxation on motorists. Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea of how CIE's taxes compare with the private motorist's.

Another specific incidence, which has been a source of complaint in my constituency, is damage done to livestock which have been killed or injured on the railway line. CIE have a reputation — I will put it no stronger than that — for denying any responsibility for these accidents. Many farmers lost substantial amounts of money and were involved in years of litigation which was never resolved satisfactorily. I hope CIE will be much more flexible in relation to damage done to livestock because many farmers allow CIE personnel on their lands to service lines and so on.

Rosslare Harbour is very close to my heart. CIE are the port authority. In 1844 the strategic value of Rosslare's geographical location as the nearest Irish port to Britain and the Continent was appreciated. In the Brunel report at that time the chief engineer to the Great Western Railway Company in England mooted a ferry service from Wales to Rosslare which are only 54 miles apart. In 1869 the Rosslare Harbour Commissioners acquired a portion of the foreshore and seabed near Greenore Point for the purpose of constructing a harbour. On 17 August 1886 the Dublin-Wicklow-Wexford railway had reached Wexford and a Government loan of £75,000 was procured to build the harbour. By an Act of Parliament in 1894 the Fishguard and Rosslare Railways and Harbour Company were formed under which the harbour commissioners were disbanded and the Waterford and Wexford railway was vested in the new consortium.

In 1895 the company were authorised to operate steamships between Rosslare and Fishguard and in July 1906 the Rosslare-Fishguard route was officially inaugurated. The port and its ships have seen many difficult times, especially during the war. However, British Rail, now Sealink, have operated in the port since 1906. In 1968 the French company, Normandy Ferries, with two ships introduced the first car ferry link between Rosslare and the Continent. In 1971 this service ended but in 1973 ICL, a subsidiary of Irish Shipping, reopened the route with the St. Patrick. In 1978 ICL purchased another boat, the Saint Killian and inaugurated a route between Rosslare and Cherbourg. Under the Act of Parliament in 1894, Rosslare is owned jointly but CIE are the acting port authority.

The growth of Rosslare over the past few years has been spectacular. At a time when other ports, notably Dublin and Cork, were struggling to survive, Rosslare was making very rapid progress. In 1973-78 there was growth in Dublin of 4 per cent in terms of net registered tonnage of shipping handled through the ports. In Cork the growth over the same period was 22 per cent but in Rosslare the figure was a staggering 145 per cent. In spite of itself Rosslare is the fastest growing port in Europe and this year handled in excess of one million passangers. Therefore, Deputies from County Wexford have been anxious to do everything possible to facilitate the development of this Euro port and to see that it yielded its maximum potential.

Rosslare is owned and operated by CIE who employ approximately 110 people in the port covering clerical, supervisory, operating, technical and catering functions. They also provide a comprehensive customs clearance service for import and export traffic seven days per week. There is currently a £5 million development scheme to provide a covered mobile gangway. A new car-coach customs clearance building has already been built and, as in Ringaskiddy, people will not get wet because it will be covered in. There will be proper facilities instead of force ten gales blowing across the harbour.

A source of great upset to Oireachtas Members in County Wexford is the fact that each year in the Book of Estimates under the public capital programme an allocation of either £500,000 or £750,000 is made to CIE to develop the terminal building or to obtain a particular hydraulic gangway. There was the clear understanding with CIE that they would start their £7.5 million development plan in 1986. Low and behold, despite a meeting, a few months ago between the Minister, Deputy Mitchell, Mr. Conlon, the Oireachtas Members for County Wexford and representatives of the Department and CIE, CIE did not seek any payment from the Department to bring forward these plans. Now they are one year late. There is a very strong feeling in Rosslare and in County Wexford that the county and the country would be a lot better off with CIE out of the port. Various reports have been produced. The Rosslare Harbour Development Committee produced their own report called "The Way Forward" and a subsequent consultative study was carried out by the SKC group. All these reports stated that CIE were not allowing the port to develop to its full potential. They suggested that CIE should be asked to get out.

It was agreed in Building on Reality that in the long term a new port authority would be set up and, on an interim basis, a local representative body would be established. I would favour a SFADCo type development superimposed on CIE. Either way, urgent consideration has to be given to CIE's removal from the port. I have no objection whatsoever to their working in harmony with whatever port authority might be set up. I do not believe they are giving Rosslare the priority it deserves in the context of their huge overall rail and bus operations nationally and in Dublin. Given the fact that CIE are the biggest loss makers of all the semi-State bodies in the history of this State and given their chronic performance between 1972 and 1982, it is interesting to note that they made a net profit in Rosslare in 1985 of £1.3 million on a total revenue of £3.6 million and in 1982 they made a profit of £85,000, that is, after all, the debt service for all the previous developments including the second berth etc.

There is acute disappointment that senior individuals in CIE have not expedited the final stages of the development plan for the port. I ask the Minister to renew his commitment to establish a new port authority, to consider bringing separate legislation into this House to amend the 1842 Act, and to pay whatever compensation is necessary to CIE and to any other relevant companies so that a new developmental thrust can take place in Rosslare Harbour.

When this Bill went through the Seanad a number of amendments were made to sections 24 to 26 which relate to the terms and conditions of employment of the employees of the three new companies. I welcome that. I notice that no new names have been given to the companies. There are plenty of good PR companies around who could suggest heaps of good names. I hope vibrant and professional marketing images are put forward for the new companies. In 1983, when legislation was passed in this House to establish An Post and Bord Telecom, specific provision was made to set up a user's council in both companies. I do not see any similar provision in this Bill. If there is, the Minister can clarify the matter later. Since we are dealing with an almost monopolistic public transport operation — DART alone carries 55,000 passengers per day — people are entitled to have a proper complaints service. If a person's freight was not delivered in time someone should be on the line in terms of discipline. If people find they get bad catering facilities on a railway journey, if they find buses are dirty and not well kept, and if a driver or conductor is rude their complaints should be dealt with in a proper structure. The basic belief should be that the customer is always right. The only way to survive in a competitive market is to compete. CIE have been short on competition over the last decade or more, although that is changing also. I would like to see the establishment, therefore, of a user's council in identical terms to the ones which exist in An Post and in Bord Telecom so that people will have the opportunity to complain. People should be encouraged to complain so that the quality and reliability of service would be improved all the time.

With regard to the financing of CIE in the future, this has become very sophisticated as regards above the line and below the line. A subsidy above the line is either 50 per cent of the revenue or one-third of the expenditure. This has meant de facto that it is one-third of their expenditure. That is the wrong way to go about it. If you tell people you will subsidise them to the extent of a proportion of their expenditure, it gives them a straightforward incentive to increase their overheads given that one-third of expenditure is greater than 50 per cent of revenue. The Minister should declare very firmly — and there should be all-party agreement on this — that by 1990 no further subsidy will be paid to the Dublin City Bus Company or to the National Bus Company. A special case can be made for the railways on the basis of their independent economic role in terms of preserving our roadways and expediting our national through traffic, especially container traffic. The Minister should stop the tinkering and by 1990 only the railways should receive a subsidy. They should know clearly that will be their single term of reference. They should doctor their finances in such a way, whether through joint venture or otherwise, as to bring that about.

It concerns me that foreign operators have control of the market in the haulage of dangerous substances in this country. This is very worrying. I see no good reason why Irish operators, be they CIE or private companies, should allow this to be the case. The Minister should ask Paul Conlon and the board of CIE whether on the freight side they could develop a dangerous substances transport service. It is a growing area; it has great potential and consequently has great export potential. While dealing with specifics I would also like to see the dismantling of the area management structure as it is very costly. McKinsey also recommended its dismantling. It brings about duplication and extra overheads which are unnecessary. The service could be streamlined and the Minister should clarify whether the establishment of these three new companies will mean the end of the area management structure.

The Minister made a passing reference to OIE, the Great Southern Hotels Group which, like the canal operation, have been removed from CIE. It is a source of very deep frustration, almost anger, to the private hotels sector that almost £6 million of arrears of VAT, PAYE and PRSI was written off with one stroke of the pen by the Government of the day when the company was basically insolvent and was taken over. Many hotels had been competing with the Great Southern Hotel Group. I should like to acknowledge the role of CERT since they tok over those hotels. I accept that CERT do not own them but there has been a vast improvement in the hotels. I can recall attending many meetings in Rosslare when it appeared likely that the Great Southern Hotel there would close. I should like to thank the Minister for his efforts to keep that hotel open and I should like to tell him that the subsequent investment in refurbishment has proved well worthwhile. The management of the hotel are looking forward to a successful season in 1987.

Very fundamental mistakes were made in relation to CIE in the past. The first one was the monopoly, enshrined in legislation, given to CIE. As a central part of our transport policy that must slowly be changed. In so far as setting up the three public companies will facilitate that change, will facilitate new private sector involvement in joint ventures to give a better service in terms of safety, quality and reliability to the public, I welcome it. I hope that the improvements made by Paul Conlon, and his team, which have been remarkable, will ensure that the company will return to full profitability when the three companies are set up.

I hope the railway section of the business can be developed, particularly the freight side and that with new equipment and carriages the freight element will be marketed aggressively so as to avail of the shift away from own-account transport. I hope the farcical industrial relations position in the company improves. I could not believe that in 1985, 2,343 meetings between employers and unions were held. I hope something is done about that. I commend the Bill to the House but I regret that many of the McKinsey recommendations seem to have been discarded. I wish CIE well in the future and I hope they can put in a much better performance in the next ten years than they did in the last ten.

I admired the contribution of Deputy Yates. I listened to him carefully and what he said represented a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the problems of transport here and CIE in particular. Would that all contributions from both sides of the House were as well researched and thought out.

I should like to say a number of things about transport. We need an integrated transport policy here, not one for air, one for sea and one for land and, as it were, never shall they all meet. The three should be pulled together in one policy. CIE will have to adopt a consumer-first philosophy if they are to survive the next decade. Transport deregulation which is occurring in America and Britain is an ideal opportunity for us to subcontract, let out or put into the private arena some of the current activities of CIE. With regard to the DART service I should like to call for a huge programme of marketing to get new passengers on to that line but I warn the company that if they do not do that the DART service will not become the glittering symbol of modern Ireland which we hope it will be but will turn out to be a financial disaster for the nation. The Harcourt Street line, which was closed many years ago and is being reopened in part by the Government, should be privately funded and there is a way that that can happen. The role of the semi-State bodies here will have to be radically overhauled if they are to meet the needs of the nation. Their present structure and method of operation are not good enough and will have to improve.

I should like to develop those suggestions. The Bill will help to make CIE, and semi-State companies generally, more accountable. I join with Deputy Yates in welcoming Mr. Paul Conlon as the new chief executive and compliment him on his efforts in the last year or so. Certainly, there has been a clear sign of improvement in the company's approach, particularly in financial matters. He deserves the support and commendation of the House. However, he faces the dilemma of how to cut the costs of CIE while at the same time running a social service. One way of doing that would be to increase the transparency of the subventions, to make sure that all funding and losses are highly visible and that the activities of the company are equally visible. Transparency is what is important when running and trying to subsidise semi-State companies.

The 1958 Act imposed an obligation on CIE to run the company reasonably efficiently and economically. That Act suggested that within five years of its coming into force CIE should be earning a profit but we know to our cost that that has not happened and, therefore, some fundamental reappraisals must be undertaken. In the course of his speech the Minister referred to the reliability of the service and the unpredictable labour stoppages. It is one thing to talk about those matters but it is another thing to get proposals to deal with them. Unfortunately, I did not detect any proposals in the Minister speech although he identified those two items as major problems. I do not think that the breaking up of the company into three pieces and changing the names necessarily solves the problem of unpredictable labour stoppages and reliability of service. Shifting the numbers around will not solve the fundamental problem but I accept that this move is a step in the right direction. What is needed in CIE is a consumer-first philosophy, putting the passenger first and the staff second, putting the passenger first and the company second and putting the passenger first and the internal affairs of CIE second.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see clear evidence, in travelling by CIE, that there is an understanding that all markets are consumer led, that all profits grow from the marketplace, that the marketplace in this context is the consumer, that the serving of that consumer leads to the profits which are desired. There is still an attitude in some parts of the company that it is not so much a pleasure to travel by CIE as an onerous duty which some members of that company feel they have to put up with. I say bluntly to CIE that if they had a consumer led philosophy they would certainly make progress. There are signs that the new chief executive is getting a grip on that matter and that should be welcomed. In that context, new services are to be developed, new marketing approaches and so on.

That brings me to the question of DART. The city is growing very rapidly and is now a modern capital city. We are proud to have a service such as DART but, instead of being a glittering prize for the nation, it could turn out to be a financial disaster if we do not start looking at it honestly. We are inclined to bow the knee to that service as a tremendous development, without examining too closely the facts and figures involved. Were we to start examining those now, we might save many headaches in five to ten years' time. In reply to some Dáil questions which I put down in this regard, I was told by the Minister that the break even point was working out at about 80,000 passengers a day and that if you include interest you are talking about needing 100,000 to 120,000 passengers a day to break even. You must then look very closely at how many passengers per day the service is carrying and the figure seems to be around 50,000. We are thus carrying only half the number of passengers on DART we need to break even.

If that continues for five, ten or 15 years, CIE will not be a problem any more, DART will. It will just gobble up the finances of that company. I support and want to keep and develop DART as much as anybody, but if it gobbles up scarce State resources, which perhaps could be used for employment, for developing industry, we must start asking questions. I suggest that the company should put together a very aggressive marketing plan to get people to use that service up to the desired number. There is no point in having a gleaming service whizzing along the coast if it is only carrying half the number of people needed to break even. Now that we have built it, the solution is not to close it or cut it back, but to get the requisite numbers travelling on it. You will only do that if you go aggressively after the market.

I am sure the figures for the feeder buses are available, but somehow that service has not caught the imagination. The notion of getting on a bus to get to the train to go to town is not adding up to the increased numbers which we thought it might. CIE will have to have a brain-storming session to figure out how to get people to leave their cars at home and use the DART on a more regular basis. I am sure there are experts available who can come up with some solutions. There is no point in crying about a financial disaster in five or six years' time. Let us look at the situation now while we need the passengers and while we are still proud of the service.

This Bill is a watershed in the management and financing of semi-State companies generally. In that regard, CIE are a very good example. Having said that CIE have made good progress, it must also be said that the public purse, the taxpayer, cannot go on paying out over £100 million a year to CIE. I think the figure last year was £104 million. It is important to remember that that amount could be used to develop industry, to provide tax cuts, to prevent health cuts, and perhaps in many other areas. There is a huge onus on CIE and on all of us to make it quite clear that that is something we cannot go on doing. We seem to have arrived at the notion that CIE are inherently loss-makers. We are prepared to accept the notion that CIE should cost £100 million or more a year just to keep them going. The day we accept that notion we will stop trying to solve the problem. I am not impressed, either, by the notion that transport companies everywhere lose money, so why should not we? We can let some of the business out to the private area. We can examine the financing of the purchases and the assets of the company. I warn against blindly accepting that CIE are loss-making. They should not be.

There is a new trend around the world in deregulation, for example in the United States and the United Kingdom. Massive deregulation is going on not just in transport but in the whole area of financial servicing, banking and so forth. There are tremendous opportunities to put this country's transport right and to provide, as the 1958 Act said, a reasonable, efficient and economic transport service. There are very good opportunities if we examine them very carefully. Deregulation can be difficult. Many will go to the wall. It can cause many headaches, but it is a wonderful opportunity and CIE should examine it on a private sector basis to see how they can avail of that opportunity.

Transport today is a major cost for Irish industry. I think Deputy Yates said it accounted for 10 per cent of production cost. It is also obvious from CII reports that our transport costs are still out of line with European ones. Transport is not just a way of getting around; it is a major cost for industry. That is a tremendous incentive for us to get costs under control, and keep transport costs as low as possible. That is one way of helping Irish industry, apart from giving grant aid or other aids. It is a very practical way. I would like a more professional, vibrant freight business within CIE, in full competition with others in the same business, to develop a lively competition for transport business and, to bring down transport costs for industry. CIE should systematically canvass the views of major companies which use public transport — Guinness and so on — to ensure that CIE are more responsive to Irish industry generally. I wonder if that sort of consultation goes on.

The capital re-equipment costs for CIE are absolutely enormous — the cost of trains and rolling stock generally. I am convinced that a more imaginative financial instrument can be used to fund that kind of capital investment. It is not good enough in this modern age of sophisticated financial instruments for the Government to lend or give money for the purchase of fixed assets. Quite imaginative financial instruments are available. I see no reason why we should be hung up about financing the purchase of some of the fixed assets in Deutsche-marks with a 5 per cent interest rate. If the Government get their exchange rate policy right, there is little or no risk in doing it that way. There is not a massive outflow of Government capital and the funding can be organised and structured in a much more reasonable way which keeps interest rates down for the company.

CIE have to be aware of what is going on in the transport business. I need only mention two things that happened recently and ask CIE if they have even noticed these events. The first is the airline fare war. Six months ago it cost £208 to fly to London; now it can be done for £74. I am sure the airlines would have thought that was absolutely impossible if it had been suggested a year ago. B & I were charging £109 or £110 to go to Britain; now they are offering a fare of £29. Is it still CIE's intention to pursue a policy of recovery of their costs by keeping high fares, not following the trends in modern communications? Much has happened to Acr Lingus and B & I because of competitors taking them on; it is a lucky thing for CIE that they do not have similar competitors — otherwise they too would have their rates cut in half in the years ahead. I would say to CIE that they should try to move in that direction anyway in order to attract more passengers to use their services.

If people feel good about using a service and it is economical to do so, the number of people using it will go up and the same income will be generated. That is the philosophy being applied by the airlines and B & I and there is no reason why CIE should not examine the matter. Certainly to ignore that trend would be highly dangerous even if they have a monopoly. For many years Aer Lingus thought they had a monopoly and did not do anything about their pricing structure. Now they can fly a passenger to London for £74, although it used to cost £208. B & I can now offer fares which are less than half the amount they previously charged. If CIE had to face competitors they would be bringing down their rates and making their business pay. They should not wait for the day when some future Minister or Government will land that competition on their doorstep. They should meet it half-way now and restructure their fares in an attractive way.

I did not complete my remarks on the role of the semi-State bodies. The role of the semi-State companies still needs much redesigning and a radical overhaul. The Devlin Commission rates of pay still apply in all the State companies, including CIE. I see no earthly reason why these rates of pay should continue to exist in semi-State companies. It is like saying to the chief executive of a semi-State company that whether he produces the goods or not he will still be paid the same. That approach is old-fashioned and it is not the way to motivate staff. I should like the Devlin restrictions to be removed from the semi-State area.

I should like to see CIE and all the other semi-State companies being allowed to open foreign subsidiaries but no legislation has been enacted to allow them to do so. I see no reason why CIE could not have a foreign subsidiary doing consultancy work internationally helping other nations to establish transport authorities and earning foreign revenue. I get quite annoyed when I think of the fact that 28 commercial semi-State companies are turning over £3 billion, while perhaps 90 per cent of that money is earned internally. These enterprises on the high ground of Irish business are trying to earn their money internally. A similar private group with a turnover of £3 billion would earn another £3 billion abroad. I see no reason why Irish semi-State companies cannot earn the same type of money abroad as they are earning at home. A close examination will show I am correct in that matter. It can happen in the financial services area with ICC and Irish Life. It is beginning to happen in Aer Lingus. This is not perhaps the debate to deal with this matter in depth but I should like to see semi-State bodies being allowed to set up subsidiaries abroad to earn foreign revenue. I should like to see Devlin removed and I am in favour of more joint ventures between semi-State companies and the private sector. I am one of those people who believe in an increased private sector role in semi-State companies. CIE should take careful note of some of the nonsense that went on in Irish Shipping where the lines of accountability were not too clear. I would say to every semi-State company that they should avoid that nonsense and ensure that the lines are crystal clear.

We need an integrated transport policy and a "consumer first" philosophy. There are opportunities we should take up, foreign and domestic, in regard to transport deregulation. I have been warning that the DART system will run into trouble unless we begin a massive programme to get people using that line. I have asked for a radical overhaul of the semi-State companies.

Finally, I want to mention the Harcourt Street line which runs through the southern part of Dublin city. I welcome the Government's announcement to put £8 million into that line. I recently walked along the line and saw that little or no building on the line has taken place. It is remarkably free and runs through the most heavily populated part of Dublin. I believe it could be funded privately. The Government are to give £8 million but it would cost £50 million or more to restore the train services. I am aware there is private interest in it. The population in the area would return to private investors a large proportion of their investment because there is tremendous public need for the reopening of this line. I am not asking for State funds to be flung at it but I am asking for a logical and professional assessment of the finances needed and then an imaginative approach internationally and locally to find the private funding which is necessary. Certainly I will be happy to make some suggestions as to how it can be done. I have examined the matter quite carefully because the line runs through my own constituency.

This Bill provides for CIE to be retained as the parent body. I welcome this because I have the utmost confidence in CIE. The duty of a Government is to regulate a transport system which will be fair and give a reasonable service. The Minister is hoping to make CIE more efficient. I sincerely hope the Bill will attain its objective.

I have reservations about the "three company" concept. I hope it will not be the case that bus and rail will compete against each other for the same type of traffic. I fear that the private operator will take advantage of that position and will add to the problems already existing. I realise the parent company will have all the powers necessary to control the activities of the subsidiary bodies and let us hope this will be a success.

The impracticalities and the difficulties in separating the rail and bus services are almost too numerous to mention. Many CIE bus and rail employees work very closely together and I would be afraid of any friction being created. We must be careful that any changes made will not dilute this very essential co-operation because this could lead to a reduction in the very efficient handling services provided by CIE at present.

We must examine the present system and how it operates. While area road managers carry out their responsibilities. there are numerous examples of district and station managers on the rail side being involved also in the bus operations. For many years I worked in the transport company and I have experience of this great co-operation between the bus and rail sections in the Limerick depot. I saw buses withdrawn from service, admittedly not during peak periods, to assist the rail section which may have been experiencing problems as a result of breakdowns or other problems outside their control. To appreciate that co-operation, it was necessary to be involved in these operations. The same applies to the rail workers. Those involved in the rail section never lost an opportunity to co-operate with the bus service. I fear that this very important co-operation may be damaged. It must be made clear to the workers in both the bus and rail sections that they must not canvass for customers because this could result in a loss for both companies.

I want to refer now to the service provided by CIE which carries passengers from one city to another. The train takes them from their point of departure and delivers them to another city where a bus is waiting to take them into the city free of charge. At the end of the day the bus crew collect these passengers at a predetermined point and bring them back to the station from where they are returned to their point of departure. I fear that this type of service would no longer exist if the two bodies were independent. I cannot see an independent Dublin bus service co-operating with a rural rail service to the same extent. That is one of my worries.

The chairman of CIE, Mr. Paul Conlon, said that the outturn for 1985 was a profit of £6.793 million compared with a deficit of £.004 million in 1984. He pointed out that every section of CIE had a progress report to offer. It must be stressed again and again that the service provided by CIE is as efficient now as it was ten years ago in spite of the fact that staff numbers have been reduced by 6,000. That is a tribute to management.

Rail productivity has improved dramatically in recent years. This is due not alone to CIE management but to the workers as well. Research was carried out by Leeds University, and the report was published this year showing that between 1971 and 1981 Irish railways had a 60 per cent increase in productivity, have proved more efficient than the French, German or British railways, and have also shown a considerable improvement since 1981. That is a great tribute to the workers and management of CIE who had to go through some very difficult times.

We hear a lot about the private carrier. He can provide very attractive rates because he has an advantage over CIE. He can be selective. He is not committed to providing a national service, taking the bad with the good. He does not have to think of employing approximately 15,000 people. He has no obligations in this area. There are 14,000 people and their families dependent on CIE and we must protect these people. I must pay tribute to the members of bus and rail services who provide such an efficient and courteous service. In general CIE do a wonderful job. I hope the provisions of this Bill will not dilute those outstanding services in any way.

The provisions of section 15 are designed to enable the board of CIE to operate the existing pension scheme. I sincerely hope that the companies involved will be somewhat more generous in making provisions for pensions because until quite recently people who had worked in CIE for 35 to 40 years walked out with the large sum of £16.80 on the day of retirement. One can only remark on the commitment and dedication of those men who, after all those years' service, walked out with so little. Were it not for the action of the present Minister the same conditions would have continued to apply. At least that figure has now been increased to approximately £24 which, while representing something of which nobody can be proud, is a step in the right direction.

When we talk of CIE making progress we should think back to the great work undertaken by many people who have now gone to their rest. When this three company concept is being judged in the future I hope there will be more charitable reference to the pension scheme than is the case today. I know also that the staff appreciate what the Minister achieved by way of increased pensions. I hope he will endeavour to improve them even further.

As somebody who worked with CIE I am proud to acknowledge their achievements and progress to date. We should pay tribute here to each and every member, from the chairman down to the most junior porter employed because they are doing a fine job.

(Dublin North-West): This Bill affords Deputies an opportunity to deal with the important proposal to divide CIE into three companies. Our spokesman, Deputy Wilson, made it clear that Fianna Fáil do not agree with this. The provisions of the Bill would seem not to be based on the overall recommendations of the McKinsey report but rather on part thereof. I do not have great knowledge or experience of how CIE operate. I hope the implementation of the provisions of this Bill will bring about an improvement in their performance and that the public will have more confidence in them. Like Deputy O'Brien, I hope the provisions of this Bill will bring about more efficiency within the overall operations of CIE, more co-operation between management and staff, indeed better communication between them. I believe such would lead to an enormous reduction in the number of industrial disputes.

Like Deputy Willie O'Brien I hope the pension conditions of the ordinary worker will be brought into line with those of other staff members. It is tragic that an employee can give 40 years' service to a company and retire on a miserable pension of approximately £16. I hope that the provisions will lead also to a greater understanding between management and the workforce. I should like to see a greater bond of interest in the overall organisation, the company being more concerned with their employees.

I welcome the establishment of a separate bus service for Dublin which I hope will lead to a more efficient service. At present some Dublin districts have a very poor bus service. There is also the problem of breakdowns when replacement buses do not appear to be available. The public experience long delays daily awaiting buses, which are caused by congestion in the city centre and on roads leading into the city centre, especially at peak hours. In England and other countries traffic seems to run more smoothly, possibly because there are greater restrictions on the numbers of private cars allowed to park within the vicinity of the city centre. Traffic congestion in the centre of Dublin is attributable to a number of causes, the fact that heavy commercial vehicles are allowed to travel through the centre, especially at peak hours, the illegal parking of motor vehicles and the lack of a proper and efficient transport service in Dublin. These are the reasons people have purchased private cars in which to travel to and from work. I am confident that had we an efficient public transport, on which people could depend, there would be no need to bring private motor cars into the city. Indeed people are fearful of taking their cars into the city centre at present because so many are stolen and damaged.

There is need also for a central bus station in Dublin eliminating the present problems encountered with bus termini being located on centre city streets. For example, the area around Parnell Square is constantly choked up with buses parked there daily. There is another bus terminus located outside Trinity College which causes serious traffic congestion. There are other bus termini on different parts of the quays and in Abbey Street and Parnell Street, all causing serious traffic congestion, the buses being allowed park there for long periods. As a member of Dublin Corporation I know that the problem of oil leaking from these buses has been raised and discussed by members of the city council.

I question whether there is anything in the provisions of this Bill that would compel CIE to build a central bus station. In most towns and cities in England there is a central bus station for buses travelling to and from all parts. It is quite different for anybody coming into Dublin. If one gets off a bus on the north side one has to walk to Trinity College to get a bus going to the south side. If there was a central bus station, like Victoria Station in London, it would be easier. If one goes to Victoria Station in London one is sure to get a bus to any part of the city of London. A central bus station in Dublin would speed up the service. At present buses have to go right across the city to get from north to south and vice versa, and are often held up for long periods in traffic jams. I am amazed that CIE have never considered the establishment of a central bus station since they seem to have a lot of property in and around the city centre. I have no doubt such a station would be of enormous benefit not alone to the travelling public but to CIE themselves. It would greatly reduce the amount of time wasted in traffic jams.

The closure of the railway lines in Dublin, particularly the Harcourt Street line which Deputy Séamus Brennan has referred to, was a dreadful mistake and was probably done without giving the matter much thought. I am glad to hear the Government are making a contribution towards the opening of that railway line which now runs through a highly populated area of the city. At the time it was closed many of the housing developments were not established and that may be one of the reasons it was closed down.

It was a grave mistake, at any time, to give CIE a monopoly of public transport because they had no competition and took advantage of this. They could withdraw or reduce a service from any area with little notice to the public. That is one reason why the transport service here is so bad. I worked in England for a number of years. There were no long queues at bus stops and no queues waiting for a bus that never turned up because there was an efficient public transport service with private operators competing against the public transport. Where private operators are allowed to complete people will not have to queue as long at bus stops as they do here. There is nothing wrong with private transport companies being allowed to operate in Dublin and throughout the country. It is the only guarantee of an efficient transport service.

This Bill will not make much difference. It is just more of the same because CIE still have the monopoly and will not have to compete. CIE are one of the largest semi-State companies. They have come in for a lot of flak over the years, and I suppose they have earned most of it. They are a powerful organisation employing a tremendous number of people. Some of these people are good craftsmen with great expertise and have given a very good service to CIE. That is why Governments have not allowed private transport companies to operate; they felt that if a private transport company were operating it would cause CIE to reduce their staff. I do not believe that is so. I believe if a private transport company were operating we would have a far better transport service, with the public company competing against the private company.

At the moment there is no competition. At present private buses operate from Dublin to different parts of the country especially at weekends and at a much reduced rate — less than half the price that CIE are charging — and many young people from the country employed in Dublin avail of this service. A single fare from Dublin to Cork with CIE is about £23 and it is about £10 on the private bus. CIE do not claim to try to compete against these private buses. I wonder why CIE have never, even as an experiment, tried to operate that type of service themselves. Let us recall when Ryanair started to operate from Dublin Airport it caused Aer Lingus to reduce their fares quite substantially and the same happened in B & I.

The vast number of people employed in CIE have to deal with the public and it is quite a difficult job. Bus conductors particularly come in for a lot of abuse, especially if the public have had to wait for long periods in bad weather for a bus. When the first bus arrives — although that bus might be on time — they may abuse the conductor although the delay was not his fault. It may be that the previous bus did not run, possibly because the bus driver or the conductor did not turn up.

CIE have had their fair share of industrial disputes which greatly inconvenience the travelling public. There are far too many trade unions involved in CIE. Many of the disputes are about trivial matters which one imagines could be ironed out between the trade unions and the management. On occasions we have seen one-man pickets which have resulted in the stoppage of the whole bus transport service. I recall one man in Clontarf garage going out on strike a few years ago because he was dismissed from CIE and felt that he had got an unfair deal. He set up a one-man picket which the bus drivers, conductors and staff would not pass and eventually most of the CIE bus service in the city came to a standstill.

Like other Deputies, I should like to compliment CIE on the DART train service. An extension of that service would be very welcome but I know there is a difficulty in providing it due to lack of finance. However, there is a grave need to extend that service, particularly to Dublin Airport and to the Cabra, Finglas and Ballymun areas. Such a service would relieve congestion in the city centre. So far, it has been a wonderful service.

CIE provide an excellent express bus service. They have beautiful buses, particularly for tourists. However, it is regrettable that the rail freight service has been virtually abandoned. It appears that most freight is now taken by road in heavy commercial vehicles. We hear complaints about them at local authority meetings and in the House. They have caused great damage to many Irish roads whose foundations were never built to take such heavy traffic. Therefore, I ask the Minister to ensure that greater use be made of rail freight transport. Heavy commercial vehicles should not be allowed to move through the city centre. The Minister for the Environment should ban such vehicles, which are causing serious traffic hazards on narrow country roads as well as in the city centre. I agree with Deputy Yates that a special rail transport service should be set up for the carriage of dangerous substances. The present service is most unsatisfactory and there has been serious concern expressed about present arrangements.

I hope the Bill will make CIE more accountable and that the company will change from their present loss-making role to a profit-making enterprise through efficiency. I agree with Deputy Séamus Brennan who said the passengers should come first, with CIE in a secondary place. The passengers should be treated more courteously at all times, particularly senior citizens and the disabled. One notices in other countries how bus conductors pay special attention to such passangers. I agree this is done throughout Ireland, but the occasional one does not seem to realise that senior citizens and people in wheelchairs require special attention. If such an attitude were adopted by CIE staff it would be of benefit to the company as well as to the travelling public.

The one-man bus operation got off the ground after some delay. At present it is only being operated in a limited number of areas but it has been of particular benefit as a feeder service to users of the DART. When the Bill becomes law I hope it will result in better services for the people of Dublin and throughout the country. I particularly hope there will not be such long delays in the arrival of buses.

Being an Inchicore man born and bred I have a great identification with Inchicore people, the Inchicore works and CIE in general. However, it is my view that CIE are among the least consumer conscious and employee conscious of the semi-State bodies. The company greatly need to be modernised and brought into the 20th century, particularly from the point of view of consumers and staff. I suggest the uses and misuses of the Inchicore works should be the subject of a ministerial inquiry. In that facility anything could be built, aircraft, tanks, any machinery the country needs. It is the best engineering facility in the Republic and comparable to anything in the heavy engineering sector in Northern Ireland. However, it has been consistently misused, abused and under-used. I remember when I worked there as a young school leaver a ministerial visit to the works was arranged. All the timber in sight was burned so that it would not be there, looking unsightly for the Minister's visit. There was no timber left for any work to be done for weeks. One hears stories from Members of the House of the grass there being painted green on the occasion of ministerial visits. Some of the older people in CIE have told me about pits being filled in with machinery and about machinery being used for foundations, machinery which could have been sold easily at a profit. I would guess that that works are being operated at about 10 per cent of capacity even though they now have the bus works which were formerly located at Spa Road.

The Inchicore works should be the specific subject of a ministerial inquiry The people there are very talented, able people and they should be engaged in constructive work. Instead, we are importing carriages and buses built abroad. When I queried this with the CIE chairman recently he told me the buses they have now on contract are of such a standard that they could not be built in the CIE works. The coach-makers in that factory are following the tradition of people who made the coach which now draws the Queen of England through the streets of London, and the Presidential coach here which, sadly, has been scrapped. The workers there are enormously talented. Those great craftsmen are not being given the opportunity to use their craftsmanship because of nonsensical managerial decisions. Therefore, there should be an examination of CIE management. The company are top-heavy with management. CIE management carry more passengers than their buses. It is time the whole structure of the company was examined, specifically the role of the Inchicore works.

I welcome the effort being made to bring CIE into the 20th century. There is a "them and us" attitude between management and staff within CIE and largely that is the fault of the management there. For instance, take Inchicore works where managers drive into work and park their cars and drive out again while other employees must park their cars out on the street and yet are subject to being searched going out should the security people on the gate so decide. That is a terrible imposition on people in this day and age. It should not be allowed. We can start from there and go right through CIE where the same "them and us" attitude exists between management and employees. The system needs to be modernised. It does nothing for the morale of CIE or their capacity to meet their needs.

I feel strongly that CIE do not respond to consumers' needs. Buses are taken off routes and put on to other routes which, of course, are busy. Naturally in places like Tallaght more services are needed, but that does not mean that when they take off or reduce services in some areas they have to cut out services to whole areas. When CIE take off services it is a major achievement if they can be persuaded even to have adjacent services drive into the roads deprived of the service and back out again. That is the kind of thing that needs to be pursued. I took it up formally with CIE only last week. Regularly when people ring up to inquire about services they are told that their local TDs are the ones responsible for taking the buses off the roads. TDs have no role in running CIE and the sooner that is realised the better.

What is needed particularly is a consumer panel within CIE to allow consumers to be consulted by the people who run a monopolistic transport system and I am not talking only of consultation in relation to services that are being diverted. Services still could be diverted in a way which meets the needs of communities like Walkinstown where the Tallaght bus must pass in any event. The same applies to Crumlin and Drimnagh whose needs could equally be met by the same service, instead of CIE saying that the bus that goes to X cannot go to Y, that that is as it has been for 30 years and that because they have to make a change they are taking off a service and so it must remain.

It does not have to remain as it always was. A consumer panel is needed so that before bus service routes are changed and new ones applied they can be tested out and people can be consulted about their needs. That should apply not just to bus routes but to related matters. Another matter for consultation with such a consumer body would be whether CIE could put a bus shelter outside your halldoor. In many cases they come along without consulting the resident of the house. They put an advertisement in the paper for planning permission but the resident might not see that. He might be on holidays, for instance, and then they put a bus shelter outside the door where he may be planning to make a driveway at some time in the future. This means that in many cases what they have installed in effect is a public urinal at least so far as after pub closing time is concerned. All that is done without as much as an iota of consultation with the person who lives there. There should be some formal arrangment for consulting people who have to endure such a situation for the rest of their lives and whose property is being devalued by it. There should be a consumer body whom CIE must consult and who can tell CIE the policy that must be followed in relation to the installation of bus shelters, to changing bus routes etc. That is needed very badly.

The policy being pursued by CIE lacks a certain humanity. They are recruiting apprentices who are paid apprenticeship wages and most of whom have no hope of being retained at their trade when they have served their time. In many cases they are serving their time to trades which will be of little use to them outside CIE, like coach-making or coach painting, specifically related to transport, whereas in small companies they could be trained as electricians or something like that and could use those trades in other companies. In some cases apprentices are being trained on very low wages and at the end of their training they will get a job at their trade. They may get jobs as labourers or busmen with CIE if they are lucky but times out of number they will get nothing at all. CIE should be required to look at a policy which allows somebody to work for four or five years at a pittance, being trained for something which is not going to be there. That is not good for the morale of the person serving his time or the person to whom he serves his time. It causes a great deal of cynicism.

I welcome the changes being made in this Bill. I hope that the Bill will cause CIE to become more public spirited and shake off some of the cobwebs which have caused that body to lag behind in modernising their role in the community. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to the points I have made particularly in relation to the involvement of consumers in this very large authority.

I would like to speak about the changes in CIE in freight and in transport, particularly in relation to the west. The Dublin-Sligo line is the only line at present that has not an inter-city or supertrain service on it. This is really a shame. I had occasion not long ago to travel on a super train. There is a vast difference between the super trains and inter-city trains and the trains that people going to Sligo use. Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford lines and now the Westport line have all inter-city services or at least super trains but the Sligo line has a very poor transport system at the moment. In this technological age our transport system must be fast, smooth, air conditioned, comfortable, punctual, competitive, reliable and clean. It must meet the needs of as many people as possible as often as possible. The quality of the service we use is often not up to standard. The onus is on the management of our transport system to organise and motivate the entire personnel and resources at their disposal to achieve a standard of service second to none. Those of us who have had the opportunity to use the inter-city service will know that it is excellent and combines speed, comfort, reliability, realistic prices, excellent and courteous staff and excellent dining facilities. As an added bonus one arrives at one's destination fresh and relaxed.

Unfortunately, however, regions of this country are deprived of the right to use inter-city services because they simply are not available on the lines that serve these regions. I refer to the Dublin-Sligo line and the quality of the rolling stock used on that line. It saddens and annoys me that the passenger trains serving my constituency and a significant part of the Connacht-Ulster region have long outlived their usefulness. At present we are using two types of carriages, Park Royal Carriages which are of wooden construction and have been condemned in parts of the country, and Craven coaches. Unfortunately if there is a festival in Cork or Dublin the Craven coaches are taken off the Sligo line and used on the Dublin-Cork line. That is the way the West has been treated over the past number of years. When the good carriages are taken off the route for a football match or a festival in Cork, they are not put back on the route again for perhaps two weeks.

The Minister said that in the Sligo Champion, along with a lot of other things.

Everything came true.

If the Minister wants to make a speech I will sit down and let him.

I am sorry.

(Interruptions.)

We in the west are treated like second class citizens, as Deputy Nealon knows because he has often travelled on the train from Sligo to Dublin. I was on it some weeks ago and the dining car was leaking. The Minister should make sure that the Park Royal coaches are taken off the Sligo line once and for all.

It will be at the end of the year.

As the House knows my constituency is in the heartland of the disadvantaged areas. Emigration has reached an alarming proportion here and the need to create employment is urgent. People setting up businesses in areas such as the north west must have access to a transport service that will make our area accessible with speed and comfort. Industrialists who travel from here to Cork, Galway or Limerick using a good service and who then use the train to Sligo, would not come back a second time. It is essential to improve services.

Tourists must be enticed to relish the full scenic charms and other attractions of the north west by the provision of better transport. The joy of their visit must be enhanced by a good train service so that they will come again. In order to achieve this target the Minister should provide for the extension of the inter-city service to the entire mainland network of CIE and he should get rid of the outdated slow rolling stock which is continuously used on the Sligo line. The Minister has said that that will be done at the end of the year and I would welcome the improved train service to Sligo.

Middle management in CIE, such as station masters and chief clerks should play a greater role in the running of CIE. They are the people who deal with the public and know what the public want. Decisions should not be made at Heuston Station or from some swivel chairs in Galway. Decisions were made to close the CIE garage in Sligo and transfer the jobs to Ballina and Longford. They tried to close the school transport section of CIE in Sligo but that has not happened yet. A large number of jobs were lost in Sligo over the last number of years because of decisions made in either Heuston Station or Galway. If middle management were more involved in CIE that might not have happened.

All stations which currently handle freight should be left open, particularly in the west because they are giving a great social service and creating a number of much needed jobs in the west. Our roads are not fit for the heavy articulated lorries at present using them. Now that we have a reasonable line to Sligo I hope people will be encouraged to continue using the freight services provided by CIE.

When we get the new trains we should make provisions for disabled people. There should be a facility to allow wheelchairs on the trains. I doubt if a wheelchair, unless it were folded up, could be used on a train at present. I do not know why there has not been a better train service on the Dublin/Sligo line having regard to the fact that so much money was spent to provide the DART service in Dublin and having regard to the fact that it has been subsidised to such an extent by the taxpayer. I travelled on an inter-city train for quite a long journey, and felt fresh and relaxed at the end of that journey. Anyone who travels from Dublin to Sligo and back on the same day will feel very tired on the type of train provided on that route. I hope that in the not too distant future we will have an inter-city train service to Sligo comparable to that in other parts of the country. We should be treated the same as people in Galway, Waterford, Limerick and Cork.

CIE introduced a monthly ticket from Sligo to Dublin costing £13.50 and a day return for £10. Unfortunately, it is not being availed of to any great extent, perhaps because people are scared to come to Dublin because of bomb threats. However, I hope that will not stop CIE from continuing this experiment because they have to compete with private buses who offer a ticket for the same journey for £6.

There are very important proposals in this legislation. CIE have a long record of service in Dublin and the larger centres of population right across rural areas and they have balanced a commercial service with a social one.

I do not agree with all the proposals in the Bill as, in some cases, there seems to be duplication or bad use of the resources, expertise and personnel available within CIE. Section 7 proposes to create three companies, Iarnród Éireann, Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath and I cannot see the logic of having three separate companies, two of which will be dealing with the management of the national bus service. We must have a specific company to deal with the Dublin metropolitan services vis-à-vis buses and another to deal with rural demands as you cannot compare like with like. Rural areas have different needs and demands compared to Dublin and that is why it is important for Dublin to have a separate company. However, the rail service starts in Dublin and serves the nation. The same applies to rural bus services and that is why these services should emanate from the capital. At least one million people are catered for in the metropolitan area and it needs special attention.

I commute to Dublin every week and I often wonder why so many buses travel in convoy; often four or five are going in the same drection at the same time. Yet, people are standing at bus stops. What kind of planning exists to ensure that we get the maximum service and value for money from the fleet of buses in Dublin? A very large staff is involved and CIE should ensure that we get the best service possible. Bus services in all the large cities throughout the world seem to lose money, which is hard to understand.

I am very impressed with the DART service which is making a major contribution to alleviating the traffic problems of the city and providing a service for people to commute from their homes to work in a very fast and safe environment. It was a very high investment for a specific area but, in time, it will prove to be one of the best investments made by the Government or semi-State bodies over the years. I am sure it can be expanded to serve other commuter towns in the greater Dublin area and its environs. We must ensure that everyone does not migrate to the one area which would create major social, planning and servicing difficulties. I hope we will always take cognisance of the capacity of the DART service to make a contribution to the development of the city and the economy based on a positively planned constant observation of the need to adapt to the development of the greater Dublin area and the eastern half of the country. It is vital for a capital city to have that type of service which is used by so many people.

CIE have played a major role over the years and the transport area contains about 12 per cent of the total economic gross output over the years. That shows how vitally important transport is and the need for a properly structured commercial company or companies which will enable us to compete and to give a high level of service. The taxpayers and those who use the service should get value for money and the State should also get value for money.

I have the 1985 annual report. It is vital for the accounts to be published clearly so that the ordinary layman can understand the exact position vis-à-vis all sections of CIE and their allied services. There should be transparency and clarity in the accounts vis-à-vis the State investment and subsidy. One would think from the published accounts this year and the statements emanating thereafter that CIE were a very profitable company rather than a company who have to receive specific State investment and subsidies. As a person from rural Ireland I acknowledge that CIE provide a social service in areas where that service may not have been available heretofore or where the demand for it was not great. On the other hand, CIE have dealt for many years with the lucrative areas such as the large areas of population. I do not think that CIE have taken cognisance of the rapid changes which have taken place in our economy, in our environmental developments and in our road structure. There has been constant change and development. It is incumbent on CIE to develop alongside those changes. They have not developed sufficiently quickly to react to the various services which are needed.

For the past number of years we have seen CIE compete with the private sector, particularly in regard to bus transport. I welcome competition. I salute the people in the private sector who have provided a service where it was not available. CIE have reacted to those services sharply and quickly and have competed with them on particular routes. I can appreciate how the staff and management of CIE may be worried that the secure position they had vis-à-vis transport services may not be so much under threat but may be eroded by the advent of the private sector coming into the transport arena. There must be initiative from the private sector. The State sector must be able and should be able to compete especially after the opportunity they have had to develop their own services to give the maximum service on the most lucrative routes and thus balance those services on the more social routes and on the less lucrative routes. CIE have had ample opportunity over the years to ensure that they would be better placed than anybody in the private arena to provide those services.

The private bus sector have made major progress in providing a positive, sensible and practical level of transport to the people of our country over the past number of years. Obviously they are dealing with a specific sector of the population. They cater in particular for young people who are working in Dublin and who commute at weekends. One must recognise that over the years CIE have been charging very hefty fees, particularly for train services, to those young people who cannot afford them in the present economic climate. Into that vacuum stepped the private bus companies who filled that vacuum admirably. They are providing a very sensible service. They are taking young people out of the city at weekends back to their own homes and environment. Not alone are they providing a commercial and practical service, they are also providing a social service. Because people go back to their home environment on a regular basis, some at least may stay on and settle down and make a contribution to the development of their own areas and communities.

CIE should have been able to see the need to provide those services. They should have picked out the various provincial towns, and the smaller towns and hamlets down as far as the rural parishes that need those services. There is always a demand for such services and the private sector have made their contribution. CIE have had ample opportunity to fuse the social service with the lucrative service and to provide a fleet of buses to take younger people who work in this city, and adults and older people who come to the city to do their business back to their home environments. They should have been able to fuse those two services together by being able to adapt to particular situations. They should give the level of service which is expected from a national transport authority. They were very slow to identify that market and, consequently, they must now compete with the private sector for those services. Competition is the life of trade. It is best for the economy and the citizens of our country. We must ensure that the maximum options are available to our people.

Over the past number of years we have seen a marked drop in the number of motor cars being purchased. That is a reflection on the economic situation in the country. Many people cannot afford to buy cars at present because of the very high level of taxation. They cannot afford to buy petrol because of the high level of taxation. Many people, particularly young people, who own motor cars cannot afford to pay for insurance. Consequently, many of them have sold their motor cars and are now using transport provided either by CIE or private companies. CIE must take cognisance of that type of development and they must be able to compete with the private sector in providing attractive options for young people in this city and for the people of the country so that they will avail of their services at all times. The population trends, the social trends and the environmental developments in rural Ireland have not been taken into account by CIE in their planning of rail and road services over the years. It is important for CIE to recognise that one cannot plan a State transport service to suit one's own staff and ideas. If one is dealing with the public, if one wants to make money and if one wants to run a commercial operation on a viable basis one must plan, programme and schedule one's services for the commuter. If CIE have failed in any particular area over the years it is in the area of planning, scheduling and programming. I can understand the company, in their desire to run an efficient and fast commercial service, trying to cut corners to ensure they do not have to suffer a loss of income.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share