Transport Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

Táirgim: "Go léifear an Bille don Dara Uair."

Cuireann an pobal suim mhór i gnóthaí Córas Iompair Éireann. Tá sé sin mar a bhéadh súil leis mar tá a lán daoine timpeall na tíre ag brath ar an mbord i slite ilghnéitheacha. Ina measc tá na daoine a úsáideann seirbhísí traen agus bus CIE de ghnáth. I bhfochair siúd tá na turasóirí a úsáideann seirbhísí poiblí taistil. Tá muintir tionscail agus tráchtála freisin ag brath ar CIE chun a mbunábhair agus a dtáirgí a iompar ó cheann ceann na tíre Tá níos mó ná trí déag go leith míle de fhostaithe i CIE agus tá mór-shuim acu san gcóras agus a thodchaí.

Mr. Deasy

My Irish might not be as perfect as the Minister's and the translation system is not working on these benches.

Mr. Wilson

Tá an fear teanga sa bhosca.

Mr. Deasy

This is a general complaint from this side of the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

Tógfaidh mé sin suas le oifigigh na nOibreacha Poiblí anois díreach.

Mr. Deasy

Cad a dhéanfaimid go dtí sin?

An Ceann Comhairle

We will proceed with the Bill.

Mr. Wilson

Ní féidir dearmad a dhéanamh ar na mílte a íocann cáin ioncaim is ar uile, mar tugann an Rialtas os cionn £100 milliún do CIE gach bliain, ionnas go mbeidh an bord in ann seirbhísí a tharraingíonn deontais a choimeád ar siúl.

De ghnáth bíonn suim mhór ag Teachtaí Dála i gnóathaí CIE mar tá sé soiléir dúinn go bhfuil tábhacht faoi leith ag baint leis an gcóras taistil náisiúnta. Tá ceisteanna tábhachtacha le plé ins an mBille atá os ár gcómhair maidir le airleacain don bhord ón Aire Airgeadais, cumhachtaí an bhoird chun airgead a fháil ar iasacht, rathaíocht Stáit do iasachtaí CIE, díol talaimh i gcás ordú tréigin a bheith déanta maidir le líne iarnróid agus pionósanna i gcásanna áirithe, mar shampla, duine a bhriseann fodhlíthe an bhoird, foghla ar an iarnróid, geataí a fhagáil gan dúnadh ag crosairí comhréidh áirithe agus duine nach n-íocann táillí taistil. Tá daoine mar sin ann fresin, mar is eol don Teach. Beidh mé ag éisteacht le gach rud a bheas le rá anseo i dtaobh an Bhille agus táim cinnte go mbainfidh CIE agus mé féin leas as i bhfábhar seirbhísí taistil in Éirinn.

This Bill gives the House the opportunity to focus on some of the affairs of CIE. The organisation is important for many reasons. Its extensive transport network by rail and road makes it the backbone of the country's inland transport system. Very many are dependent on the services of Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann and Iarnrod Éireann for their personal transport needs. Industry and commerce use the freight services extensively. In summary, CIE services make a substantial input to the social and economic life of the community. As taxpayers and legislators, we are interested in CIE because the Exchequer subvention to CIE, now well in excess of £100 million per annum, has to be met from the State's resources.

The economy is passing through a difficult phase and this increases the emphasis on value for money, cost effectiveness and efficiency. This is highlighted for the CIE organisation in the challenging targets which have been set for it by Government for the period 1985-89. Iarnród Éireann are striving to achieve the railway target of reducing costs by close to 20 per cent over the five years. Bus Átha Cliath are seeking to have their 1984 deficit in real terms and Bus Éireann's aim is to make provincial buses profitable. The achievement of these targets has not been made easy for CIE by the State's inability over recent years to meet in full its financial commitment to the board. This, in part, has generated the need for the Bill now before the House.

The purposes of the Bill are to discharge the obligation on CIE to repay to the Exchequer capital advances of £44,458,691; enable the board to borrow up to £45 million on a long term basis for meeting their obligations and carrying out their duties; allow the board the option of selling by tender property linked to abandoned railway lines, and increase the levels of penalties for various offences in relation to the railways. Although I circulated an Explanatory Memorandum with the Bill, I wish to explain the background and other relevant particulars to the House.

The particular arrangements which eventually led to the proposed change to the State advances date back to late 1985. At that time, the then Ministers for Communications and Finance settled, for 1986 and subsequent years, the timing of payment of the normal Exchequer subvention and interest charges on the capital cost of DART to CIE. This involved the deferral to 1987 of some payments due in 1986, the deferral to 1988 of substantial arrears due to be paid in 1987, and the payment in permanent arrears of some moneys due in 1988 and subsequent years.

Pending receipt of the arrears, CIE had to have recourse to temporary borrowings in order to meet their liabilities from 1985 onwards. The accumulated effect of the shortfalls in subvention and DART interest is that the Exchequer would need to provide an additional £45 million in 1988 in order to discharge the arrears. Added to the subvention of £113.6 million which has been allocated to CIE for 1988, this would have brought the total Exchequer requirement for CIE next year to close to £160 million. The allocation of £113.6 million includes £14 million to cover the total expected interest payment on DART in 1988. The total allocation for 1987 is £107.4 million.

When the Government came to dealing with the Estimates for 1988 it was obvious that there was no prospect in current economic circumstances of meeting CIE's needs in full. At the same time, we recognised that, if the issue were not tackled, the Exchequer's indebtedness to CIE would continue to grow, with adverse consequences for the Exchequer and the CIE financial position. Having examined the limited options available, the Government decided to write off against the shortfalls in subvention the £44,458,691 which had been provided for CIE between 1965 and 1982 in repayable advances. The writeoff of the advances is provided for in section 2 (1) of the Bill.

As CIE are required to pay interest on the repayable advances, section 2 (2) of the Bill discharges CIE from liability. The interest currently amounts to about £4.4 million per annum. This saving to CIE will serve as an offset against interest payable by the board on the borrowings generated by the deferral of the subvention moneys. The board will, however, be required to finance the repayment of the borrowings from their own resources. The net effect of this arrangement for CIE is that the additional costs for the board will be confined to the repayment of the sums borrowed to finance arrears of subvention instead of providing at some date in the future for the repayment of State advances.

I should like to have met the Exchequer liability in full, but this was not possible in current circumstances. The solution, while not perfect, is nevertheless better than any likely to emerge as a result of pushing the problem aside for another day. It brings to an end the payment of subvention in arrears and makes CIE's position clear so that they can plan their finances for the future.

To help CIE meet the additional burden, section 3 has been included to enable the board to borrow on a long term basis for the purpose of financing the arrears of subvention. This will involve the conversion to term loans of temporary borrowings already incurred in relation to the arrears. In that way, the repayments of principal can be spread over a longer period. Section 4 of the Bill provides for the guaranteeing in the normal way of those borrowings by the Minister for Finance.

Section 3 of the Bill supplements the board's existing borrowing powers, under which CIE are authorised to borrow for capital purposes on a long term basis and to borrow temporarily for general operational purposes. The statutory limit on borrowings for capital purposes is £250 million and that for temporary borrowing is £40 million. At the end of 1986 the board's borrowings for capital purposes amounted to £157 million and the temporary borrowings stood at £30.7 million. The board's temporary borrowings are now close to the £40 million limit.

Sub-section 7 of section 21 of the Transport Act, 1950, empowers the board of CIE to sell land under and adjoining an abandoned railway line, either by private treaty to the owner of the land on both sides of such line, or by public auction to any person, including such owner. CIE have requested that the additional option of sale by tender be provided for, because experience has shown that parts of abandoned railway lines which are not of interest to adjoining landowners are sometimes not sufficiently valuable to justify the costs of sale by auction. Section 5 of the Bill provides for sale by tender and CIE plan to use the tendering process, where it would be to the board's advantage to dispose of property in that way. These tenders would be invited by public advertisement.

Members of the House have been concerned with reports of offences and vandalism committed on or in relation to the railway. The offences cover a wide range of problems such as wilful destruction of property, stone throwing at trains, placing obstacles in the path of trains, refusing to close gates at certain level crossings, trespass on the railway and improper use of the communication cord on trains. All these involve dangerous practices and can lead to loss of life or limb and damage to property. What starts out as a "lark" can cause irremedial loss and damage.

Unfortunately the frequency and scope of many of these types of incidents have grown in recent years. We are now long past the stage where they can be treated as outbreaks of high spirits. Many of them are obviously undertaken with malicious damage in mind. At considerable cost, the board have been taking special measures to try to curb these objectionable and anti-social activities. Some success has been achieved but it is clear that further measures are needed to impress on those concerned that their misbehaviour is unacceptable. CIE have also to deal with people who refuse to pay or try to avoid paying fares.

While the existing legislation provides for prosecutions and penalties, the courts are handicapped in applying penalties which match the gravity of the offences. This is because the impact of maximum permissible penalties has been eroded over time. For example, it would pay a person to avoid paying his or her fare in the knowledge that the maximum fine on conviction is £2. The penalties for some of the offences dealt with in the Bill were set as long ago as 1868. Some of the penalties were revised between that time and 1971, but even they no longer match the potential greviousness of offences. Penalties have to be imposed which will convince offenders of the likely serious adverse personal consequences of their acts.

Existing maximum penalties range from £2 to £25. For the types of offences which are covered by sections 6 to 10 of the Bill, it is proposed to increase the maximum penalties to £300 and/or a maximum of three months imprisonment. This gives a clear message to would-be offenders that their behaviour is unacceptable and will fall to be punished in a very substantial way. Interference with railway property and the proper operation of rail services cannot be tolerated.

Section 22 of the Railways Act, 1868, provides for penalties in relation to the provision of communication cords as well as penalties for misuse. At present such cords are required to be fitted in passenger trains which travel more than 20 miles without stopping. The potential penalty for not having a communication cord is £10 and section 9 of the Bill provides for increasing the maximum penalty which may be imposed on a railway company to £300. The section also extends the application of the section to all passenger trains so as to bring the legislation into line with existing CIE practice.

The penalty provisions in the Bill are necessary in the interest of facilitating Iarnród Éireann to carry out their responsibilities of safe and efficient transport in an effective manner. I now wish to address myself to a point which was at the root of the question asked by Deputy McCartan on the Order of Business. Deputies in the Dublin North East constituency have been concerned about the problems of trespass and vandalism on the railways in their area. I am grateful to the Minister for Social Welfare, Dr. Woods, and to Deputy McCartan for drawing my attention to a related enforcement problem. It appears that the absence of specific powers of arrest without warrant for the Garda Síochána in cases of trespass, vandalism and so on on the railway restrict, in certain respects, the freedom of the Garda to intervene where a member of the force suspects the committing of an offence. I have examined this and related matters and have come to the conclusion that there is a need to include a provision in the Bill to extend such powers to the Garda Síochána. I envisage such a provision being extended to other matters as well as trespass. My examination of the matter is not, however, quite complete but I expect to be in a position to introduce an appropriate amendment to the Bill when it is being discussed by Seanad Éireann. Of course, when such an amendment has been passed, it will automatically be referred back to this House for consideration and debate.

No discussion of legislative measures in relation to CIE would be complete without some account of the general state of affairs of the board and their subsidiaries. The most recent comprehensive report on the affairs of CIE is the board's annual report and accounts for 1986 which were presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas on 8 October 1987. The result for 1986 was a net profit of £3.648 million before exceptional items. This took account of Exchequer subvention payments totalling almost £117 million. The railway subvention at £93.326 million continues to represent a huge cost to the Exchequer although it recorded a profit of £2.925 million during the year. Other figures of note for 1986 were that total railway passenger journeys increased by 8 per cent to a record 21.7 million, with DART accounting for just over 13 million; passenger journeys on provincial bus services increased by 3.8 per cent and the Dublin City Services passenger journeys increased 2 per cent to 165 million. Despite CIE's best efforts rail freight tonnage dropped by 7.5 per cent to 3.126 million tonnes over the 1985 figure. The road freight results showed a profit of £324,000, compared with a profit of £195,000 in 1985.

Overall the board had a good year in 1986 and this represented a continuation of the progress of recent years. I wish to take this opportunity to express in this House my appreciation to the chairman of CIE, the board, the management and the whole CIE workforce for this performance. It demonstrates continuing efforts in the board's various sectors for increasing revenue, and providing cost effective and efficient transport responding to passengers' needs. The level of Exchequer support required for CIE is still very high and there is a need to reduce it further.

In February 1987 the three new CIE subsidiaries, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann, commenced operations. The smoothness of the changeover to the new structures has been remarkable. The board's report for 1987 will present, for the first time, the results under the new structures.

The board's activities got off to a good start at the beginning of the year by achieving their budgetary objectives. More recently, however, there have been downward trends in the operating results against budget. This is a cause for concern. CIE is making every effort to correct that situation and I hope that its efforts will be rewarded. I believe that CIE has the potential to continue to improve its overall financial position but it will not do so without hard work and responsible attitudes throughout the organisation.

An item which seems to have a recurring adverse effect on CIE is the localised labour disputes of doubtful merit which arise from time to time. These interruptions to services are usually limited in scope but they are sources of major annoyance and inconvenience to the CIE customers who are affected. They tend to draw public odium on the whole of CIE and they lose money. That is very unfair to the vast majority of CIE employees. It is a great pity that in these situations the minority becomes newsworthy, while those in CIE who continue to serve the public remain unsung.

The Government are tackling the serious difficulties confronting the economy. At a time when the general economy is going through a period of difficulty, the transport sector is as vulnerable as any other, and the CIE organisation has to face up to the challenges confronting it. Success cannot be achieved without the active support of all CIE employees giving of their best. The employees' own futures cannot be divorced from that of the organisation.

Over recent years the CIE rail carriage fleet and bus fleets have been upgraded and CIE customers have experienced the value of these developments. Most of the mainline rail routes have now modern carriages, very recent additions being those introduced on the Dublin-Westport and Dublin-Rosslare routes. Iarnród Éireann are modifying their carriage building programme in order to improve the quality of services on radial and outer suburban routes. The first of these carriages will be available next year. The renewal of the provincial bus fleet was completed in 1986 and 50 new luxury coaches for use on the Supabus and Expressway routes and by the tours division were acquired. The Dublin bus fleet has also been improved over recent years.

From media coverage it is quite clear that the general image of CIE as a commercial organisation has also been changing. The improved profile which the CIE group has achieved through better marketing of its services and better use of resources is very evident. We have the special DART events, including the cultural links with the theatre and poetry, the special Killarney week-end packages for visitors travelling from Dublin by rail and the many other rail and bus special offers. This is evidence of a new dynamism in CIE. It is improving the product and making strenuous efforts to attract more customers and so improve the utilisation of the rail and road fleets with obvious consequences for the organisation's revenues. These efforts and innovations in CIE reflect a customer orientated approach which deserves to succeed and will do so.

CIE's role in the tourist industry is a major one. Not only is it engaged in selling abroad Irish holidays and in providing transport services and tours for holidaymakers in Ireland, but it is also responsible for Rosslare Harbour, one of our international gateways and the major sea access point from Continental Europe. First class access transport and facilities for visitors at the points of entry are essential for the further growth in the number of visitors coming to spend their holidays among us.

CIE has been working for a number of years on upgrading the facilities at the harbour. A major part of the development plan for the harbour is finished and next year, when the new passenger terminal is completed, we will have at Rosslare a product of the highest international standards with quality visitor services. These are so necessary to remove for our visitors some of the frustrations, which cannot but damage our image as a friendly and concerned people, and to create the most favourable impression possible on our visitors as they arrive.

In summary, I have explained the background to the Bill and its provisions. I have outlined for the House the progress which CIE has made in recent years and touched on some of the problems facing the organisation. I am heartened by what has been achieved but recognise that there are still many challenges facing the board and its subsidiaries. If Deputies have questions arising from the issues raised in the Bill, I will endeavour to answer them.

The financial performance of CIE over the past three years inspires confidence and I know that under the leadership of the chairman and board of CIE every effort will be made to achieve the targets set by Government.

Mar fhocail scoir, molaim an Bille don Teach.

Mr. Deasy

We will not oppose this legislation which is primarily designed to make to CIE payments which had been put on the long finger over a number of years. The latter part of the Bill concerns the updating of antiquated regulations which controlled fines and penalties. These need updating. It is hard to believe that we are referring to legislation which dates back to 1868. It conjures up visions of the James' Gang. That legislation was brought in when they committed their first major train robbery by pulling the communications cord.

Mr. Wilson

Or people coming back from the Fenian rising.

Mr. Deasy

Frank pulled the cord and Jesse jumped out with the mail bags and half of the people's goods and valuables. It is too early to know if the breaking up of CIE into three new sections will be a success, although that is an interesting innovation. It will be a great pity if the provincial bus service and Bus Átha Cliath cannot break even. I have every confidence in the general manager Mr. Conlon and in the board to improve things considerably so as to meet that aim of making both of those branches viable.

However, the railway section will never be profit making. It will always make huge losses. By its nature, in a sparsely populated country, it will make losses. If we want to have a rail network we must be prepared to pay dearly for it. However, there is an overwhelming consensus that we should retain a rail network. The rail network has been savaged over the years and it is only a fraction of what it was. There is talk about its being further reduced. There is talk about closing the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick passenger service. Any further projects of that kind would be unwise. We accept that the railway system will be loss-making.

Government subvention is a nice way of describing the losses incurred by the three companies. The overall subvention amounts to approximately £117 million, £93 million of which is incurred by the railways, or Iarnród Éireann. Not too long ago the figure was £70 million only. If that increase can be justified I would assume it is due to inflation. I would hope it can be stabilised if not reduced. The Minister spoke about reducing costs by close to 20 per cent over the next five years. That would constitute a considerable improvement because it would be a saving of approximately £18 million, bringing the relevant figure down to £75 million. However, the overall subvention or loss is £117 million. There is a £24 million gap there which is obviously occasioned by the provincial bus services and more so by the Dublin bus services.

It is the belief of my party that the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority by the present Government before they had had an opportunity to prove themselves was an extremely retrograde step. There was a certain degree of vindictiveness — I could not put it in nicer terms — carried over from the period during which the present Government were in Opposition. They had vowed to abolish or disband it. That type of tactic is not to be encouraged. It is essential that all transport services in the Greater Dublin area be controlled by one single authority. I might add that that authority had the power to license bus services operated by independent operators. At a time when the Government are introducing legislation to allow competition on the airwaves it is a great pity that they allowed a situation to evolve in which there is not competition in public transport.

The Minister mentioned the very serious industrial relations problems that have arisen time and time again, most recently this week. He stressed the annoyance and inconvenience caused to the public by these interruptions of services. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously allowing the licensing of independent services. At present the public find the going sufficiently tough. But when there is what could be described only as institutionalised action against the paying public, that amounts to a totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable state of affairs. If people can provide buses of a quality comparable to those provided by CIE, if they can pay the going rate, if their workforce is trained and skilled and their equipment up to standard I see no earthly reason they should not be given the same opportunity of providing a comprehensive transport service, be that in the Dublin area alone or in Dublin and the remainder of the country.

I hear people involved in what is almost this State monopoly complain about unlicensed operators. Those operators are unlicensed not because that is their wish but because they have not been licensed to do the job they are capable of doing to the very same standard as the State company with the monopoly, be it rail or bus. They can provide a service of the same standard but are not afforded an opportunity of getting a licence. Whether it be the bus service from the ferries, from Tralee, or from Galway, Limerick or Donegal they are providing a tremendous service to the people in those regions. In most cases they are providing that service for a lesser fare than the State company. The question must be posed: are the long suffering public expected to continue to endure a position in which, if and when industrial action is taken, they have no alternative? Must they endure that hardship indefinitely? We had that position obtaining this week in Dublin and a couple of weeks ago also. Approximately three months ago that was the position prevailing in the provinces when there was no bus service in and out of our major cities such as Waterford, Limerick or Galway. I contend that this should not be tolerated. I know there are people who could provide an equivalent, if not a better service, and they should be given an opportunity to do so. This series of strikes the travelling public have had to endure has gone on for far too long. Indeed there is no guarantee that it will not continue. People are entitled to an option. We heard recently much about cuts affecting the poorer and weaker sections of the community. I cannot think of any weaker or poorer section of the community than that which travels by public transport. At a time when the Government are breaking the mould — the "in" expression nowadays — in certain State services why do they not go the whole hog and save themselves a considerable amount of money? As I pointed out initially, the losses on the bus services at present amount to £24 million. Were it available, that amount would solve the pupil-teacher ratio problem this week and indeed many others. Probably we could have a better standard of service running alongside.

I put it to the Minister that there is no justification for retaining a system which condones a monopoly when that monopoly is continuously abused, admittedly by a small minority who are giving the majority of hard working personnel in CIE — who do a tremendous job, very faithful and loyal servants — a bad name. That small minority appear to be giving the whole company a very distasteful name and reputation. I would ask the Minister seriously to examine that matter. I do not think it would lead to a wholesale loss of jobs. In fact it might even augment the number of people employed in public transport because we would have then a more invigorated system. It should be remembered that competition is the life of trade. I do not envisage reverting to a system such as obtained in the ‘twenties and early' thirties, when there were bus services crisscrossing all over the country, a crazy system which had to be curtailed and culminated in the buying out of those licensed operators, with the resultant formation of CIE in later years. There is no need to go from one extreme to another. Let us have a little rationalisation and common sense. Let us have competition and give the public a proper service.

The former Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell, did very outstanding work during his period of office. He brought in more changes and innovation than any of his predecessors. His concept of three companies within one in CIE is a better system and helps us to identify the extent of the loss-making within those three bodies. It is a great pity that the Minister disbanded the Dublin Transport Authority even before they started to operate. I have every confidence in the ability of the chief executive of CIE, Mr. Conlon, and his board. They have improved matters within the confines of their brief. In the Minister's statement that matter is mentioned in passing.

There is also reference to CIE's role in the tourist industry. It is not dealt with in any great detail and that is a pity because the recent Price Waterhouse report on tourism clearly indicated that the inadequacy of public transport is an inhibiting factor as far as tourist trade is concerned. That point was made quite clearly. They felt that our public transport system is inadequate. One can imagine a foot passenger coming to any of our airports or sea terminals and wanting to travel around Ireland by public transport. He or she would have a considerable task in getting services which would work in unison. There might be delays of hours if not days in travelling from certain parts of the country to other parts. We lack a comprehensive system and it must be a problem where the tourist industry is concerned.

The Minister referred to additional aspects of this legislation, one of which is to get rid of railway property. This is interesting and may be dangerous. Previously the policy was to sell the land to the adjoining land owner and that was probably very successful. Now a system is to be introduced where by the property will be sold by tender. In rural areas this could give rise to considerable controversy considering the value that is put on land. If a strip of land which accommodated a railway line was sold to an antagonistic neighbour and the land on either side was owned by a farmer we can imagine the problems that would arise. It is not clear if the owner of the adjacent land will be given priority when it comes to the purchase of the land. I could imagine the sense of this change in the legislation if the person adjoining the railway property is not willing to pay a fair amount for it but if a valuer puts a price on it which seems to be reasonable and the adjoining land owner is prepared to buy it then he should be allowed to do so. I would like the Minister to clarify that point. We will have to oppose that section of the Bill if there is a possibility that somebody who did not have any interest in the adjoining land could buy that strip of land and thereby make a nuisance of himself or cause difficulty for the resident land owner. That matter is not explained satisfactorily in the Minister's statement. Maybe there is a satisfactory explanation and, if so, I would like to hear it in the Minister's reply. Otherwise we will be opposing the provision on Committee Stage.

The proposed increase in the level of penalties for various offences in relation to railways makes good sense. We cannot tolerate people throwing rocks through the windows of trains or putting the bough of a tree on the line and being fined only £2 or £3. The fine must be realistic. It seems the penalty for pulling the communication cord is being increased from £25 to £300. I do not know if that penalty is ever enforced. Communication cords are generally pulled by one of a crowd of hooligans on their way to or from a football match. I exclude hurlers in case people would get the wrong idea that I was having a go at the GAA. Those involved are generally soccer hooligans who are not to be found on this island although I am sure it also happens here at times.

Mr. Cullen

They could be hockey players.

Mr. Deasy

If my local hockey team heard me saying that I would be in trouble. I am in enough trouble with them already because I cannot get a pitch for them. The pulling of a communications cord is an offence which is difficult to combat when people are travelling in droves and are making a nuisance of themselves. The Minister did not refer to that point in his statement. Fortunately it has not been a major problem in this country to date. Much damage is being done on the Continent and particularly in Britain by hooligans travelling en masse on public transport, particularly on trains. Knowing our facility for copying the habits of the British it will not be too long before the same is happening in this country. Perhaps the Minister would refer to that matter. He spoke about rocks being thrown through windows, logs being put on the railway tracks and all the old fashioned ways of causing trouble but perhaps he will say how he intends to deal with organised gangs of hooligans or trouble makers, particularly those travelling to and from events, whether they are matches, pop concerts or whatever.

The following lines in the Explanatory Memorandum do not make a whole lot of sense to me:

Section 9 extends the requirement to provide an efficient means of communication between passengers and train staff to all passenger trains and increases the penalty in relation to the failure of a railway company to provide such means of communication to a fine not exceeding £300.

Maybe that is good English but to me it is gobbledegook; it means nothing at all. Does it mean that if one of the railway staff announces over the public address system that the train now standing on platform 22 is going to Westport and it turns out that it is going to Cork, the staff member has given wrong information and is liable to a fine not exceeding £300? The other regulation is not to use the toilet when the train is standing in the station but if a case was brought in regard to that the district justice would throw it out on compassionate grounds. I would appreciate an explanation of this section because as worded it sounds quite ridiculous.

I have referred to Jesse James being responsible for the 1868 legislation. Some of the legislation is antiquated and some of the penalties and fines are very much out of date. We can support all the sections but I want section 9 to be explained as we go along. I do not think we will find this difficult and I hope the Bill gets a quick passage through the House. I would like an elaboration in regard to the rights of land owners adjacent to lines which are disused and an explanation of section 9.

Mr. Cullen

To say that I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's speech would be an understatement. He has failed to address the essentials of the whole question of transport and he has dealt with it in a very superficial way. How can anybody responsible ultimately for a major transport company come into this House and use phrases like "we are seeking to halve the deficit in real terms" and "we are hoping to make a profit"? What kind of language is this in the economic climate of the Ireland in 1987?

In regard to one of the major problems that has been crippling CIE over the last number of years, and particularly in the last few months, the Minister again says "an item which seems to have a recurring adverse effect on CIE are localised labour disputes of doubtful merit which arise from time to time". This is about the only reference to a fundamental problem within CIE today. The rest of what the Minister said basically dealt with the increase in fines, to which I have no objection. It is right that they should be updated. I do not think the essential element is the increase in fines. The Minister has missed a golden opportunity to address the whole transport question, which I hope to do now.

This Bill epitomises the huge wastage of taxpayers' money. CIE can justly claim to be at the pinnacle of draining the Exchequer of scarce financial resources. In a time of unprecedented questioning of public finances, with every Department and sector being asked to trim to the bone their demands on the Exchequer, the Minister has the audicity to come into this House to ask us to approve the writing off by the State advances of just under £45 million and the interest thereon to CIE. Not alone are we being asked to allow CIE to walk away from a debt of some £45 million, the Minister wants us now to allow CIE to borrow another £45 million which the State will guarantee and which no doubt in time will disappear into the bottomless pit that CIE has continued to dig for many years; the State in time will have to write off this debt also. No right minded person could approve of such a course of action.

We have seen the incredible hardship that the people are being asked to bear because of the very severe, ill-planned, ill-thought out drastic cutbacks in the health service, followed by incredible blunders in the education system. In the midst of all this the Government see fit to write off £45 million owned by CIE.

This state of affairs can no longer be allowed to continue. The Government must face up to the realities. They must take a critical look at many of the State run companies including, above all, CIE. This vitally important aspect of the agenda has not been addressed by Government. In fact, they are paralysed with fear when it comes to having a major rethink on the whole area of State involvement in companies and, most important, the return to the Exchequer and the people of this country as a result of that involvement.

Why is it that when the Government are prepared to take such hard options, many of which I applaud them for, they absolutely refuse to turn their attention to the value of the State's involvement in semi-State companies? That is the greatest flaw in this Government's programme. If this question is not addressed all of the hard work being carried out will go for nothing. A fundamental change of direction and attitude is urgently needed. The monoliths that have consumed vast sums over the last 20 years cannot remain sacrosanct. They must be part of the financial restructuring that is urgently needed. To allow CIE and similar public companies to continue in their old ways is tantamount to criminal negligence. I, and the Progressive Democrats, have no intention of allowing this state of affairs to continue. The sooner the Government face up to that reality the better.

Over the last number of months we have witnessed the apalling and irresponsible carry on in Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. They have totally removed themselves from reality. They seem to think they can carry on in any fashion that suits them with absolutely no regard for the public who are their ultimate employers and customers. It is quite apparent that industrial relations in this company have reached a crisis point and they are floundering around in a sea of self interest. Their constant calling of strikes at the drop of a hat show clearly that their whole raison d'être is to score points internally to the total detriment of the service they are paid to provide. But they are secure in the knowledge that their monopoly position in the transport sector is being guaranteed and protected by the Government and they are not subjected to competitive market forces. Does the Minister believe for one minute that if there was real competition on the bus routes these people would get away with this sort of carry on, that if the people were allowed an alternative the workers and management of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann would behave in such a manner? The answer is an emphatic no. Why then will the Government not recognise that fact and take steps to force Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to operate in a responsible manner by allowing other companies compete on the bus routes thereby subjecting them to market forces which no doubt the public would greatly welcome?

It it quite clear from the Book of Estimates for 1988 that the public finances are in a serious state. No stone is being left unturned in the effort to trim our sails. I fully acknowledge that the public finances have to be tackled for the next few years. It is patently obvious that the country was living beyond its means, that our borrowing requirements were far too high, and if this continued the country would be bankrupt.

The broad thrust of the Government's reduction in public spending is indeed correct. We have already witnessed over the past couple of months the very real and serious effects such action is having. The whole area of health, which was grossly mishandled by the Government in a totally unplanned way, has resulted in many hospitals being closed, many nurses losing their jobs and a very serious reduction in the level of our health services. In my constituency of Waterford we have witnessed the very sad spectacle of the oldest hospital in the country having to close.

Mr. Wilson

What has this to do with the Transport Bill?

The inevitable consequences of this, of course, are the Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus would not continue to operate under the present arrangements. These companies would have to be privatised because they would be incapable of functioning and operating effectively under their present set-up if they had to cope with competition on the bus routes throughout the country. Why, I ask, are the Minister and the Government so afraid of this course of action? Are Fianna Fáil so shackled to the past that anything that smacks of being innovative, progressive and modern paralyses them with fear of the unknown? Yet this Minister has already benefited from the fruits of this type of action. He, I am happy to say, has continued the work of deregulation in air transport. When Deputy Desmond O'Malley first mooted this suggestion some years ago——

Mr. Deasy

He did not.

I shall do that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The city of Dublin is the only capital city as far as I can ascertain where one company have a total monopoly of public transport. This is a totally flawed and ridiculous situation. To coin the old phrase, there are absolutely no winners but there are two main losers — the fare paying public and the Exchequer. The reality of this situation will have to be faced up to by Government sooner or later and I propose that it be sooner.

The Minister and his Department have a golden opportunity seriously to tackle the increasing failure of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to provide the best possible public transport system. With the best will in the world this will never happen until there is competition both within Dublin city and throughout the country. If this Government were really serious, courageous and imaginative it is this proposal which I have outlined that we should be discussing here today. I can assure the Minister that the Progressive Democrats and I are going to keep these fundamental issues on the agenda because they are very much relevant in the Ireland of today.

The days of throwing millions of pounds of scarce taxpayers' money into companies who believe the Government have a bottomless pit of money to give them are over. Fundamental changes will be needed in many areas. The Transport Bill which is before us today and what it purports to do is a relic from a bygone age and has no relevance in this country at this point in time. We simply cannot afford to throw good money after bad.

Mr. McCartan

Will the Deputy vote against it?

Mr. Cullen

Yes, Sir. The Government and the people of this country are not getting good value from Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann and it will not be brought about by giving them millions of pounds more to spend. It will only occur in the long term by real competition on the routes throughout the country and the ultimate privatisation of these companies.

The Progressive Democrats will not support this Bill in the present economic circumstances. It is an affront to the taxpayers of this country to bring it before the House and I call on the Minister to withdraw it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Kavanagh.

Mr. Briscoe

Am I not entitled to speak now? Members from the Fine Gael Party and the Progressive Democrats have spoken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The tradition on Second Stage is that we take a spokesperson from the three major parties first after which we go to the Government's side, after which we go to one of the lesser parties.

Mr. Kavanagh

Small is beautiful, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Not necessarily in quality, merely in quantity.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Numerically.

Mr. Kavanagh

We in the Labour Party will of course be supporting this Bill and will not be putting forward any amendments to it because this is a measure which has been brought forward to deal with the financing of CIE. I would only agree with one sentence of what my colleague on my left, Deputy Cullen, has said, which is, that on some other occasion we should have a discussion on the problems in the transport system. Perhaps in that discussion we could deal with all sectors of the transport system such as air, sea and road transport and also deal with the many difficulties in producing a good transport system.

Listening to the previous speaker it would appear that all the problems in the transport system would be solved if we were to privatise CIE. This suggestion has been put forward during the years by certain parties and individuals as the answer to providing cheaper road transport. There are those of us who have either read or can recall the history of the transport system In the forties the State had to step in to a chaotic transport system, both rail and road, which was being run by private companies. In order to deal with that chaotic system the Government set up CIE to provide a modern transport system for the benefit of all the people of this country, not just for those who were living in the built up areas but also for those who lived in the remoter areas of the country who deserved a public transport system.

It is very easy to look at certain sections of the transport system and say that we should privatise buses in a certain area. Many reports have been carried out on CIE and the McKinsey report, which is one of the later ones, was published in 1981. That report looked very closely at the industry and came up with some ideas which have been referred to earlier today. It had four main views on the rail system. It suggested that because it was the biggest loss maker, for very good reasons which we can analyse if we wish, firstly, we could increase the volume and investment in the railways so as to make them more attractive; secondly, we could keep the present rail network and level of service but eliminate the rail freight service and the road freight service and centralise the management of the dangerous substances freight services; thirdly, we could close all the lines with the exception of the lines from Dublin to Belfast and from Dublin to Cork and Limerick; and, fourthly, we could close down the operation altogether by 1990.

I am glad to say that in 1983 the Government having considered the McKinsey report decided on giving an annual subvention to CIE which was based on the relationship between CIE's revenue and expenditure. They included a requirement that the board would reduce their level of expenditure in real terms by 2.5 per cent per annum. The primary objective of that arrangement was to contain the overall deficit of CIE. That was a reasonable approach to take at that time.

The second initiative which was taken by Government at that time was to produce a Green Paper. That was one of the most enlightening apporaches ever taken to the transport system and it dealt with all of the operations of CIE. It also dealt with other areas of CIE, which I do not wish to dwell upon now, such as the state of our roads which has an important bearing on transport policy. The Green Paper on transport policy dealt with all aspects of the operations of CIE and the direction it should take in the future.

It was interesting to read back over that Green Paper and especially the section on the provincial bus services. It stated that, overall, CIE provincial bus services operated profitably until 1974 but since then they have made losses. The greater part of these losses was incurred in the provincial city services. In 1980, the city services recorded losses of £3.2 million. The loss peaked at £4.2 million in 1982 but was reduced to £2.71 million in 1984. On the other hand, the losses in the provincial bus services which embrace rural bus services and Expressway buses grew from £1 million in 1980 to £2.5 million in 1981. Since then, these losses have been reduced to a loss of £1.1 million in 1984. Therefore, we can see that improvements have been made in the bus area.

The proposals set out in the Green Paper were adopted and today we see the result of that very important initiative by the previous Government in setting up three arms of CIE, the rail service, the Dublin bus service and the provincial service. They operate as independent structures so that their operations can be viewed separately and the problems in them can be identified and dealt with by boards set up by the individual services.

It is interesting to read in the latest CIE report what has happened since that Green Paper was brought forward. If one uses only the yardstick of profit — which I would not wish to use in relation to a public service — to decide the future of a concern such as CIE, let us get the facts right. In 1982, the deficit in the operations of CIE was £11.6 million. That increased in 1983 to £16.1 million. In 1984, the deficit in the whole operation was £1 million. In 1985 there was a profit of £1.5 million and in 1986 the profit was £1.6 million.

Mr. Deasy

That was due to the advent of Mr. Conlon and the new board.

Mr. Kavanagh

In this debate we have heard severe criticism of CIE and their operations and how we would have a wonderful operation if privatisation were to take over the bus services and the rail services, apparently, were to close down. I have quoted figures from the latest CIE report dealing with 1986 and those figures have not been challenged in this debate today so far. I accept the report which has been produced by the Chairman and the Board of Directors of CIE. I welcome the improvement in CIE since the introduction of the three new companies overseen and guided by the original CIE company. I join in the compliments paid to Mr. Conlon and his board who, I am glad to say, are made up not simply of people from the business side but also by a number of worker-directors who not only represent the workers in CIE but bring a great deal of knowledge and experience of working in that organisation to the boardroom. Because of the operations of the central board and the three other boards and the direction given by the previous Government in bringing forward the transport policy paper, we have seen a turn around in CIE in the past few years.

Mention has been made by speakers for Fine Gael and the PDs of the strike position which is always pointed to in a discussion on CIE. On the day I took office as Minister for Labour in 1981 a CIE strike was in progress. If one looks at the record of strikes in companies, CIE must rank high in that area but this is part of their history. In the recent climate in that company and the change around not only in their economic fortunes but in industrial relations, a great improvement can be seen and this is referred to on page 7 of the CIE report. I quote:

The improvement in the Industrial Relations climate, to which I referred last year, was maintained. There were only seven minor stoppages, all unofficial, all throughout the year and none lasted longer than a day.

There was a strike at Clontarf Garage which lasted much longer than that and one at Donnybrook recently lasted a very short time. From my knowledge of labour relations it takes two to make a strike. Regarding the most recent one, I question how a strike can be settled in one day by having to go to a public hearing of the Labour Court or by bringing in an official of the Labour Court when the strike is in progress. Only one route was concerned. All the other services were prepared to accept one-man operation on the buses, or at least to consider it. Why was the whole south east area of Dublin left without buses when a settlement could have been reached by isolating that one bus route, the 45A, and having the discussions which are being considered as a result of the intervention of the Labour Court? These finicky problems cannot simply be blamed on the workforce. Strike settlement requires enlightenment on both sides and all strikes are settled eventually. That recent strike should never have occurred. The one area of difficulty should have been isolated as the strike was finally resolved on that basis.

I am confident that the efforts being made within CIE by the new companies under the new arrangements are bringing in results. The service to the public is good and is improving. Imagination is being used in fare structures for the travelling public. Whether they travel to work constantly or simply use the service for the occasional visit to relations, taking weekends away or whatever their choice, attractive packages are being presented to them through the fare structure of CIE. Coupled with that is an improvement in the buses and the rail carriages for the comfort of passengers. I am satisfied that this can and will continue because the recent enlightenment in CIE will be encouraged by Members of this House on all sides.

It is very easy to advocate privatising the buses and bringing down fares. Of course this would happen in the profitable built-up areas but CIE have always been accepted as having a social role and this has necessitated high subventions. CIE have been bedevilled by the method of financing by successive Governments. They are not alone in this. Many of the semi-State companies who have been receiving a great deal of public attention because of their difficulties have been bedevilled by the way they are financed. I will not refer to the travail of B & I or Irish Steel but if we hang a huge debt of borrowing around our State companies and tell them they must pay off heavy interest payments to the commercial banks, irrespective of the climate in the money market, we cannot then blame those companies or the workers for the difficulties in which they find themselves. That is not the yardstick by which to judge these companies.

We in the Labour Party would support a reasonable input of State equity to protect the company from high interest charges on the capital they have to raise. I have never heard anybody from the banking industry clamouring for the privatisation of public State companies. The banks are the big beneficiaries of the State companies because of the loans public companies must obtain in order to update their services and their stock. When the DART started operations and ships had to be bought by B & I the money was raised through the banks and the debts accruing were applied just as one would apply the cost of wages or salaries to the running of those companies, irrespective of the prevailing financial climate. That is why we believe there should be a far greater State equity within public companies which are, after all, owned by the taxpayers. At least it would equate them to the private companies who have the ability to raise money through the Stock Exchange. If they make money they pay a dividend; if not, it is too bad.

Recent events on the Stock Exchange have shown that events in America can wipe millions of pounds from the equity capital of private companies. That will not happen to CIE. They will have to carry their debts and pay the interest on them, irrespective of what happens abroad. These debts are hung around their neck. CIE's borrowing from the banks now stands at £169 million and only £44.5 million from the Exchequer. This raises the question as to whether CIE are really a public company or whether they are owned by the banks. This is the root cause of many of the problems in CIE. At some stage an investigation should be carried out by the consultants we use to examine undertakings in the public sector.

Our approach to the semi-State companies has been somewhat wrongheaded. Instead of producing proper equity for them we simply send them to the banks to raise more money. This is my criticism of this Bill. CIE will have to go to the banks once more to raise money to finance their operations. CIE have been involved in heavy capital expenditure during the past three years and the payment of interest on those debts continues. Now we are sending CIE to the banks to reschedule the debts. The company are to be allowed to raise £44 million but it will be stretched over a longer period. This may cause more financial problems for CIE.

I now turn to some other aspects of the Bill. The sale of land is a reasonable proposal. A great deal of land adjacent to our railway lines is still in the possession of CIE and they should be given the ability to sell this land, not simply to pay for current debts but perhaps to improve the system further. Some very valuable land is owned by CIE in my home town, Wicklow. One of the problems is that this permission will be given at a time when land values are at their lowest and the market is depressed. The large sums which could have been raised by the sale of this land some years ago will not be achieved now. It is questionable whether this is a good time to encourage CIE to sell off their land. We all hope this depression will end in a few years time and since CIE have held the land for so many years it might be appropriate to wait for a more favourable time to sell. If this land is put on the market quickly it will have the side effect of depressing land values further, perhaps affecting the whole market.

Railway companies in the US are permitted to set up a land company to lease and sell their land. They can use their land in the most profitable way possible or dispose of it in a way that does not create financial problems for them. Would it be in the interests of CIE to permit them establish their own land company so that they can lease or use their land in a manner that will bring a good return to the company? I accept that the company have some ability in that area but if we gave them the latitude to establish a land company they might be able to complete more profitable deals in relation to their land rather than selling it off by tender to farmers with land adjoining the railway lines. Such a move would raise more money for the company. I hope the Bill will be confined to sites adjoining railway lines because I would be very concerned if the site acquired for the proposed Dublin transportation centre was sold off by the company. I hope the Bill will guarantee that that valuable site is held by the company.

I welcome the provisions to increase certain penalties. It is strange that Ministers must come to the House to change maximum penalties. I do not know why there should be a ceiling on penalties. In the seventies and early eighties when the rate of inflation was very high those penalties were eroded. In my view penalties should at least keep pace with inflation. If the cost of living increases there is no reason penalties for misdemeanours should not increase. We are all aware that vandalism to carriages is caused by hooligans. CIE are not the only concern to suffer. We are all aware that public estates and facilities in many areas are vandalised but while penalties may be a deterrent they will not change the position. This is a social problem which many people say is caused by high unemployment. We are told that many young unemployed people take out their frustrations in certain ways but I do not agree entirely with that. I accept that there are more opportunities for young people to damage public property but there should be greater parental control. Schools should try to create a better civic spirit among their pupils and get across to them that everything owned by the State is for their benefit. We should not try to change the position by increasing penalties; we should try to do so by education and example.

The position in regard to railway crossings is different. Difficulties in regard to them arise because of pure carelessness. There have been a number of fatalities in recent years in my constituency at railway crossings caused by the failure to close gates, or people driving cars half way across the tracks and stopping to close the gate behind them. I do not think increased penalties is the answer. CIE should be encouraged to provide automatic systems at all level crossings. Initially that may prove a costly move but in the long run they are the only answer to that problem. I cannot understand why there is a hand operated system in operation on one of our national primary roads. Surely in 1987 we should have an automatic system operating there. I imagine that the problem is a lack of finance rather than a willingness by the company to introduce more modern techniques.

The Labour Party will be supporting this measure. The financing of CIE has been wrongly pursued over many years. There should be a greater State involvement rather than driving the company to the commercial banks to raise money. That policy has caused many problems for CIE and other public companies. The policies adopted following the publication of the Green Paper in 1985 are proving beneficial. I reject the statements by Deputy Cullen of the Progressive Democrats about CIE and I do not agree with his ideas for public transportation. I suggest that he do a little more research on the history of public transport here and read the various reports produced on that topic. If he did so his attitude to public transport would change.

Mr. Briscoe

I welcome an opportunity to debate the public transport system in Dublin. At the outset I should like to ask the question, who controls CIE? It seems to me, and to many citizens, particularly those living in Dublin, that CIE is controlled by the unions. CIE have made superhuman efforts to rationalise and develop their services but yet we had a strike last week caused by a man who has been out sick for the past nine months, and is still out sick. When that occurs it is time to look at the sanity of the union involved and its executive who authorised an official strike. Thousands of workers in the city suffered severe hardship. The working people of Dublin were affected by that unnecessary strike. We have all been approached at some stage or other by constituents when a bus was taken off a particular route. For example, I was informed by constituents that the No. 23 bus is about to be taken off a route in Drimnagh. I contacted CIE and they told me they were willing to put on a single decker bus on that route but the union would not allow that. The people of Drimnagh, therefore, are to be deprived of a bus service because the union has said "no". I do not think it will be long before the citizens of Dublin picket the headquarters of unions because in some instances they are becoming the tyrants in the play, to use that word in its widest sense, that causes hardship to ordinary people.

Every time there is a strike it strengthens the case for privatisation. The call for privatisation becomes stronger when we have this kind of strike. People do not call for privatisation for profit but to escape from this prison they feel they are in because a company has a monopoly of the transport system. People want a choice of transport. Most people I know would opt for the privatisation of our airways. They do not like to think of one company with a monopoly because, if there is a strike, every channel is affected. For many years people were in favour of public ownership but they are changing their views because of this type of strike.

CIE are a good company providing very good welfare facilities for their employees. I know many bus drivers and conductors who have nothing but praise for the conditions under which they work. They are as embarrassed as anybody else when a senseless strike takes place. Deputy Kavanagh asked why the Labour Court had to intervene before the recent strike was settled in one day. How do we know that the terms which settled that strike were not already offered by CIE but were not acceptable to the leader of that union? As far as the public are aware and from the exposure he gets on the media, he seems to take delight in having the power, with one wave of his hand, to take all the buses off our roads and bring the staff out on strike. This type of thing has bedevilled CIE's efforts to break even.

I want to deal now with vandalism and the measures proposed to increase fines. The Minister said this Bill will increase the fines from £2 to a maximum of £300. Because we so seldom get the chance to make changes in legislation, I believe we should impose the maximum fine and let the district court decide whether to impose it. At present, the maximum fine the district court can impose is £800. Over the next ten or 12 years £300 may be worth £100 or less and the damage that can be done by vandals can cost far more than £300 to repair.

I have always felt very strongly that if those who have committed acts of vandalism were caught and let go free, except with a very small fine, and were under 18, their parents should be made to pay out of their wages, salaries or, if they are on welfare, a deduction could be made from their welfare payments. They should take some responsibility for the acts of their children. Therefore, I am sorry that the maximum penalty was not increased to £800 and a maximum of one year in prison rather than three months, bearing in mind that some of these acts of vandalism can cause the death of passengers on trains and buses. As a Deputy said earlier, rocks are being thrown through train windows.

I was bringing my children on their first train ride to Howth and a rock came through the window, landing about three or four inches from where we were sitting. If it had hit any of my children it could have killed them. I would love to have caught those young hooligans and I would have administered justice on the spot. I can tell you they would not be able to throw another rock today. This is another area about which the people feel very badly. These vandals are brought to court and a puny fine is imposed. This is not a deterrent. When we have the chance to increase fines to the maximum the district court should impose, we should take that opportunity and leave it to the district justice to decide how severe the fine should be. This might make these people think twice before they commit an act of vandalism.

CIE are doing a tremendous job providing tours and holidays for visitors. The couriers and drivers are very carefully selected and do a first class job. They are not just great ambassadors for CIE, but they are great ambassadors for Ireland. Visitors often come back because they got value for money. I have nothing but the highest praise for the way CIE select these people for these very competitive jobs. Naturally the bus drivers and couriers have a much more informal and relaxed life than the driver who has to go from A to B every day of the week. I am not unaware of the harshness of the bus drivers' and conductors' jobs. They work very unsocial hours, often getting to the garage at 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. They work very difficult shifts and earn their money. The few mavericks — and there are a few mavericks in every organisation, even in Leinster House — in CIE cost taxpayers a lot of money.

Today we are giving CIE extensive powers to borrow because of their inability to repay money borrowed from the Exchequer. How much did that recent strike which lasted two or three days cost the taxpayer? The company still had to meet their overheads and the men were paid. It must have cost hundreds of thousands of pounds in lost revenue.

I should like to ask the Minister if it is possible to bring some influence to bear on CIE to bring in a special fare in certain parts of the city like Darndale and Tallaght. Buses should leave regularly for the centre of the city with a fare of 25p. People would use such transport in vast numbers because it would be an economic proposition. Many people are housed on the outskirts of the city and it is very expensive to travel from there to the city. I know that CIE would be very reluctant to embark on a six months experiment of a 25p fare from Tallaght into town in case they would lose more money than is already the case. However, it is worth a try and we should make an effort to see what can be done in pilot areas on the north and south sides. Public transport is not being utilised as it should be and far fewer people would use their cars if they could get in and out of town at a reasonable cost. Even off peak rates would be worth trying. I have spoken about this to people in CIE and I have also mentioned it at meetings of Dublin City Council in relation to planning the future of Dublin and the building of housing estates.

The Minister, in referring to vandalism and people trying to avoid paying fares, stated that at considerable cost the board had been taking special measures to try to curb these objectionable and anti-social activities. He also said that some success had been achieved but that further measures are needed to impress on those concerned that their misbehaviour is unacceptable. What further measures do CIE propose to take? The proposals they adopt should be endorsed by this House because, for too long, people have had to pay far in excess of what they should pay for public transport. It is an absolute scandal compared with public transport in other countries. I know that the population in these countries is far bigger and that there is far greater use of public transport. Nevertheless, the cost of public transport here has gone beyond what used to be called in economic terms the optimum.

I wish CIE and all the different bodies attached to them — Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and the road haulage section — the best of luck in their efforts to make a success of this venture. However, I appeal to the unions, although I know this will probably be interpreted as union bashing, to reverse their seeming laissezfaire attitides to the hardships inflicted on commuters. I am highly critical of the NBU in relation to their conduct, not just in this recent strike but in others. The unions should realise that the people they penalise are paying for the service and ultimately the unions are penalising their own members because only so much of this kind of conduct will be tolerated. We cannot afford the luxury of strikes based on a whim of a few people who do not represent the majority of their members. CIE have done more than any other company in the world in facilitating the objections to the one man bus system which operates everywhere else. The patience of the public has worn thin and if the unions proceed along their present lines — I say this with the best will in the world — they will force privatisation. People have a legitimate right to expect a transport system to bring them to work and if it is not available they have a right to go the a private company who are willing to operate services for them. It is not a question of just operating profitable routes; it is a question of having a service available.

Mr. McCartan

It is not surprising that when this House gets the opportunity to discuss important and precise legislation dealing with transport the debate is taken up primarily by those who seek not simply to talk objectively about CIE and our transport services and systems but to spend their time campaigning and arguing on behalf of the private haulage transport lobby.

The alliance of Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats and their political support of the private transport lobby have joined yet again, not to address themselves to the central issue and point of the Bill but to try to downgrade the work of CIE and support their friends in private industry. The fact that Deputy Cullen seems to have lost all reason in his contribution and gone right over the edge does not take away from the point that he and Deputy Deasy are contending for basically the same position. Both want to see the dismantling of our public transport service and the handing over of this social service to the vultures of privatisation.

Each Deputy in his contribution developed a new buzz word. The plea from Deputy Deasy was for rationalisation and common sense. That is what he calls privatisation and he suggests that that would give the public a better service. Deputy Cullen and the Progressive Democrats talk about deregulation. They borrow terminologies utterly inappropriate to a discussion on transport by rail and road, terminologies borrowed from some other debate in the hope of drawing the warped thread of their thought through the whole debate on private versus public, on profit versus social service. It is regrettable that in speaking on this legislation one has to spend so much time trying to put right the record with regard to CIE and in trying to redress the balance of the narrow mindedness that we have had here this morning.

CIE must be defended from unreasonable attack. The reason CIE is there is the failure of private transport companies to maintain their services in the early years of the history of the State. CIE provides not just a transport service but a social service. We must make it clear to the proponents of privatisation that the private transport industry are not interested in the privatisation of CIE and its services. If they were handed the job tomorrow they would run scared. What they want is the opportunity to cream off the profitable routes, to take whatever prospect CIE and all its schemes offer to them for making money. They do not want to carry the responsibility that CIE currently carries which will never make a profit but which must be undertaken so that CIE can maintain a proper transport system in a small island, a vast area of which is under-populated and could never support a private transport system.

In this debate the whole argument of profit and loss has been dwelt upon. When we are talking about a social service such as that provided by CIE it is not appropriate to talk about profit and loss. We must accept as a fundamental basis of the development of public transport that there will always be central Government subvention of that service. We should accept that and stop suggesting that there is a private industry prepared to step into CIE's shoes, because there is not. There is a range of vultures sitting on the sidewalks, parking buses around this city on Friday evening, pandering to the needs of the people at peak times on selected routes. What happens when CIE realise that they should be taken on at their own game? The private enterprise laissez-faire lobby scream “unfair competition” when CIE introduce their weekend £14 return fare from anywhere in Ireland. I would much prefer to address the provisions of the Bill.

The Whips have decided in their wisdom that we can dispose of all Stages of the Bill within one day. Having agreed that, it is remarkable that we then have contributions from the people who have so artificially prolonged the debate in this House, on behalf of a lobby not concerned with the provisions of the Bill and on behalf of principles and ideas that have nothing to do with it.

I am utterly astounded by the attitude of the Progressive Democrats to this Bill. I am advised that they will not support it, that the notion of the very limited tidying of finances within CIE is something that they cannot contemplate even in the interim period before their private plans take over the transport system. I am fascinated to learn that they are not even prepared to support the notion that CIE will have a right to put up for auction or public tender lands that they want to sell which are adjacent to their railway lines. It does not seem to have struck them that some of their speculative builder friends could benefit from the opportunity to purchase land adjacent to the railways. I am amazed that in response to their supporters for example in Dublin North East, they are not prepared to assist CIE to preserve the service that runs through that constituency, a service availed of by many PD supporters. In view of the PD attitude to the DART service I doubt if they will continue to have electoral support in that area. That service is bedevilled by trespassers and vandalism on the railway line. I am amazed that the PDs are not even prepared to consider an extension of power to the Garda Síochána to arrest people found on the railway line. Their whole attitude is completely befuddled by this mania they seem to pursue based on the false premise that we could supplant CIE by privatisation. The PDs are not prepared to consider what is a useful working Bill introduced here.

This Bill is not a great handout to CIE. In the first provisions of this Bill we are engaged in writing off charges that accrued to CIE over the years primarily because of smart book-keeping by the Coalition Government who proposed, year in and year out, to defer the liability on charges accruing to CIE because they could not balance the books any other way. The present Government must be given the credit for at least being prepared to say publicly what the position is and to take definitive action to address it.

CIE's current financial position is in tatters, courtesy of the previous Government's attitude. Unless this Bill passes quickly through the House and is enforced they are in very serious trouble. I would underscore the fact that this is a writing off of accumulated charges. It is not the handling out of £44 million or more to CIE. The whole question of public transport has been bedevilled by double think. Unfortunately it is a double think that has extended into the minds of many people currently in the Government party.

We have already spoken about cutbacks on route services that CIE in Dublin have had to undertake because of inadequate funding. There was the disastrous decision on the part of this Government to abolish the Dublin Transport Authority because Dublin requires a single authority to co-ordinate its transport services. We must get away from the position of having nine separate agencies in this city having a say and responsibility in the co-ordination and running of transport in and around the city and county. The appointment of the Dublin Transport Authority constituted a progressive step and its abolition was not an economic or wise decision. As I understand it, the only financial saving involved — and this matter was pursued by Deputy De Rossa in the House a few days ago — was that of the salary of the chief executive. There is a double think here in the failure of this or previous Governments to realise that there must be investment in public transport, that it must be developed on a rational basis.

Since the Dublin transportation study of 1971, CIE have been strongly committed to the concept of developing a rapid transportation service throughout the city and county. This developed from the Schaechterles report of 1969 which was re-examined and its recommendations given full approval as long ago as April 1975 with the publication of the Voorhees and Associates report on the development of a rapid transport city service. That would require a certain amount of financial commitment on the part of any Government to see it through. The reality at present is that CIE have been told by the present Government that they will not receive the necessary funds to develop the capital structure of such a system. One might well ask what is the reason for that. The answer is the lobbying on the part of private motor car owners, the private transport system lobby, the people who want to keep CIE down, who do not want to see it develop in a proper way bringing political pressure to bear on Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party, when in Government. The result is that the political will and courage to forge ahead simply has not and does not exist at central Government level since these plans were first mooted.

In Dublin city, when it comes to discussion of roads, transportation generally and a public transport service, the roads and motor car win time and time again. Since the first proposal of the rapid transport service was unfolded and proposed by CIE in Dublin more money has been spent on the demolition of houses, dislodging communities, building and widening roads than would ever have been spent on the development of a rapid transport service throughout the city and county. All of this is occasioned by the lack of political will at Government level to give public transport the breathing space it needs. Until that double think has been addressed, confronted and dealt with, until a clear political decision is taken, the question will be raised always: should we widen this road, should we demolish those houses, should we move this community out because it is in the course of environmental development, improvement or whatever? Never is the essential question posed: is it not time to stop and reappraise the whole development of transport in the Dublin area?

The Workers' Party will support this Bill. We welcome the provisions of sections 2 to 5, inclusive, in an effort to address the ridiculous financial position in which CIE find themselves. We welcome the fact that CIE will be allowed to borrow and that the Government will guarantee those borrowings in order to aid their capital development. CIE do not need central Government funding to cover their day-to-day running costs. As has already been adequately illustrated they have made a remarkable turnabout within a short few years from a deficit in 1982 of over £11 million on their running costs into a profit of £3.6 million in 1986. What CIE do need is to be given the financial opportunity to develop their capital projects. If we allow CIE borrow in the manner proposed under the provisions of this Bill will we give them a free hand to compete in the way that the profits made in private industry would seem to dictate? Will the hands of CIE be untied? Will they be given an opportunity to get out in the marketplace and compete in all the lucrative areas which have been creamed off over successive decades, handed over to the private hauliers and private transport lobby?

In relation to the other provisions of the Bill The Workers' Party propose a number of amendments. Because we have been given a day only in which to address all of these matters I want to refer briefly to some and explain them. For example, we support the provisions contained in section 5 that CIE be given the added option of sale by public tender. In any of these transactions I contend that sales should be advertised publicly with the community being aware of what that State body are doing in that regard. I must emphasise that while there may be lands lying idle not immediately required for CIE's plans, which should perhaps be put up for sale, nonetheless there are important pockets of land, particularly in the Dublin area about which we would be very concerned if the message went out from this debate that these would now be available to be snapped up. I am speaking particularly of those lands which have been preserved for the development of a rapid transport service. In the building of satellite towns in the county area, towns such as Blanchardstown, Tallaght and Swords, Dublin County Council have maintained a reservoir of lands to facilitate the extension of the rapid rail transport service to those towns. The Harcourt Street line and its adjacent lands remain wholly in the hands of CIE. It is important that CIE's plans for the Harcourt Street line progress without further delay and that none of these pockets of lands is ever put up for sale publicly. They must be retained because CIE's plans for a proper transport system in Dublin must be implemented some time.

The Workers' Party have a number of amendments to sections 6 to 9 inclusive. We welcome the increased penalty provided in respect of various offences stipulated in those sections. I might say in response to the point made by Deputy Briscoe that they are not sufficiently severe, he must re-examine the precise nature of those offences. The Deputy cited stone-throwing. That could represent a multitude of offences ranging from malicious damage to assault, to wounding. All of those offences would incur the type of penalty Deputy Briscoe seeks to deal with them. I was somewhat alarmed at a turn of phrase on the part of Deputy Briscoe when he suggested that had he laid his hand on the offender who had disturbed his peace on his first trip to Howth, he would have dealt with him on the spot. That is the type of language we should leave to people who pass themselves off as so-called, concerned parents and masquerade on behalf of a subversive organisation. It is not the type of language we should use in this Chamber.

The penalties are appropriate to the type of offences being envisaged — the pulling of the communication cord, the fact of being on a railway line as opposed to committing any further offences such as stone throwing, interfering with the property or causing injury to someone travelling on the railway line and the non-payment of a fare. A district court should have power to impose these penalties for such offences. We welcome the increases in penalties.

It is amazing that up to this year we have been dealing with legislation which goes back as far as 1868. Return train fares can cost up to £20 or £30 and the penalty for not paying a fare was only £2. If a person was found wandering on the railway line the penalty was only £2. I am aware that CIE have lobbied for a number of years for these penalties to be increased to a realistic level. I wonder what previous Governments were doing or whether they had any concern for the proper running of CIE, as they profess here today.

The traditional view was that the railway line, because it was usually running in a straight line, was the most convenient and quickest way of getting from one point to another. We must make it clear, particularly to people in urban areas, that railway lines are not open for public resort. They are not there to trespass on or as a convenient way of getting from one place to another.

In the Dublin area where the Howth-Bray line is now electrified it is clear that many members of the public do not appreciate the risk they are taking by travelling on the line. It is equally clear from meetings in my constituency with members of Dublin Rail and Dublin Bus that most of the stone throwing and trespassing on the line, of a nuisance to rail traffic, is caused by children between the age of eight and 14 years after school hours. Many of them do not appreciate the risk to which they are putting workers and their neighbours who travel on the trains and buses. They do not understand that a stone thrown at a train travelling at 60 miles an hour has the same force of impact as a bullet shot from a firearm. The impact of glass when it shatters into a bus or train can have devastating effects upon people in those vehicles. People can be blinded or very severely incapacitated and may find it impossible psychologically to return to work after such an experience. An attempt has been made to address all these matters. As I have said, it is remarkable that the Progressive Democrats do not feel that it is important enough even to give it consideration or support. Our party and this House will give it support and we will ensure that the legislation is passed.

We have proposed an amendment on this matter. I am glad to hear the Minister say he will consider a very important point, that is, the absence from legislation of powers of arrest to members of the Garda Síochána who wish to police the offences of trespass and other related offences. I look forward to seeing the amendment the Minister will put down in the Seanad. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to address it on Committee Stage because I have also put down an amendment dealing with that matter. The Garda Síochána have no power of arrest of a person found trespassing on a railway line unless they are called to deal with that problem at the specific request of CIE. The fact that it is an offence under legislation does not make it an arrestable offence. The Garda Síochána have the power to arrest for felonies that they observe or suspect to have been committed. Under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1861, they may arrest for a misdemeanour if it amounts to a breach of the peace or if it is committed at night. Outside that they have no powers of arrest for offences that are not felony or misdemeanour.

The offences which up to today carried a penalty of no more than £2 are non-arrestable. I am glad the Minister, by reason of my representations and, I understand, representations from the Garda Síochána and of CIE, is prepared to address this problem. Garda representatives have attended meetings in my constituency and have said they would like to help CIE to deal with people who trespass on the railway line but they cannot take action or tell them to get off the line because those people can tell them what to do with themselves and the Garda do not have the power to arrest them. That matter must be addressed. The amendment which I propose merely deals with trespass. If the Minister thinks that other offences need the attention of the Garda Síochána by way of arrest we will give it good attention when the Bill comes back from the Seanad.

We are also proposing to include in the Bill a provision whereby an inspector of CIE can impose on-the-spot fines. We want to address the situation where a person refuses to pay a fare through inability or sheer malice, and can tender a name and address and argue the issue later. Many inspectors travel on trains and ask to see tickets and we are asking that they have power to impose an on-the-spot fine on a person who is not prepared to tender a ticket or to pay a fare. It would then be open to the passenger either to pay the fine or to plead the case in court on a subsequent occasion. This type of power is available to traffic wardens to deal with illegal parking which might be defrauding the State of a mere 10p or 50p depending on the area of the city and the time of the day. Surely analogous provisions should be available to CIE inspectors who come across somebody who may be trying to defraud the company of a transportation fare of anything up to £30.

We are proposing an amendment in the relation to the proof of an offence of trespass and I hope the Minister will take it on board. Under current legislation CIE, in prosecuting an offence of trespass, must prove to the satisfaction of the court, as is their legal obligation under the Transportation Acts, that there are sufficient signs erected along the railway line at the nearest point of entry to the railway line or at the nearest level crossing to show that it is an offence to trespass and to indicate the penalty that can be imposed on prosecution. No-one would object to the public being made aware that it is an offence to trespass on the railway line and the more people that are aware of that the better. When it comes to prosecuting the case in court CIE, who are currently the only prosecuting authority for this type of offence, can be involved in calling up five or six witnesses. Maps often have to be produced with the result that huge expense is involved, a great amount of time can be consumed and the possibility of legal technicality arises. The court must be satisfied before it can convict for the offence that the sign is there, that it is at the most convenient point and that it was there on the day the offence is alleged to have been committed. If a vandal, for example, removes the sign or if, by wear and tear it falls, so too will the prosecution. It is ridiculous that a prosecution for this type of offence needs to be sustained by such proofs. We are simply seeking to delete the requirement for these proofs as essential to a proper conviction under the Act for this type of offence.

It should be drawn to the attention of the House that in 1982 there were no more than six prosecutions taken in the whole year for trespassing on railway lines, even though in urban and rural areas they are used on a regular basis by people who think they have the right to do so. The penalties imposed amounted to £2 and, in one instance, £5.02 costs, and in another case £3.92 costs. That is not the way to give the Gárda Síochána and CIE the authority to try to safeguard the railway lines. We are not seeking to impose a state of terror on people who live close to or have had the habit of walking on railway lines. What we are trying to do is address in a serious way the problem of interference with the railway lines, particularly in urban areas, to bring home to people that CIE must be allowed use and move their traffic safely not just from the worker point of view but from the passenger point of view. People have to realise the danger they put themselves and people who have recourse to the service in by in any way interfering with or being present on the railway line.

Those are the views we hold on this legislation. I hope the Minister will take on board the amendments I have been suggesting. This is an opportunity to deal with these matters that are presented by the Bill and it would be a great pity to let them go.

In relation to the arrest provision we will see what comes from the Minister by the return from the Seanad. I welcome the fact that he is prepared to address it. It is a very real problem and I hope it will be dealt with effectively.

The final matter I want to address is the question of staff management relationships and strikes within CIE. People who come into this House and attack the service of CIE on the basis that it has bad staff management relationships are not addressing the facts at all. Deputy Kavanagh, referring to the 1986 Annual Report of CIE, its board and Chairman, drew attention to the fact that in 1985 there were nine stoppages throughout the whole year, that in 1986, the number decreased to 7, and that none of these stoppages lasted longer than a day. Anyone who suggests that that is a poor record of staff management relationships of a company the size of CIE, with all its employees——

Mr. Cullen

Is the Deputy suggesting it is a good record?

Mr. McCartan

——and with all its services and intricacies, is not addressing himself fairly to what is being done to develop CIE. It is obviously regretted when there is a dispute and when services stop. My own constituency was unfortunately bedevilled by a dispute in recent times that lasted far longer than it ever should have. But the point has been made that there are two sides to every story, and it is quite clear that the dispute in Clontarf was not simply one relating to one man buses, because that issue has been negotiated and determined by agreement between the unions and CIE. What precipitated that dispute was a disagreement over the implementation of the terms of that agreement.

Dealing with the bus services in my constituency, I have on many occasions approached the manager of Clontarf bus depot and have had the opportunity to attend meetings at Clontarf of both management and workers and union representatives, including the assistant principal officer of the National Busmen's Union, who took the time to come and discuss the problems of vandalism of buses and attacks on passengers and bus drivers. I do not welcome the remarks of Deputy Briscoe or anyone else here who says that that union is not working in the interest of a comprehensive, effective State-run transportation service. I have found all workers and unions within CIE to have had the best interests of the community at heart at all stages. It is with the greatest reluctance and regret that any of them go to the picket line. It is a final resort and it is the domestic sanction that that country has bestowed and made available throughout its history to workers as a weapon to settle their disputes when management are unreasonable. I do not think that the remarks made in this House have been the slightest bit helpful nor are they in any way based on what goes on within CIE.

We have before us some useful legislation that deserves the support of all parties. We should address ourselves to the implications and ramifications of that legislation, enhance it as best we can, which is our job as legislators, and leave the running of CIE to the management who are doing an excellent job and to the workers who are doing an even better one.

Mr. Abbott

I welcome the Bill and I welcome the initiative of the Minister in bringing it before the House. I also welcome the support of other speakers for the Bill.

In the context of the Bill and the policy underlying it, my interest, as Deputy for my constituency, is to encourage Irish Rail to start up commuter services between Mullingar and Dublin and to continue the recently commenced commuter service between Athlone and Dublin. I beg the pardon of the House for pressing a particular area interest but, if every Deputy in the House were to take an active interest in the development of train and bus services in and out of their constituency, they would be doing a very good service, not only to their constituents but to all the people and the Exchequer. This is especially true since the public transport sector can be so heavily subsidised by the Exchequer and can very often become dependent on it rather than seeking its own efficiencies within its own system.

It is heartening to see that the total number of railway journeys goes up by 8 per cent in 1986. It is true that the railways remain, even in the case of DART, a social service. While the railways will remain a social service in the years to come, this does not necessarily mean that they should go on regardless on their own merry way without being subjected to any tests. Just because the test of profit cannot be applied to such a service, it does not mean that there should not be clear objectives to be met. Unless the service meets objectives of efficiency, notwithstanding the social aspects, the train services for various parts of the country will be under threat.

In the context of an outlying provincial area such as Mullingar or Athlone, we are conscious that the objectives of the train service would be to bring business to the area and people to live in the area by providing a commuter service to the busier eastern region so that people can choose to live in Westmeath and commute to Dublin to work. We have in the last year or more experienced the vast interest arising from the eastern plan in relation to the expected population increase in the Dublin and eastern region. In the context of such an uncontrollable expansion in population in this region; apparently at the expense of the rest of the country, it is important that the rest of the country at least have an opportunity to link into this dynamism in the east by having the very best commuter service.

In the context, let us say, of the Dublin docks site there will be many people in my constituency who will be interested in taking up employment there, either on the construction and initiation side or on the permanent side when the project is up and going. It is very feasible to contemplate living in Mullingar and travelling to Dublin by commuter train.

In relation to the tourism aspect of the train, Dublin for long has looked to Wicklow as a place to which people might take a day trip. When I lived in Dublin, I looked forward to going to Wicklow. With Dublin's expanding population and clogged roads, Westmeath can and does increasingly provide people in Dublin with the opportunity of a day trip, not perhaps for the same reasons as one might go to Wicklow but, nevertheless, to enjoy the fabulous water sport and angling facilities in the county, in addition to the various archaeological sites and sites of special interest.

I hesitate to supply a commercial for Westmeath but, nevertheless, must do so in the context of the very live and real interest that exists in the county in relation to the development of these services. With regard to the purpose of that Bill, that lively interest is indicative of and responsive to the new management awareness in the CIE bodies, Irish Rail and Bus Éireann. I have no doubt that the passing of this Bill will encourage the type of dynamism we have experienced in the last couple of years and which has evoked an ever increasingly popular response in areas such as my constituency.

I should like to see the continued dedication to marketing and selling of the facilities of the railway in the coming months and years. As a representative of my area, I have very satisfactory and pleasant recollections in meeting within the last couple of months with management of Irish Rail and various individuals associated with the marketing side, for the purpose of ensuring a developing of the commuter routes. I can place on the record of this House that I found management of these bodies to be very positive and very sympathetic. From the various meetings which I and fellow public representatives from Westmeath had with that management, I am happy to say that we are now past the time when public representatives and management of the railway companies and bus companies will have ceremonial meetings in relation to retention of a railway service or its development to a town like Mullingar and perform a flag waving exercise. The meetings we have had in relation to the commuter services in Mullingar were businesslike, concerned with finding out the depth of the market, above all, about pushing a marketing exercise and not putting pressure on anybody, whether it be on the management of CIE or on the Government somehow magically to wave a wand and ensure that the service would go on, regardless of the criteria that would be required to keep a service going. I look forward to working, in relation to the whole campaign, to keep the services in the area working with the public of my constituency and working with the excellent management of these bodies.

I pay great tribute to local newspapers in the area which have taken up the cause of advertising, using their space to advertise to the public that there is a possibility of ensuring a cheap and efficient transport system into and out of the area. In view of the fact that in the telecommunications area we have in the eastern region and right out into a large area of Mullingar, the facility of radiophone contact right through the country, I have taken the initiative to suggest to Irish Rail that in the context of commuter trains, we would welcome a commitment from them to investigate whether radiophones facilitating Eircell and Air Page connection by phone could be installed on the trains. This would be a remarkable advantage for train travel over and above road travel. Given that we have the rail facility there and that at present it is being run on the basis of a costly social service, the more people we have on the train the more assured we are to have the services of the train, with all its attendant advantages and all the spin-off effects.

When speaking about train services, which are a hobby horse of mine and of other people in my area, one must be mindful that if a commuter service is to be given from an outlying provincial area into the capital, the users of that service must of necessity be concerned about the type of feeder service from that train depot, be it Connolly or Heuston station, right through the city.

However reluctant we from the country might be about becoming involved in a debate about the efficiency of the bus or train services in the capital, we must do so. While I am not going to become involved here in the House in that matter, I would commend the Minister and the Deputies who took the trouble to make a contribution on the matter in the House for the manner in which they addressed the difficulties of the bus service in Dublin. The efficiency of the whole national system depends on the efficiency reflected from the bus and train services in Dublin. I would not profess any special knowledge in relation to the difficulties of these services. I have noticed that the debate in the House has swung to and fro. I would make this special plea, that those involved from every side would make up their minds, for once and for all, to work on a better image for bus services in Dublin for their own sake and the sake of the whole country.

I recollect that when I was in university many years ago studying various issues of national economics, the general conventional wisdom was that the Dublin bus service would, internally within the general transport system of what was then CIE, generally make a tremendous profit which itself would subsidise the more social aspect of all the transport provisions for the rest of the country. In the 20 years since I have left that system and lost contact with that proposition, regretfully the profitability and the efficiency of the Dublin bus system have deteriorated. It is a great loss to the country generally that that should be so. The matter should be addressed. It is a Dublin issue but, nevertheless, it is an issue in respect of which I should like to see a resolution and a return to the system of 20 years ago when there was a very efficient and profitable bus system notwithstanding that there were plenty of bus strikes in those years.

There may well be a more fundamental malaise affecting the Dublin bus system than merely the regrettable stoppages which occur from time to time. I would like that malaise to be addressed sooner rather than later. Given the economic climate at present no sector can isolate itself from the discipline which has asserted itself and which will continue to assert itself if we are to survive on a national basis.

If we look back to the history of the Dublin transport system during the past 20 years we can see that it has moved away from discipline and efficiency, that it has lost its way in many respects. I hope the atmosphere of the last two years will eventually pervade that system and that CIE will tighten up their operations so that they can secure the resources which would carry the less profitable and more costly services which they must provide throughout the rest of the country.

I welcome the provisions in the Bill which would make it possible for CIE to sell, on a more flexible basis, property of the railway company and the bus company. CIE found it difficult to negotiate and sell property. Decisions were very slow in coming and if this Bill hastens the decision making process in relation to the property it will have been very worthwhile. On that basis I support the Bill.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

I welcome this Bill. At the outset I would like to take issue with some of the remarks made by Deputy McCartan in his contribution to this debate. He accused my colleague, Deputy Deasy, of supporting the complete disbandment of CIE just because he mentioned words or phrases such as "rationalisation" and "the use of commonsense". Nothing is further from the truth. Fine Gael would support anything which would make CIE more efficient and more effective and which would result in their giving more value for money. Interpreting the remarks of Deputy Deasy in the manner in which Deputy McCartan has done leaves much to be desired. The Deputy made a number of other remarks which I will take issue with later.

I assumed that this Bill would deal with all the elements of transport. I had hoped that it would contain major new initiatives and would give a new direction to the transport system. However, on reading the Bill I was disappointed to find that the Bill deals specifically with CIE and removes from them the requirement of having to re-pay certain liabilities to the State. It also gives them powers to borrow more money, powers to dispose of land and powers to increase penalties. I hope the Minister at some future date will bring before the House a much wider Bill covering all areas of transport and containing some novel provisions.

I support the main thrust of the Bill. Most of the sections are very welcome but we must seriously investigate whether the monopoly CIE hold is damaging the type of service which the general public are being provided with. The bus service which is being provided by CIE in Dublin is bad. The strikes which take place repeatedly in the Dublin area must in some way be due to the fact that there is no competition. If the private sector competed with CIE on bus routes in the Dublin area I have no doubt that many of the strikes which occur within CIE would not occur because those who consider going on strike would put much more serious thought into whether they should go on strike. A subvention in excess of £100 million is given to CIE annually. That is an awful lot of money and it is the taxpayers who provide that money. These are the people who use the services and they are the people who should be getting a reliable and efficient service but, unfortunately, at present that is not the case.

Because of the continuing serious situation in the Dublin area the Minister must seriously consider at an early date granting licences to private operators so that they can compete with CIE on these routes. I would not be as forceful if a good and reliable service was being provided. CIE should be making substantial profits in the Dublin area. As Deputy Abbott has said, over one-third of the population lives in the Dublin area and CIE should be able to make enough profits in this area to subsidise the less economic routes particularly those in the west where the population is not as big. Unfortunately, that is not the position.

Deputy McCartan referred to a range of vultures waiting with their buses around the sidewalks of this city at weekends to cream off the profitable routes. The fact is that there are no people out there creaming off the profitable routes because they do not have licences to do so. In many instances they are not licensed to go on routes where it appears it is difficult to make a profit. In my own constituency in County Clare there is one private operator who has been operating a very efficient daily service from Kilkee and Ennistymon to Dublin and at weekends from Dublin to different parts of Clare. This operator has been providing an extremely efficient service for hundreds of Clare people during the past year and a half. It is unfortunate that the Minister will not consider giving a licence to this operator to provide for the people of Clare services which no other operator is at present providing. It is unfortunate that the Department are adopting such a narrow attitude on the issuing of licences. Our attitude should be one of going out to compete. Where there is competition a more efficient service is provided but that is not happening at present. Until the Department of Transport open their minds to competitiveness and giving more licences overall transport management will not improve.

On industrial relations in CIE one must question the attitude of management. It has been said in the House that management must be commended and the position of the workers must be put in question when, as a Deputy across the House said, a man who was out sick for nine months could cause a strike. Somewhere along the line communication is lacking and management is not good. If worker-management relations were good then the incidence of strikes in CIE would be lower than it is at the moment.

Section 5 of the Bill deals with the sale of land by CIE. Like my colleague Deputy Deasy, I am concerned about that section and I hope that the Minister will consider seriously the overall position regarding the sale of land. As he knows, railway lines run either through one owner's land or between two owners' lands. It would be unfortunate if a third party were allowed to come in and buy the narrow stretch of land between those properties. Somebody might do it just for devilment and could create bad feeling and hassle in the area. It is not necessary for me to highlight the problems and history of land ownership and I would not like any legislation passed in this House to aggravate the situation or cause further difficulties. The value of the land to somebody other than a person whose property adjoins it is pretty negligible. In most case the land in question is not capable of much farming or agricultural use because there will be a great deal of gravel foundation and stones in the area. Where a railway line has closed down in a tourist area it might be advisable that CIE approach the local tourist interests with a view to purchasing the entire rail route.

Mr. Wilson

The west Clare railway should never have been closed.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

That is a good example.

Mr. J. Mitchell

Or the Cavan line.

Mrs. Taylor-Quinn

There could be a tourist advantage in retaining certain portions of the railway line. If a local tourist interest group were interested in purchasing the entire stretch of rail between two towns like Kilrush and Kilkee — although it is too late to talk about that now — consideration should be given to that purchase. In the final analysis if the company purchasing it were to wind up they in turn should be obliged to sell the lands back to adjoining farmers. Welcome has been expressed in the House this afternoon for the provision that the land can be put up for public tender but priority should be given to adjoining farmers for the sake of peace, if nothing else.

The provision relating to fines is more than welcome. It is ludicrous that this House should be considering legislation going back to some time such as 1876. We are 100 years behind the times in updating such legislation. It is more than amusing; it is serious that this House is not on top of matters like that. The fine is to be increased to £300 from £2 for the various offences outlined in the Bill. I join with other speakers in suggesting that the Minister increase the fine or at least give discretion to the district justice to consider a maximum fine in the region of £800 or £1,000 and scale it down from there, or arrange it in line with inflation. The Bill provides for three months' imprisonment. Perhaps the Minister should consider a maximum of 12 months giving the District Court the option to decide on the penalty.

Overall the Bill is welcome and I hope that as a result of it we will see greater efficiency within CIE. CIE need capital to expand and to proceed with work that they have not done prior to this and to make improvements where they are needed. I hope we will see a greater range of service by CIE throughout the country. I commend them for what they are doing in providing tour buses. They are giving a competent, efficient and capable service in that regard and those operating that service are acting as good ambassadors not just for CIE but for the country. Iarnród Éireann are to be complimented on their Dublin-Killarney weekends. I understand that negotiations are proceeding for a Dublin-Ennis weekend and if that materialises and Dubliners come to Clare I assure them of hospitality in keeping with County Clare.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The Transport Bill, 1987 is a Department of Finance measure. It is clear that it has been imposed on the Minister by the Department of Finance and arises directly from arrangements, as the Minister said, which were made between myself as Minister for Communications and the then Minister for Finance to defer certain payments to CIE in 1987 and 1988 into the following years. I agreed to that I suppose under duress and if the truth were known I suppose the Minister is agreeing to this Bill under duress. I preferred to defer payments to CIE to cancelling a financial formula which I and the then Department of Communications fought so hard to put in place. I am not one to attack the Department of Finance unnecessarily, but many of the problems we have lie within that Department because of the silly approach they take to so many issues. Much of the hot water the Government are in today on a number of matters including teacher-pupil ratio, the NSSB——

Mr. Howlin

School transport.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Howlin, please. The Deputy is trying to avail of the opportunity to speak on matters other than those provided for in the Bill.

Mr. J. Mitchell

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If he can relate his comments to——

Mr. Deasy

It is a Transport Bill and surely at times a Deputy is allowed to drive a coach and four through procedure.

Mr. Wilson

There is no hot water in transport.

Mr. J. Mitchell

I am making a passing reference to the difficulties the Government find themselves in on a number of other matters like the NSSB and the pupil-teacher ratio because of the Department of Finance. Those things have been imposed on Ministers by the Department of Finance. A saying in our time in Government was "sell the Asgard list”. The Government in an effort to demonstrate how Rambo-like they were agreed to all sorts of things under pressure of time because they had ill prepared themselves for Government. In the case of the financing of CIE the role of the Department of Finance has been disgraceful. I need to illustrate the background to the financial problems of CIE. From 1969 to 1982 the deficit in CIE increased from £2.5 million to £109.2 million; seven times the rate of inflation.

When I became Minister in late 1982 I decided that this could not continue. The deficit would have escalated beyond redemption and we would have been faced with the collapse of CIE out of which the Exchequer could not have extricated it. So I, as Minister, and the officials of the Department of Communications — now the Department of Transport — worked very hard and came up with the idea of a new financial formula whereby we set realistic targets for the reduction of that deficit. I should like to pay a tribute to the officials of the Department who worked so hard and so fast at the problems and came up with so many good ideas which are having very good results today.

Since 1982 — and it ought to be reiterated — CIE's deficit has reduced each year in succession.

Mr. Deasy

As Deputy Liam Kavanagh illustrated graphically earlier today.

Mr. J. Mitchell

The deficit has gone down each year in succession. The targets have been met or improved upon. Certain realistic targets were set to reduce their call on the Exchequer by 2.5 per cent per annum and they have done so. I want to use that fact to criticise the tole of the Department of Finance because the Department resisted that formula all the way. I had a major battle for 18 months in Cabinet and even after it was clearly beginning to work they resisted it. They are still clawing back on that formula, a formula that has been a dramatic success.

This Bill is partly drawing back on the commitment given to CIE that part of the deficit which should have been paid in 1987 will now be paid in 1988. That is a promise that was not kept and that is what this Bill is about. It is a half-way house. It has not been totally put aside but they are finding a way of allowing CIE to borrow more in lieu of the grants to which they were entitled. That is very shortsighted. If the Department of Finance had their way we would have continued the same old approach to the financing of CIE as went on for years before. Had we not adopted that approach we would have possible deficits of £50 million, £60 million or £70 million more than we have today per annum. I sympathise with the Minister that this unthinking, short sighted, hard line from the Department of Finance has, to some extent, triumphed and has been given expression in this Bill.

The commitments given to CIE should be kept. One of the most important needs between the Minister and his State companies is that when the Minister gives his word the State companies know they can take that word and that it will be honoured and they can operate within it. For too long the opposite was the case. We are going back into that situation now. What will happen? The State companies know that the Minister cannot give a word that can be guaranteed to hold up, so they go about cooking the books and hoodwinking the Minister as they did for years before 1982. That is why I say the Department of Finance are shortsighted.

Most of the problems in CIE are not in terms of CIE at all. Most of the problems arise from the regime imposed by Governments over the decades. I should like to refer to the financial performance of CIE since 1982 and to rebut much of the unfair criticism which I have heard in this House today. It is unfair because there has been a terrific performance in all three branches of CIE. It is unfair of Deputies to slag all of CIE when the industrial relations problems are in one sector of the company, namely, Dublin Bus. There are no industrial relations problems in the railway nor has there been any for many years. There are no industrial relations problems in Bus Éireann nor has there been any for many years but there is an industrial relations problem in Dublin Bus. I thought Deputy McCartan's justification for this was pathetic. It is extraordinary that a man who represents large working class estates of Dublin and who purports to be a member of The Workers' Party should encourage in any way the industrial relations problem which most adversely affects the working class people of this city.

There is an industrial relations problem but it would be wrong to say that there are not two sides to that problem. There have been many recent strikes, notably the one last weekend, of which no notice was given. That sort of behaviour is not acceptable and is totally against the interests of the workers. As that behaviour continues more and more people will make other provision for their transport needs in the city. There is evidence of that already. They will buy cars and bicycles and they will make arrangements to take lifts. Having made those provisions, even on days when there are no strikes, many people will utilise those arrangements. They will not revert to the buses. Fewer people are travelling on the buses and therefore fares must go up. Because there are fewer passengers to cover the total revenue needs of the company the fares must go up and this leads to a downward spiral.

Much has been done in CIE during the past few years and also before 1982. Before I became Minister many decisions were taken regarding the investment in the bus fleet so that today we have a much more modern bus fleet than we had ten years ago. Much has been done in relation to bus priority schemes on the roads of Dublin. Much has been done about the one person operation on buses and the DART and there has been a great deal of progress.

There is one major component which must be put in place. If Dublin Bus is to become profitable in the years ahead — which I believe it can — we must have customer confidence. Customer confidence is totally upset by all of these strikes. There is no confidence among customers of Dublin Bus that they can be relied upon to provide a reliable service. That is a terrible thing and it is a terrible thing to tar all CIE with that brush. Indeed, it is a terrible thing to tar all the workers in Dublin Bus with that brush because, firstly, only a small number of persons are concerned, and secondly, it is usually one particular union. That union is not a member of Congress and they have a habit of carrying out lightning strikes which are in breach of proper industrial relations procedures.

Earlier Deputy McCartan spoke about democracy and the democratic protection of workers. I do not believe there is one Member of this House who does not support fully legislative protection of workers' rights. That is not what is at issue here: what is at issue is the consistent abuse of that protection and the consistent ignoring of proper procedures. If it is to be democratic, these strikes should be subject in advance to secret ballots of all the people involved. That is democracy. Democracy is not one or two people running off with pickets and causing strikes.

Why do that union and their members behave like that? They must see it is damaging to their public image, to their relations with the community at large and to their own self-interest, not alone in the long term but in the mid-term also. However, they do it and there must be some explanation for it. I believe they do it because of the legacy of distrust which has existed between management and workers in the Dublin city bus services for a long time. Management have to take a very substantial part of the blame for that.

Major structural changes have been carried out and there has been a reorganisation of management since CIE were broken up into three companies. I had hoped one of the major achievements of that reorganisation, which is only in place since the beginning of the year, would be greatly improved industrial relations, which would, in turn, lead to greatly improved customer confidence. I suggest to the Minister, and through him to the Chairman of the CIE group, that the time has come for some sort of conference to be convened involving the Minister, the management and the workforce of CIE to see if some sort of concordat could be arrived at which would eliminate these constant stoppages in CIE services. It would be a good idea if some independent outside party chaired such a conference in order that a concordat of peace could be achieved so that the bus service of this city can be relied upon by the people. That has to be based on the belief that there have been wrongs on both sides; we cannot blame the workers only. There is a long history of distant and bad management and of distrust on both sides.

In the context of the services in Dublin, a number of changes were being implemented when the Government came into office. One of these changes involved the setting up of the Dublin Transport Authority. When the Minister was Opposition spokesman he strongly attacked me about the DTA which we brought in and said that they ought to be a much bigger affair. The Minister has now decided to abolish the DTA. That requires legislation but there is no reference to the Dublin Transport Authority in this Bill. I do not know if the Minister will get legislation which repeals the Dublin Transport Authority through this House. I appeal to him to reconsider that decision because it is a disastrous one for the commuters of this city. It affects both CIE and the travelling public directly. The cost of running the DTA was very small; it was around £500,000 per annum.

As everyone knows, there is a crying need for co-ordinated decisions on transport infrastructureal investment. At present rail and bus investment decisions are taken by the Department of Tourism and Transport and road investment decisions are taken by the county council, the corporation and the Department of the Environment. There is no co-ordination. The Dublin Transport Authority were set up to give that co-ordination. Up to now, the local authorities, when drawing up development plans, had no input from the transport sector about transport objectives. That role was given to the Dublin Transport Authority so that transport objectives would be included in all future development plans. Deputies from any constituency in Dublin city or county know there have been very major oversights in relation to transport because of the absence of any transport input. The DTA were set up to perform that role and I regret very much the Government's decision to chop the DTA so soon after their commencement.

The DTA were set up to co-ordinate roadworks in the city which cause so much havoc to traffic. Not only did this include the construction, repair and digging of roads but also the timing, co-ordination and prompt repair of such roads so that many of the gaping temporary repairs which disfigure many roads in this city would be eliminated. One week the Gas Company are involved, the next week the ESB and three weeks later Telecom Éireann.

Mr. Deasy

How many of them are in Kildare Street today?

Mr. J. Mitchell

I appeal to the Minister to review his decision in relation to the Dublin Transport Authority and to allow them to carry on the work which this House legislated them to do. There are two other areas I would like to refer to.

One deals with the problem of bus services to the inner suburbs. Because of the spreading out of the city, long-established routes are being taken out of the inner suburbs and being sent to the outer suburbs, with the result that by the time buses get to the inner suburbs in the morning they are full and people cannot get buses to work. There has been a sharp deterioration in the quality and level of bus services to the inner suburbs. There are two cases of this in my own constituency. The 21 bus service has been extended to Clondalkin and now bypasses both Ring Street and Bluebell termini. As a result, people in those areas find it very difficult to get bus services into town in the morning and in the evening the buses are over-full with people who are going to Clondalkin. Similarly, the No. 79 bus used to stop in lower Ballyfermot but it now stops in upper Ballyfermot, the No. 78 bus having been extended to Clondalkin from upper Ballyfermot. As a result it is almost impossible to get a bus at certain times in the morning from lower Ballyfermot. I got the blame for this as I was the Minister at the time though I tried to explain to the people that I had nothing to do with the changes. I ask the Minister to request CIE to re-examine the bus services to the inner suburbs.

Finally, I want to deal with the CIE Inchicore Works. Inchicore is very near and dear to my heart, not only do I represent it in the Dáil but I was born and reared there as were my parents. The Inchicore Works have played a very big role in the development of CIE during the past 150 years. Now there are to be 300 redundancies at the works. I think these redundancies are unnecessary. During my term as Minister, as I am sure the present Minister will agree, I urged the chairman of CIE to go out and do what Aer Lingus had done.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 26 Nov 1987

Transport Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Nov 1987