On a point of order, at 3.30 p.m. I put down a number of amendments and they have not been circulated yet. In the Bill they would come before the amendments which have been circulated. As you will appreciate, there is a difficulty when Committee Stage is taken immediately after Second Stage. Strictly speaking, these amendments are not meant to be circulated until Second Stage had been completed.
Transport Bill, 1987: Committee and Final Stages.
I understand they are being circulated now.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I have put down a number of amendments to this section.
Amendment No. a1 is out of order as it is deemed to be outside the scope of this Bill.
On a point of order, the Long Title of the Bill is, "an Act to make further provision in relation to transport." It is an usually broad Long Title. There are no restrictions whatever as long as the matter relates to transport.
I am sorry, the matter may not be argued now, Deputy. It is deemed out of order.
On what grounds? It arises directly from arguments made by several Deputies on Second Stage.
It is outside the scope of this Bill.
It is a great pity because much of the Second Stage debate was taken up with this point. The Minister in his reply devoted a fair proportion of his time to these points.
I assure the Deputy I am completely satisfied that the amendment is out of order. There is no purpose in pursuing it now.
Amendment No. a1 not moved.
Amendment No. b1 is in the name of the same Deputy.
Is it in order to ask that amendments Nos. b1, c1 and d1 be taken together? They seem to be related.
They are quite distinct from one another. One relates to the writing off of advances, one relates to borrowing and one relates to guarantee.
The same principle applies to all of them.
It does not.
Will you repeat the amendments which you suggest be taken together?
Amendments Nos. b1, c1 and d1.
They relate to three different matters. They refer to three sections, all of which are different.
We will take them separately then.
I move amendment No. b1:
In page 2, line 18, to delete "£44,458,691" and substitute "£10,000,000".
The figure of £44,458,691 which is referred to in the section and which I suggest be deleted and substituted by the lower figure relates to advances which have been made to CIE by the Exchequer under the Transport Act, 1964, and it is now proposed to write off that amount. If I heard the Minister correctly, he said this money is being written off because, as he put it, the Exchequer owed this amount of money to CIE out of moneys that apparently were earmarked for them and which they did not take up. I was not aware that CIE did not take up any moneys. Huge amounts of money are voted to them in this House each year: in recent years the figure has averaged around £100 million.
I notice that on Second Stage Deputy Cullen referred to the figure proposed under the 1988 Estimates which were introduced in the House in October and suggested that an even larger figure be voted to CIE for next year — it is referred to at column 1948 of the Official Report of 26 November — a figure of £113,605,000. In the few minutes that have elapsed since the Minister replied to Second Stage I have not had the opportunity to check out what he has said but I have a recollection of Supplementary Estimates being moved here in relation to CIE in recent years and that indicates that there was no underdrawing of the huge subsidies voted here for CIE each year.
It seems to be wrong in principle that such a large sum of money as this can be just written off in a section at the wave of the Minister's hand or at the wave of this House's hand. We know what the difficulties are in many areas at present because of a shortage of public money and shortage of resources in the Exchequer. There has been a most painful situation in the past number of months in relation to primary education and for all of this year in relation to hospital closures and other restrictions on the delivery of health services. Many of these matters could have been rectified for relatively small sums of money, very much smaller than the figure of £44.5 million that is mentioned in this section.
It is a little facile to say that this money is owed by the Exchequer to CIE and, therefore, they should be allowed to write off this amount of their advances. I do not think this House or the Exchequer owes CIE anything. It has been heavily underwriting them for a long number of years and, unhappily, the situation seems to be getting worse rather than better.
We all know what are the difficulties besetting the railway system but what has happened in more recent times in relation to the bus system, both in Dublin and with the provincial services, is a new dimension of horror. I have read within the past few days that CIE's estimate of the loss on the Dublin Bus services for this year is in the region of £24 million, which is way above anything they lost on those services previously. Therefore, it seems to be particularly inappropriate that at this time we should write off the huge sum of money proposed here, £44.5 million.
In the earlier amendment which has been ruled out of order I sought to allow at least some of these bus services to be put out to public tender by the Minister. That is a view which would be shared by many Members of this House and certainly by many members of the public who feel it is the only sensible way to approach these matters. The position in Dublin Bus in particular has now got completely out of hand. The losses are astronomical and almost unbelievable and this is the kind of approach that should be taken rather than simply saying to CIE as we do in this section: "Here is £45.5 million and you can write that off. Do not worry. If you incur any losses in Dublin Bus or anywhere else, do not worry, you can come back to this House, and Dáil Éireann will look after you again as they have faithfully done over a long number of years."
It is inexplicible that the Dublin Bus service, a public transport system with a total monopoly and no competition should lose money at all. This service must be unique among large cities in Europe in that respect. That they should lose constantly increasing sums, including their own projection of £24 million this year is really extraordinary. As Deputy Cullen said on Second Stage — and through no fault of his own he cannot be here today — it is time to begin to call a halt, instead of going through the normal performance that is gone through every couple of years of saying that CIE are about to turn the corner and all will be well. Clearly all will not be well. The provisions here will do nothing to improve the situation and it will continue the attitude that is so prevalent that it does not matter what CIE lose or how inefficient they are, they will be fully underwritten anyway with large sums of money.
It is one thing to hand CIE money but it is another thing to make repayable advances available to them and then come along and write them off. The point the Minister made, with all due respect to him, cannot be taken very seriously, because neither this House nor the Exchequer owe anything to CIE. It is the other way around. This must be looked at in the light of the current huge loss making operation of Dublin Bus, the almost impossible state of industrial relations, the constant withdrawal of services from the travelling public, and the latest new increase in fares for these services and for rail services which were announced here earlier today. I ask the Minister to think again about the principle involved in this. Even if the money cannot be repaid by CIE, it should at least be seen that the money is still owed by them rather than having them in this extraordinarily privileged position in which they get advances from the Exchequer which are written off at the drop of a hat.
I will explain to Deputy O'Malley what is meant by money due to CIE. I accept the general principle that this House owes nothing to CIE, but if a company operating the national transport service are told they will get a certain amount of money in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and organise their affairs on that basis, there is an obligation on this House to provide that money. That is precisely what happened. In 1985, 1986 and 1987 there was £33.919 million of DART interest not paid and a normal subvention of £11.2 million was deferred from 1987 to 1988. This adds up to the figure we have just been talking about. This was almost the exact same figure as the repayable advances which up to 1982 had been made to CIE and the one was written off against the other. One could argue that the House owes nothing to the public transport system but if the House indicated to the board that it was paying the DART interest in each of the three years, it is only fair to say that the House owes it to the board to make provision for it.
I want to have some figures clarified. The advance in section 2 of the Bill of £44.5 million made to the board by the Government need not now be repaid by the board. Over what period were these advances made? Is it just a coincidence that the figure which the board are now being allowed to borrow is the same?
I gave 1982 as the last year when advances were made available. Between 1965 and 1982 these repayable advances were made to CIE. They add up to the figure that had been promised to CIE on foot of DART interest plus £11.2 million, the normal subvention that was postponed to 1988 from 1987.
The figure of £45 million is quite separate?
Yes, they just happened. A total of £44.459 million of the £45.119 million which we say is due to CIE because it was promised to them for underpayments in earlier years in respect of DART and the subvention was to be cancelled as an offset for the repayable advances.
The Minister explained again to this House the implications of sections 2, 3 and 4. We reject out of hand the amendment being proposed by the Progressive Democrats and we will support the Government on the original thrust of their Bill.
If it is time to call a halt, it is time to call a halt to the attacks on CIE who provide an essential social service. It is time to call a halt to the efforts by people to do away with CIE, which was certainly the thrust of Deputy Cullen's intervention on Second Stage on behalf of the Progressive Democrats. The importance of this Bill is that CIE currently need the facilities contained in sections 2, 3 and 4 to carry on as a viable operation. The implication in what Deputy Cullen sought on Second Stage and in what these amendments seek to achieve is that CIE should close down without delay. That is the response of the Progressive Democrats to this Bill. It is a dismal response which should not receive any support from any other party in this House.
CIE have the potential to provide a very efficient national service for all sectors in all areas irrespective of whether or not there is a competitive return. We should be seeking an expanded commitment to have CIE developed and made competitive. If CIE were allowed the free hand which Deputy O'Malley and his party want for private bus owners, CIE would have no difficulty in meeting the requirements expected of them as a social service. That does not mean that CIE must run on profits. Certainly we can argue that there cannot be an openended fund.
I remind Deputy McCartan that there is a time limit on this. The Chair hopes in respect of this or following amendments that we will avoid discussions on the whole raison d'être of CIE. If we were not to do that we would not have time to deal with many amendments.
I accept your ruling. The implication of this amendment is an attack on the raison d'être of CIE. There can be no doubt about that.
I do not think we can afford to elaborate too much on it.
My final point is that we are a small island with a small population. We cannot afford a never ending source of funds for the development of roads, private transport and the private motor car. At what stage are we ever going to balance that debate? I thought we were going to get down to the implications and provisions of this Bill. All these eleventh hour amendments could be taken together and very quickly disposed of to the dust bin, where they deserve to be.
We know what the view of the extreme Left is and I assure the House and anyone else who is interested that I am not particularly concerned about that view. Our approach to this and the other there amendments is generally a common sense approach which would be shared by anyone who does not have extreme ideological hangups which are dictated to him by democratic centralism or whatever system he operates under. The common sense view is that the present situation, particularly in relation to bus transport, is extremely unsuccessful. Other companies or people should be allowed to compete and should be allocated some routes as appear appropriate to the Minister. They should be allowed to tender for these routes and if they are successful they should be granted permission to serve them.
There is no question of trying to close anything down. The wild, idiotic statements made by Deputy McCartan are not worthy of any further notice.
The Minister mentioned that this figure is made up of £11.2 million which is the shortfall in the payment of the normal subvention for this year. But this year is not over and there is nothing to stop the Minister paying the £11.2 million before 31 December. It seems unusual before the end of the year to pay this figure in this indirect manner. The other figure of £33.2 million relates to what the Minister describes as DART interest. In respect of what period is that the interest on the capital construction side of the DART system? Is it for one year or more? It seems an extraordinarily large amount of money. The DART system is regarded as a success but when one considers the amount of money it has cost and the fact that there is a huge built-in loss factor which will never be overcome because of the size of the capital cost, one wonders whether it was worth while.
The Minister reminded me that he and I were in Government together when this decision was made. I remember it well. It was made after a debate that went on and on intermittently in the Cabinet for about four or five months, an unusually long time. There were very strong views both ways. I recall that the Cabinet were almost equally divided in relation to it. One of the things which swayed a couple of us finally to support this proposal against, perhaps, our better judgments, was the fact that we were assured by the then management of CIE that if we allowed them to go ahead with this proposal all the locomotives would be built in Ireland. Substantial investment was to be made and substantial employment to be given. Within quite a short time of the decision having been made it became evident that CIE had no intention of doing that. The locomotives were built abroad with no benefit to Irish industry or to Irish employment.
The overrun in the projected costs given to the Cabinet was absolutely enormous. I would classify it as being in the NET class as an example of a most appalling overrun. For some years over £33 million is due in interest alone, apart from the repayment of capital and this is indicative of the overrun. It seems very doubtful as to whether all these things should be written off yet again as another example of serious errors of the NET type: the Irish Exchequer is there, a bottomless pit which can be drawn upon. This is a great pity because it creates a mentality which causes State companies to have constant recourse to this bottomless pit. While they feel it is there and that legislation like this can be promoted on their behalf, I do not believe sufficiently serious efforts will be made to overcome the problem. It is particularly regrettable to hive off some of these services or create some competition in order to bring back some common sense and redress the ridiculous situation that a State company with a total monopoly can lose in one city alone as much as £24 million a year on public transport.
I am pleased that Deputy O'Malley is standing by the constitutional collective responsibility with regard to the establishment of DART and that he realises that this money arises out of those decisions. Let me say that I think it was a good decision which has provided a good service, the number of whose customers are increasing year by year. I hope it will be a profitable as well as a highly socially successful venture as times goes on, something we can be proud of.
The second point Deputy O'Malley raised was about the £11.2 million — that I could pay it before 31 December. The decision was taken — before I assumed office — that the £11.2 million would be transferred to 1988 and for obvious reasons I rode with that decision.
Deputy O'Malley asked a question about the DART interest. The DART interest is made up of £30.392 million arrears due and postponed in payment. To those arrears £3.527 million interest had to be added, giving approximately the sum I originally gave the House.
Were they arrears of interest or of capital?
Interest. I might make one further point, and I do not want to be categorical about this. Deputy O'Malley said that it assumed the proportions of a NET situation. I seem to recollect the then Minister, Deputy Faulkner, giving figures to this House indicating that, in real terms, the actual venture was made available to the public at the original estimated cost. But, as the House knows, there was very heavy inflation obtaining at that time.
For Deputy O'Malley's information, the acknowledged expert on the financing of DART is none other than Mr. Joe Rea. From time to time I have heard him enunciate on it. I am not on particularly good terms with the same gentleman so I shall have to depend on the Minister to explain the finances of the DART operation to me. This is something I have not seen spelled out publicly, clearly, or both, ever, or at least for a very long time. I should like to know what the DART cost initially, what it costs annually and the number of people the system is carrying. Is it a worthwhile operation? It is very difficult to evaluate that. Probably it is incorrect to do a calculation based on the cost of carrying each individual passenger. One must also take into account the amount of traffic being taken off the roads.
It would be helpful if we could be given a rundown on the average number of passengers being carried daily. This is always very difficult to ascertain because, as is the case in regard to any semi-State company, when one asks questions in the House, one is told it is none of one's business, or that it is none of the Minister's business, that it is a matter for the company itself. Although I can understand how it evolves, it is a most unsatisfactory position. It would be helpful if we could be told the cost of the DART system, the annual repayments on capital and interest and the numbers of passengers being carried. I should also like to know from the Minister if the cost of the DART operation is included in the Government subvention of £113 million to CIE or is it quite separate? I suspect it may be quite separate from the overall subvention of £113 million to CIE. I should like to know if it is quite separate and, if it is, what it amounts to and for how long will it continue? That warrants clarification.
I take issue with Deputy McCartan when he said that Deputy O'Malley was attacking CIE. Nobody is attacking CIE. We were elected here by the citizens to oversee how public money is spent. Therefore when Members carry out a critical evaluation of the spending of that money they are merely doing what they were elected to do in this House. Certainly I am one of those people who have been critical in the past——
Will the Deputy be supporting Deputy O'Malley's amendment?
Let Deputy McCartan do what he has to do. I will do what I have to do. I will not be dictated to by a handful of extreme left-wingers, as Deputy O'Malley described the Deputy and his colleagues. It is not an attack on CIE——
Of course it is.
Rather is it a critical evaluation of the system. There must be a critical evaluation carried out of any system losing a vast amount of money, in this case at least £113 million annually.
On Second Stage I said there must be a case for competition in regard to the bus services, whether they be provincial or based in Dublin city. The Minister today at Question Time spoke of deregulation of road transport. Would the Minister tell us whether deregulation of road transport, just as in the case of deregulation of air transport, means that competition will not be merely an option but a necessity. Does it mean that monopolies contravene EC regulations? That question needs to be answered: does deregulation of road transport mean that competition must be entertained? I say "must be" rather than asking is there an option.
What about the amendment?
That question is hanging in mid-air and has never been properly answered. If the monopoly position is no longer tenable under existing EC law can the Minister say whether it will be tenable when we reach 1992? There is an extremely grey area there that has not been properly teased out. There must be a question over the legality of a monopoly position at present and in the immediate future.
On Second Stage also I made the point that I still favour the retention of the rail system. Having said that I am not absolutely convinced I am right. Again the matter warrants evaluation of the number of passengers carried and the effect that the passengers and goods at present carried by rail will have on our roads system which is at present rather inadequate as we all know. For example, would it be seriously damaged if that traffic were transferred from the rail to the roads system? We need to be advised expertly in that regard and ascertain whether we would be justified in saving £90 million a year because that is what the rail system is costing the Government at present. That warrants critical examination. There is need for much evaluation before arriving at a final decision. In the absence of that evaluation I give the benefit of the doubt to the rail system, as it is constituted at present, but I am not convinced.
I should appreciate it if the Minister could inform us of the cost of the DART system and, second, the significance of deregulation of road transport within the EC.
First, I should say these are round figures. In the nature of things, I can answer only in round figures. The cost was of the order of £80 million and the interest of the order of £30 million.
Sorry, could the Minister please repeat that?
The interest accruing as the system was being laid was of the order of £30 million. Of course, as the House knows, that interest and the capital cost were added together; the interest was capitalised. The next question the Deputy asked was in relation to usage. In 1983 the system carried 5.4 million passengers, in 1986 13 million passengers and the estimation for 1987 is 14 million passengers. I agree with the Deputy that, as far as possible, there should be full transparency with regard to questions relating to State companies. A late former Taoiseach and Minister for Industry and Commerce would only put one block on that and that is where revelation of figures would interfere with the efficient running of the companies. I expect the House would accept that as the general principle.
Deputy Deasy also asked about the deregulation of road transport. It is hardly comparing like with like when comparing deregulation in the first country that deregulated, where there are millions of people and it was not really a total success as is agreed by the Americans themselves, and deregulation in the context of the EC where there are 320 million people. It would be very difficult to assess what the effect would be in a country which is, by the standards of the countries I have been referring to, thinly populated, and this creates problems in the transport field. It would require very careful assessment to give an indication of what total deregulation in road transport would bring. But we do know that there was a system at one stage — and I think it was again the late Seán Lemass who had to do something about it — where there was unbridled competition and total confusion in the transport area. His legislation was designed to bring some kind of order to the situation. Admittedly, the basic law under which we are operating now is totally out of date in present circumstances. That is under minute examination and study in my Department and that study is coming very near to its conclusion.
There are a few questions that were not answered. We have now determined that the cost of the DART system was really £110 million, between the initial cost and the £30 million in interest during construction. I asked what the annual repayments would come to, for how long those repayments would continue, and if they were included in the subvention figure of £113 million. I would appreciate an answer to those three questions.
The repayments are about £16 million per annum and £14 million is included in the figure of £113 million for 1988.
For how long do the repayments go on?
I expect until the debt is cleared.
Mr. O'Malley
In saecula saeculorum.
We have a very limited amount of time and none of this debate relates to the amendment before the House.
It all relates to the type of information we need.
I very much wish that Members would address themselves to the amendment before the House. There is a tendency to stray into Second Stage speeches.
Perhaps the Minister would advise Members of the House on the implications of the amendment being proposed by the Progressive Democrats in terms of its implications for CIE — their capacity to continue to operate and staff levels and service levels within the company. In addition there are the implications of cutting back on the write off by almost £35 million with the restriction on borrowing another £35 million — a gross figure of about £70 million. Can the Minister advise us as to how constructive this amendment is and whether it represents an attack on future operations of CIE? My impressions are that the current financial status of CIE is such that unless this Bill goes through all Stages by the end of this session the company cannot be properly run and that that is why we are having the Bill today in such a "guillo-tine" fashion? There has been no response from the Minister yet as to the implications of this amendment.
The Deputy is the first to ask.
The amendment itself begs that question. I would like to hear from the Minister.
The fact is that if the amendment in the name of Deputy O'Malley were accepted by the House I would have to get an extra £35 million to pay to CIE. It is as simple as that. They simply would not be able to carry on without that £35 million.
I am glad the Minister made that clear because up to now I was not quite certain whether this was just a straightforward subsidy. It is, from what the Minister has said. He said that if my amendment went through he would have to get £35 million more to pay CIE. So that is a further subsidy on top of the £100 million we have paid them already this year. The Minister is now saying, not implying, that this is a further subsidy and that the money would have to be paid to them.
I thought I made it clear that the repayable advances were written off against money promised by this House to CIE over a period and not given to them, and which they have to take into account in their corporate planning. I made that quite clear to Deputy O'Malley and to the House in general.
The repayable advances were advanced between 1965 and 1982. I presume that this figure of £44.5 million relates to the capital advances, is the interest that would otherwise be payable on those advances being written off separately.
They had to pay the interest each year.
We will give them credit for that much anyway.
Fair play to the Deputy. I did not think he was coming out of his corner in praise of them at all.
Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 agreed too.
SECTION 3.
On amendment c1 in the name of Deputy Desmond O'Malley, I observe that amendment d1 would seem to be cognate and I suggest that they be debated together. Is that satisfactory?
Yes. I move amendment c1:
"In page 3, line 4, to delete "£45,000,000, and substitute "£10,000,000".
This amendment relates to the borrowing power of CIE which has been conferred on them by this section. It gives the board power to borrow a sum of £45 million and the following section and the amendment in my name relate to the guarantee of that borrowing by the Minister for Finance which is very similar to the writing off by him of the £44.5 million which was written off by the previous section.
The Minister, in reply to what Deputy Collins and some others had to say about this £45 million, said — I think that I am paraphrasing him correctly — that it was not really another £45 million, that it was transferring existing short term borrowings amounting to that sum to longer term borrowing and legalising that. That may be the internal departmental justification and it may very well be the case, for all I know. However, there is nothing in this section which says that CIE are not free to borrow another £45 million, and the same applies to the next section with regard to the Minister for Finance not being free to guarantee another £45 million on top of what he has already guaranteed or on top of what is already written off, such as the £44.5 million that he wrote off in the previous section. If the position is as the Minister says, that this is a transfer of short term borrowings which are repayable, in one, two or three years, to long term borrowings repayable over 15 or 20 years, then the section should say that. As it is drafted under law, the board of CIE would be free to maintain their present short term borrowings, cope with them as best they could and incur a further £45 million of borrowings, whether short term or longer term and they would be within their statutory powers in doing so.
The same argument relates to the guarantees. The Minister for Finance may have already guaranteed the existing £45 million of borrowings that are apparently covered by this section. The liability, therefore, of the Exchequer can be doubled by the provisions of these two sections if CIE choose to use them in that way. It is only reasonable, if there is some explanation of the kind that the Minister gives for the large increase in borrowing powers and guaranteeing powers, that that explanation, or the circumstances in which it is given, should be written into the legislation, rather than that CIE be handed an almost blank cheque, limited only by £45 million and enabling them to borrow that amount on top of all their existing borrowings. Assuming this sections is passed as it is, they would not be in breach of the law if they incurred a further £45 million borrowings while repaying any of the £45 million that they have of short term borrowings at the moment.
Deputy O'Malley may possibly be under a misapprehension. This is not a favour that the Minister is doing CIE. He is actually penalising them. In recent years a financial formula was devised by me in order to bring CIE's finances under control and this has been very successful. From 1969 to 1982 the CIE deficit escalated from £3 million approximately to £109.2 million. If it had gone up by the rate of inflation in that very inflationary period, the deficit in 1982 would have been £12.5 million approximately. It ended up almost seven times the rate of inflation. Things had seriously gone off the rails. Each year the jump in the deficit was a multiple of the rate of inflation.
Since 1982, since the financial formula and the controls were instigated, CIE's deficit in real terms has fallen. A certain figure was committed to them. In my battles as Minister with the Department of Finance, rather than forego that fund — because Finance were never happy with it even when it was working, never having given commitments for more than one year in advance — I agreed, as did CIE, that some of one year's subvention would be paid in arrears in January of the following year and so on. In addition, there was a sum due to CIE in relation to the cost of DART. That was part of the money owed, part of CIE credits. Instead of giving that money to CIE, the Minister is now writing off the debts——
No, we have passed from that section.
Are we discussing section 3?
Sections 3 and 4, yes.
I am sorry, I thought that we were still on section 2. I have just come into the House.
Section 3, we are taking amendments c1 and d1 together for debate.
I was making the point that the Minister is not doing CIE a favour. If the truth were known, I am sure that the chairman and board of CIE are far from happy with his proposal. It seems that the impression is getting across that we are doing CIE a favour, but we are not.
I shall repeat what the purpose of the subsection is. It is to empower the board to borrow money on a long term basis, that is for periods in excess of 12 months, for meeting their obligations and carrying out their duties. The need for this provision is so that CIE can finance, on the basis of term loans, the borrowings required to meet the arrears that I have been talking about since we started the debate, those that are being offset against the repayable State advances. The borrowings incurred to date in this matter have been temporary in nature, in other words, awaiting payments of the arrears. They will be converted now into term loans. As is normal in provisions of this kind, the board will require to obtain the consent of the Minister for Tourism and Transport and of the Minister for Finance before undertaking any borrowings under this section. Borrowings in a currency other than the currency of the State are also provided for. The actual borrowings will be controlled by me and by the Minister for Finance. What we are doing here is meeting the arrears that were up to now dealt with in a short term borrowing context, by providing for term loans.
As I understand, the import of these two amendments extends to CIE the normal banking facilities that would apply and be available to any other company working in the private or other sector in order to carry on their business properly. It defeats me entirely to understand how anybody can suggest that this facility should not be available to CIE, as is proposed by these provisions. Lest the opportunity pass of drawing some relationship to reality in this debate, would the Minister be able to advise us of the implications of the Progressive Democrats' amendment to curtail the facility by £35 million? What practical advantage or use would the facility to borrow in this way be to CIE, in the curtailed fashion proposed in this amendment? Would the ceiling maximum of £10 million be of any practical benefit to them? Would the Minister explain from whence the figure of £45 million emanates and the reasons for it and how it relates to the current scale of operations in which CIE are involved?
To repeat what I have said already, the company had to borrow on short term to deal with this arrears problem and had been doing so up to, as of now, about £40 million. This provision enables the company to borrow on a longer term, on the basis of term loans rather than short borrowings. They were borrowing over short periods because they were expecting the money that had been promised to them to come up. The matter is as simple as that and I do not think I should have to go into the implications of what it would mean if they were deprived of this sum of money which is essential for the running of the company.
I should like to repeat the point I made earlier because the Minister has not dealt with it. If this money is borrowed now on short term borrowings and it is proposed to convert it, as the Minister said, into long term borrowings, why is it that the section does not say that? The section simply gives a blanket power to the board, provided it gets the various consents, to borrow £45 million. There are no conditions about long term, short term or anything else; it is just straightforward borrowing. In the course of his second intervention the Minister said that the amount they borrowed under this heading so far was £40 million, not £45 million. Presumably they will be allowed to increase it by a further £5 million. What is that for? The Minister said it was for the arrears. Is it the arrears the company owe in relation to DART? I thought that was written off in the previous section which allowed for a writeoff of £44.5 million? Is it for accumulated losses over the years, over and above the £100 million subsidy they get each year? How did that figure of £40 million short term borrowings accumulate to make it necessary to transfer it into long term borrowings or, more or less, semi-permanent capital?
I have explained to the House that in 1985, 1986 and 1987 moneys were pushed forward, they were not paid. As well as that the ordinary subvention, £11 million plus, was transferred from 1987 to 1988. The aggregate of those make up the amount of money we have been talking about.
Question, "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendment No. d1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the question of the State guarantee of the borrowings by the board. It is a very long section with about 12 subsections. I notice in it very elaborate provisions about the State guaranteeing the CIE position. I suppose, unfortunately, all this is necessary but it is a great pity that the State has this extraordinarily wide degree of exposure notwithstanding the payment of enormous subsidies each year for countless years past, subsidies which seem to be getting bigger rather than smaller and while the loss involved, too, seems to be getting bigger rather than smaller. The State, obviously, is going to continue to have substantial exposure to CIE losses and borrowings to cover the losses in respect of railways. There is a limit as to what can be done in relation to them. I share some of the misgivings expressed by Deputy Deasy. It is a question that one has to balance up and I suppose that for strategic reasons it is better that we retain our railway system.
However, the position in relation to the bus side of the operation is quite different. There is no strategic or other necessity to maintain, for example, the Dublin City bus services the way they are at the moment. In fact, all commonsense cries out to heaven for a radical change to be made. It is particularly frightening that in this year, CIE's estimate of their likely loss on the Dublin City bus service is £24 million. That has occurred in a city where they have a total monopoly, not just the usual commercial monopoly where they are the biggest operator and can dominate the market but where they do not have any competition at all. It is illegal to compete with them and anybody who tries is liable to be prosecuted.
I should like to reiterate to the Minister that if he is going to try to control in any way the borrowings of the board that arise from their losses and, therefore, the State guarantee of them, he will have to look at what in any other country would be regarded as plain commonsense, to allow other people to compete and bring the monopoly in Dublin City transport to an end. He will have to consider letting others in to compete to the benefit of everybody, not least of CIE whose hand would be strengthened if there was competition available in Dublin. Their hand would be strengthened in dealing with the kind of nonsense we have seen in recent weeks and months with the dropof-a-hat strikes in various bus garages in Dublin which appear to take place for the most trivial of reasons and with appalling consequences for the travelling public.
The approach I have suggested cries out to be taken. I have no doubt that within a year or two it will be adopted. That reminds me of my efforts to get changes made in certain other areas when I was told so vehemently that I was so wrong but those changes did take place in those other areas of transport a year or two after I advocated them. I am equally confident that they will take place in regard to Dublin City because they have to. It flies in the face of commonsense to retain the present system of bus transport in this city, and in the country as a whole, and the Minister knows that as well as I do. However, he is a great man to keep up the pretence until he has decided to make the change. In my view the Minister should indicate now that commonsense demands that radical changes be made, that the type of changes that have taken place in other countries should and will happen here as quickly as they can be brought about. If that statement was made today — I invite the Minister to make it — it would make the job of CIE management a great deal easier than it is. It would bring a degree of reality into the affairs of CIE where it is notoriously lacking. It was lacking from, for example, the affairs of the B & I until recently when the ultimate reality stared them in the face. The same thing applies to a number of other companies.
The board and management of CIE would be greatly helped if that sort of statement was made now. It will happen and all that is required now is a formal confirmation of that by the Minister. The Minister would be serving the country well, and, in particular CIE, if he said that commonsense will be allowed to prevail.
I regret the opportunity cannot be let pass to respond in some way to remarks made by Deputy O'Malley. I do so as a Dublin Deputy who appreciates full well the importance of the CIE service to the people of Dublin, particularly working people living in the outer suburbs. The suggestion coming forward here is that CIE have a total monopoly of the transport services in the city. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dublin transport is not a monopoly. CIE are in a major contest with the private motor car.
Does the Deputy think the cars should be taken off the road?
One of the major difficulties in the development of any adequate bus related service is, as the Minister told us this afternoon, that the rapid transit system will not be developed as it should be to service the outer rim towns — this point must be brought home — and the development of transport services in the city will be based upon the bus and the diesel engine.
In regard to road transport no serious improvement can ever be expected as long as such second place is given to the public bus. Whether in private control or in CIE control will make not one iota of difference. If buses are to be the mainstay of transport in the city they can be effective only if given some priority over the private motor car on the traffic congested roads. That is a major political issue that must be addressed long before we begin to talk about whether the buses that then run efficiently are CIE owned or privately owned. There is not a total monopoly and that point should be made clear.
Another suggestion which has come back is that CIE are plagued in some way by drop-of-the-hat strikes, as Deputy O'Malley calls them. The position was very well illustrated by reference to CIE's annual reports of the very good history of industrial relations in CIE over the past number of years. It is a remarkable history in fact, unfortunately, marred in recent times by two disputes neither of which was entered in at the drop of a hat. No worker at any level engages in strikes involving stoppage of work, or protest without pay in all kinds of weather, at the drop of a hat. There is a history behind all strikes and the point was made in this House that it takes two to create this type of trouble. I was intimately and closely involved with the issue in Clontarf, probably the worst of the two that come to mind immediately. There was more than simply the issue of workers at fault there, and the issues were far more complex and involved than the "drop of a hat" remark this afternoon would suggest. The problem is that on the one hand people have belly-ached from time immemorial about the inadequacies or otherwise of services but are not prepared to face up to the fundamental issues that will put right one way or another the inadequacies of our services by giving backing to the only effective way of providing transport in the city or country, that is through publicly owned, properly competing, directed companies such as CIE.
I thought I was discussing section 4 but the thing spread out into a philosophic discussion about public and private transport. I recommend to the House section 4 which deals with the State guarantee for borrowings by the board, and the limitation is £45 million as can be seen in section 4(2). Also there is a reference to borrowings in foreign currency and that the rate that will be applied is the rate of exchange that applied at the time of the guarantee.
Section 4(4) is important in that it provides that the Minister for Finance has to lay before each of the Houses of the Oireachtas after the end of the financial year particulars of any guarantee given, the amount paid and the amount of principal guaranteed which is outstanding at the end of the year. Subsections (5) to (11), inclusive, deal with the powers of the Minister for Finance in this regard.
There is in section 4(12) a formula for quantifying value in Irish currency of moneys payable under guarantee given by the Minister for Finance. It is a very carefully thought out section, rationally developed, and I commend it to the House.
On this section, it is a pity the Minister did not avail of the opportunity I sought to give him to express his views on the wider matters.
It is not the time, whatever about the place, on section 4.
It certainly is the place and it is as good a time as any. The Minister was always one for telling someone this is not the time.
I was afraid the Chair might shoot me down.
I can recall one or two occasions, not necessarily related to transport legislation, when that was his advice.
What was it?
On the section I would like to ask the Minister whether the guaranteeing of the £45 million which the Minister for Finance will be empowered to do here is the only power of guarantee the Minister for Finance or the State generally has or are there already State guarantees in relation to CIE?
I understand there are in relation to capital borrowings.
Can the Minister tell us the amount?
I am informed it is about £157 million. I thought from memory it was £137 million.
That means the State is now, if this section is passed, providing for £200 million approximately or a little over to CIE, which is not a very happy prospect. That is why Deputy Cullen on Second Stage and I and the PDs generally and many people with common sense wonder when it is all going to stop. We just come along every couple of years and pass Bills of this nature with more and more guarantees to allow this kind of operation to draw more and more money out of what has come to be regarded as a bottomless pit. I have no doubt that some successor of the Minister will be along here in a few years more, unless common sense prevails in the meantime, looking for a further £45 million or £50 million guarantee. It is time to break the vicious circle and that might be done by the Minister making a statement of the kind I indicated to him where he agreed that it was the place but not the time. I am glad he did not disagree very vehemently with me that it is only a question of timing, which is what I thought it would be.
That is all right in the law courts. Leading questions are all right——
The public interest would be greatly served if that statement were made and if we could have competition here, if we could have an end of this nonsensical monopoly that is not enjoyed by a single public transport company in any other city in the world including even Moscow where there are probably two or three of them.
It is only five kopeks a trip there.
It is an extraordinary situation here. It is unhealthy. It is leading to increasingly greater loss-making each year and that is likely to go on for as long as it is let go on. This Bill is an ideal opportunity to try to bring a stop to it, and if the Bill itself does not do so the debate should. If it is not being done now in this Bill it should be made clear that a stop will be called very soon to this ridiculous situation that exists in relation to bus transport in this country.
In relation to the size of the CIE operation, the property owned by CIE throughout the country and the services provided, I do not think the borrowing is exhorbitant. There is no competition between the bus companies in Moscow. The charge is uniform, five kopeks, for the subway and for the buses.
I celebrate the fact that Dublin and Moscow have that much in common but I am determined that they will not have any more in common.
Deputy O'Malley has been trying to ascertain whether the monopoly enjoyed by CIE will be ended. I suspected earlier that the Minister is on the verge of making a profound announcement.
I would not be allowed to do so on section 4.
The Minister is inhibited by the nature of the Bill.
Deputy Deasy will not be allowed to develop his suspicions either.
He may not say it today, but I trust we can expect an announcement shortly.
It is imminent.
But, as usual, not within the walls of this House.
At a Fianna Fáil Cumann dinner in Cavan.
I have respect for this House.
We would prefer if the statement were made here, and the sooner the better. In respect of what Deputy McCartan said, I have not heard such a childish observation in all my time in this House. He said that CIE are in competition with, of all people, the private motorists.
That is right.
That is bringing left wing politics to the extreme. What about pedestrians, cyclists or the pony and trap? They are all in the one area and might be included.
Who is being childish now?
We appreciate that CIE have problems because we have a very small population in what is a relatively large island. The population is dispersed and it is difficult for any company, private or national, to make a profit. I am not advocating that we get rid of CIE but private individuals should be allowed compete against CIE and vice versa, whether on the provincial bus services or the Dublin services. Let us keep a sense of proportion. Nobody is advocating the abolition of CIE or any of the three transport companies. What we are saying is that everybody should be allowed to compete on an equal basis.
Question put an agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Before the Minister moves amendment No. 1, would it be in order to take amendments Nos. 1 to 10, excluding amendment No. 6, as they all deal with increased penalties?
I am afraid the order has already been made and there is no agreement to do this. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to section 7 may be taken together. It is proposed that we will take amendment No. 1 on its own.
They all cover the same subject. For the convenience of business, may I suggest that amendments Nos. 1 to 10, excluding No. 6 which all deal with increased penalties, be taken together? The increases proposed are moderate and I do not think there would be disagreement in the House if they were taken together; they could be put separately.
I would go along with that.
The House is the supreme authority and if there is general agreement that we take amendments Nos. 1 to 10, excluding No. 6, the Chair will accept that. Does the House agree that amendments Nos. 1 to 10, excluding amendment No. 6, be taken together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 2, to delete "£300" and substitute "£400".
Section 6, as drafted, increases the penalty for breaches of CIE's penal by-laws from a maximum fine of £10 to a fine not exceeding £300 and/or a maximum of three months imprisonment. The amendment would increase the fine to a maximum of £400. There are 33 penal by-laws covering matters ranging from conduct on trains and getting on and off trains to more serious offences, such as throwing lighted substances on the floors of railway carriages, wilful destuction of property and interference with railway operations.
When I introduced the Bill I considered the maximum penalties proposed in section 6 to be adequate. However, since then I have had the benefit of the views of Members of this House, the media coverage and a number of approaches made to me direct and to other Members of the Government. These convinced me that a higher maximum monetary fine is needed and as a result I propose to increase the maximum fine to £400. I consider the maximum imprisonment term orginally proposed to be appropriate for the offences covered.
I want to pay tribute to Deputy McCartan for communicating with me with regard to this section and the advice he and the Minister for Social Welfare gave me. They are au fait with a lot of what is happening on suburban trains, buses and so on.
We support the amendments proposed by the Minister and take this opportunity to re-emphasise that sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek to bring up to date the laws regulating the conduct of persons travelling by rail or on the railway line. This is of particular importance for a Deputy like myself coming from a constituency with a rail service, in this instance the rapid transit rail service which is powered by electricity. This system has been plagued over a number of years with unlawful interference along the routes. For too long people have considered the railway line as a means of easy movement, and because it generally runs in a straight line, as an easy way of getting from one point to another, a place of curiosity, a place for play, and so on. We have to bring it home to the people living near railway lines, that they are not areas where such activities should take place. In fact, they are highly dangerous places and people should stay away from them.
It is equally important that we bring up to date the penalties covering serious offences committed along the railways. One of The Workers' Party amendments relates to the possibility of empowering CIE inspectors to impose on the spot fines for offences detected or noted during a train journey. I do not know if that will meet with the approval of the House, but it is an idea which should be aired at this stage. As I said, we are trying to bring the legislation up to date so that the Garda Síochána, or CIE officials, have the means to adequately deal with transgressions. In the age of electrification, with increased urbanisation development near railway lines and particularly because of the increased speed of trains through builtup areas, the throwing of a missile, the laying of an object, moving livestock or people along the railway line, can be a source of major danger not only to the people who are wrongfully on the railway line but to people travelling in the trains and to the train drivers. A stone of reasonable size thrown at a train travelling at approximately 60 miles an hour will strike the window of the train with the same impact as a pellet from a shotgun and that, to someone travelling on the train — a driver, an employee or a passenger — can cause horrendous injuries. It is important to have effective legislation and the penalties included here are reasonable and fair. Obviously they relate to transportation offences in that if the act involves more heinous consequences there are obviously wider and more serious crimes of which the offender may be accused with consequent important and more serious penalties. However, from the point of view of a fair regime in our transport legislation, these provisions are an effective and summary way of dealing with offenders and I support the amendments.
On Second Stage we indicated our concern that the fines were not high enough and that prison sentences were not long enough. We might wish that the fines might be somewhat larger but we support the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, line 6, to delete "£300", and substitute "£500".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, line 7, to delete "3 months", and substitute "6 months".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7 as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, line 10, to delete "£300", and substitute "£500".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, line 11, to delete "3 months", and substitute "6 months".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8 as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, before section 9, to insert the following new section: "9. — Section 59 (2) (b) of the Act of 1950 is hereby repealed.".
This is a very short and effective amendment in helping the authorities, the Garda Síochána or CIE to deal effectively with offences relating to trespass on railway lines. The amendment proposes to delete subsection (2) (b) of the Transport Act, 1950. Under this subsection, where a person is charged with an offence in respect of a trespass, he shall not in any case be convicted of the offence unless the board prove, to the satisfaction of the court, that at the date of the trespass there was affixed at the station of the board and at the level crossing nearest to the spot where the trespass is alleged to have been committed, a notice painted on board, or printed, painted or enamelled on iron or any other material in legible characters warning persons not to trespass on the railways of the board.
Throughout the transport legislation, there are provisions making it incumbent on CIE, otherwise known as the board, to display at all points of access, level crossings and so on, warning signs to persons that it is illegal to trespass on the railway line and indicating the penalty that may be imposed should a person trespass. We support that provision and many of us can see these signs all around the country warning people of the dangers. If anything, these signs should be improved. In the light of the amendments to which we have agreed and the new sections, the notices should be improved to bring home to people the inherent dangers in trespassing or interfering with the railway lines or carriages. The problem arises at a stage when a prosecution is brought. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that CIE mounted these signs, that they were there on the day the particular offence is alleged to have occurred, that they have not been interfered with and that they were available to be observed. In addition, I understand that in the practicalities of prosecuting, CIE often have to bring numerous witnesses to court with maps to prove that the point where the signs was erected was the nearest point of crossing or access to the railway line. Considerable time, energy and expense can be involved in proving this technical point. The House will appreciate the minefield this presents for the prosecution and the goldmine, on the basis of what is presented for the defence, in trying to exploit and defeat a prosecution. We are simply asking for that subsection to be deleted, in other words, not making it a prerequisite of a proof for conviction. Where a person is found on a railway line, it should not be incumbent on CIE to prove all the matters contained in subsection (2) (b). It does not take away from CIE the obligation of erecting the signs and seeing that they are there. The number of prosecutions brought for trespass are miniscule in any one year, no more than five in 1984, the last known figures. This is because of the penalties on the one hand and the intricacies of the proof on the other which do not make it worth while bothering with prosecutions.
Another problem is that if the elements obliterate the sign and this becomes apparent after the prosecution is initiated or if made aware to the court by the defence, the prosecution fails because it is clear from the subsection that the person shall not be convicted of the offence unless the board prove to the satisfaction of the court all the other matters required. Therefore, we propose that the subsection should be deleted but that the signs and the warnings should be available to members of the public.
I appreciate that the intention behind the amendment put down by Deputy McCartan was to prevent, in so far as possible, people who commit these offences escaping conviction on a technicality. I cannot accept it because we are substantially changing the whole scene. We must give reasonable notice because of the steep increase in fines and concomitant prison sentences. Indeed, some people have written to me indicating that the fines are not steep enough. It is fair that this section of the Transport Act, 1950 should be allowed to remain until the new penalities form themselves into the consciousness of people who commit these offences on the railways. They will be a reminder of the offence and I presume they will also be a reminder of the fines. I had a private conversation with Deputy McCartan about this. I accept fully that it causes difficulty in getting a conviction. The sign may be, as the Deputy said, blown down by the wind, defaced or painted over and it does make for more difficulty in getting a conviction. But as we are changing now, I submit to the House that it would not be wise in the interests of fair play to remove section 59 (2) (b) of the Transport Act, 1950. Some people might say that the kind of vandalism about which we are talking here does not deserve much sympathy, but my contention is that we should retain that section as of now especially.
I agree with what the Minister has said. In section 25 (2) of the Transport (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1971, there is the legislative requirement that:
The Board shall erect a notice at every level crossing or passage to which this section applies warning users that a person failing to shut and fasten either such gate after using the level crossing or passage is liable to prosecution.
Throughout the legislative procedures of the railways there is the active duty on the board to erect signs. I am not suggesting in this amendment that that duty should be taken away from them. We are dealing here with the proofs and subsequent court hearing on a prosecution. I accept the argument and the point made about changing the scene, increasing the penalties and that things will be made more realistic in the matter of dealing with transgressions and trespasses on the railway lines.
However, the point dealing with adequate notice made by the Minister can and must be dealt with under existing law, irrespective of our amendment. The signs must be there and consequent to this legislation all will have to altered to make it clear what the penalties will be. I see a practical problem arising. If a young offender is found on a railway line — later on the Minister is giving powers of arrest to the Garda Síochána — arrested and taken to a local Garda station, charged and is released that evening or the next night, if he is street wise or railway wise all he has to do is head back to the nearest level crossing or sign and make sure that, when the inspectors come to check for the purpose of proving their case, the sign is not there.
I am worried that if this loophole is left the penalties will never be impressed on the minds of those who are constantly around the railway line. I have worked in this area for a number of years and I think the officials and the Minister will agree that in Dublin there is a sub-culture which lives off and around the railway lines. Going towards Finglas and from Shandon upwards, around Sheriff Street, East Wall and in Kilbarrack they know every twist and turn and they are the source of the problem for CIE in running a safe system through the city. I regret to say that if the realities of the legislation come out there will not be a warning sign left on one square inch of railway lines. They will be systematically taken out.
I should like to say to the Minister that the notices and obligations to sustain the notices and maintain them will still be there in the legislation and I take the point that people should be adequately warned. I will not exploit the adage igno-rantia juris haud excusat but we should be a bit more realistic about the practicalities of implementing sanctions in court subsequently where this very wideranging type of defence is available and I have no doubt will be exploited. I ask the Minister to consider it and maybe he would do a simple piece of surgery by taking out paragraph (b) of the 1950 Act.
This will be a brief reply. In the case quoted by Deputy McCartan — he mentioned that I am giving the Garda powers of arrest without warrant — there is no reason why the garda who arrested this galoot who was trespassing on the railway should not call the attention of the said galoot to the notice before he took him to the local Garda station. That would be proof that it was there. The garda would have proof that it was there no matter what subsequently this particular person did. I know that Deputy McCartan has put together a finely woven argument and it is a good one. The only weakness in it as far as I am concerned is that we have a new departure here: we are raising the fines substantially and we are raising the prison sentences substantially. I have no doubt that down the road a little this particular section of the 1950 Act could be excised but not as of now.
Finally I should like to ask the Minister if he would give us an indication — I will not ask for an undertaking — that if this difficulty arises in trying to enforce the law, he will look at the matter afresh at a future date.
I certainly will and I would be more than grateful if the people who are directly involved in the courts would give me such an indication and I am sure I would have the co-operation of the House in excising that particular section of the 1950 Act.
In that event I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, paragraph (b), line 17, to delete "£300", and substitute "£500".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, paragraph (c), line 18, to delete "£300", and substitute "£500".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9 as amended agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, paragraph (a), line 24, to delete "£300", and substitute "£400".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 5, paragraph (b), line 29, to delete "£300", and substitute "£400".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 10, as amended, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 5, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11. —A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest a person without warrent where the member has reasonable cause for believing that such person is committing or has committed an offence under——
(a) section 59 (1) of the Act of 1950,
(b) section 25 (1) of the Act of 1971,
(c) section 34 of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, or
(d) section 22 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 (in so far as it relates to offences by passengers).".
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for powers of arrest — this has been mentioned already by Deputy McCartan and myself — without warrant by a garda who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is commiting or has committed any of the offences mentioned in the amendment. The offences covered are trespass on the railway, failure to close gates at certain railway level crossings — and I believe from the information supplied to me this is quite common and it is malicious — any act which would endanger a passenger, or a person, on the railway and misuse by a passenger of the communication cord on trains. We are all well aware of the problems arising from vandalism on the railways. During my contribution on Second Stage I said that I was examining the question of giving the Garda powers of arrest without warrant where a member of the force suspects commission of an offence. A number of Deputies also referred during that debate to the problems of the Garda in this area. Deputy McCartan put down an amendment to provide the Garda with powers of arrest in the case of trespass. I hope that the Deputy will now be in a position to withdraw his amendment as my amendment goes further in the area of improved enforcement.
I am confident that this amendment will prove to be a valuable aid in ensuring safety for all who travel or work on the railway. Before I sit down I would like also to endorse the remarks made by Deputy Taylor-Quinn. She and the Fine Gael spokesman on Second Stage said they supported increasing penalties for offences.
I should indicate to the House that amendment No. 12 is related and for discussion purposes we will take amendments Nos. 11 and 12 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I will withdraw amendment No. 12 in the name of The Workers' Party in favour of that of the Minister. I thank him on behalf of the other groups and representatives in the Dublin NorthEast constituency who, along with the Garda Síochána, lobbied his Department in relation to this important point. In particular, I would like to take the opportunity to express my thanks to Inspector Tom Muldoon of Raheny Garda station who, probably as his last act as an inspector, took this issue on board. He has recently retired from the force and I wish him well in his retirement. I have no doubt he will have as colourful a time in his new endeavours as he had as a member of the Garda Síochána.
It was at a meeting in the constituency called by the manager of the suburban rail service that this whole issue came to light. Because of the recurring problems for CIE along the DART line, in particular from Sutton Cross to Raheny, the rail authorities have had to take some unfortunate but necessary steps of employing security. They have been holding public meetings, visiting schools and distributing leaflets around the area advising people of the essential social nature of the service being provided. It was pointed out that a great deal of the serious attacks on trains travelling through the constituency were carried out by young people after school hours who seem to have been entirely mindless of the extent of the dangers they were causing by interfering with the railway line. Perhaps it reached a high water mark when a stupid naive young man who now appreciates fully his position climbed on to the bridge in the constituency and lowered a breeze block by rope to the level of the unfortunate train driver who was passing through. This pendulum swung in front of the train nearly causing an incredibly serious accident. Thankfully, the driver has made a full recovery from that experience.
Coupled with that, was this whole culture, so to speak, that the railway line was a place of easy access which gave people an opportunity to travel along it in order to get from one place to another. The attitude was that it was open road to everyone. The Garda and CIE were called in to sit down with local representatives and groups to discuss the problem and for the first time it became apparent that up to now the Garda Síochána did not have the power or authority to remove a person from the line unless they were called specifically by CIE and requested by an officer of CIE to take action to remove the person from the line. Up to now the penalty for trespassing on a railway line has been £2 maximum, a non-arrestable offence. No doubt that was reasonable at the time legislation was first brought into being. As I said earlier, at that time our rail traffic did not travel at the speeds they do now, they were not powered by electricity and they did not have huge suburban built-up areas around them but times have now changed.
On many occasions the Garda Síochána were frustrated when they witnessed disturbances at or about the railway lines and did not have the power of arrest. I am glad the Minister has tabled this amendment and has taken the point. I am assured by the Garda Síochána that they will put this power to good use. I have no doubt that the message will come home to people, slowly but surely, that our railway lines are important areas providing an essential service and are not areas of recreational recourse for people seeking to travel along them other than by using the railways.
I accept that the Minister has expanded on the powers envisaged in our amendment but I bow to the better wisdom of the authorities in saying that it would be useful to have — and I can see the advantage of having — the powers in the other areas. All powers of arrest must be exercised with due caution and on reasonable cause and this area will be no different. I am sure that where there are minor transgressions that require simply a word of caution that will be given by the Garda Síochána. Where serious offences have been committed or are likely to be committed, an effective remedy is available where the person can be brought into custody and the law will take its natural course thereafter. I thank the Minister and I welcome his amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 5, before section 11, to insert the following new section:
"11. —(1) This section applies to such of the following offences as may be declared by the Minister by regulations to be offences to which this Section applies, namely, any offence under the Act of 1950, the Act of 1971, the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868 and the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889.
(2) Where an Inspector of Iarnród Éireann-Irish Rail has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence to which this Section applies, he may deliver to the person a Notice in a form prescribed by Regulations made by the Minister stating:
(a) that the person is alleged to have committed the offence,
(b) that the person may, during the period of 21 days beginning on the date of the notice, make to larnród Éireann a payment of a prescribed amount, accompanied by the Notice,
(c) that a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence will not be instituted during the period specified in the Notice and, if the payment specified in the Notice is made during that period, no prosecution in respect of the alleged offence will be instituted.
(3) Where a Notice is delivered under a sub-section (2):
(a) a person to whom the Notice applies may, during the period specified in the Notice, make to Iarnród Éireann-Irish Rail the payment specified in the Notice, accompanied by the Notice,
(b) Iarnród Éireann may receive the payment, issue a receipt for it and retain the money so paid in accordance with Regulations made by the Minister, and no payment so received shall in any circumstances be recoverable by the person who made it,
(c) a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall not be instituted during the period specified in the Notice, and, if the payment specified in the Notice is made during that period, no prosecution in respect of the alleged offence shall be instituted.
(4) Different amounts may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) (b) of this Section in respect of different offences and offences alleged to have been committed in particular places or different areas.
(5) In a prosecution for an offence to which Section applies the onus of showing that a payment pursuant to a Notice under this Section has been made shall be on the Defendant.
(6) The Minister may make Regulations prescribing any matter or thing referred to in this Section.
(7) A draft of every regulation proposed to be made under this Section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulation shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House.".
I move this amendment on behalf of The Workers' Party. It is a long and detailed amendment but one that can be very simply explained. I do not propose to read it through entirely but I will take it in general terms section by section. The amendment proposes to introduce a régime that allows a railway inspector, where he witnesses offences being committed in the course of a rail journey, to impose on-the-spot fines or notice of fines. It is similar to the powers available to traffic wardens who deal with parking, tax and other offences relating to stationary motor vehicles.
At present train fares can cost up to £30, if not more. Clearly, because of the size of that fare there is a great incentive on a passenger to simply apply the traditional means of avoiding paying a fare and saying: "I am sorry, I do not have money, I cannot pay, take my name and address". I know this is an often-used device on buses and in particular on trains. I do not believe CIE have ever successfully, if at all, prosecuted or pursued to any great extent a person for failure to pay a fare. It would be very useful if an inspector who suspected he was dealing with someone who was merely trying to avoid the payment of the fare could issue the person with a notice of an on-the-post penalty. That would lay on the person the onus to respond within 21 days by payment of the fine imposed or by electing, in the case of non-payment, to have the matter determined by a court of summary jurisdiction at a day appointed and to argue the matter before the judge of a District Court.
This amendment is drafted along the lines of the provisions allowed for under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 and 1968, which creates powers for traffic wardens and establish their authority to impose on the-spot fines. It has been suitably amended to deal with Iarnród Éireann and for that reason I do not think there should be any difficulty in the drafting. I anticipate that the Minister may feel that there are practical difficulties attached to it but I understand from my inquiries that Iarnród Éireann would welcome this addition to the powers available to them to deal with people who do not give the rail service its due.
The offences mentioned in subsection (1) and in the amendment are varied ones and they vary with regard to seriousness. The amendment would cast me in the role of somebody who would have to codify the offences and while I would not mind being a Napoleon I do not want those powers of codifying various offences into separate categories for the purpose of laying down fines. I wonder if the inspectors would welcome that in circumstances where somebody would hang a breeze block down and almost behead a driver. The Deputy referred to traffic wardens but the traffic warden has a very simple task — a car either is or is not in a wrong place and he or she writes the chit and affixes it. There is no place for subjectivity at all in that but in the many and varied things covered by the amendment there would be areas of subjectivity and consequently a fairly heavy burden, first, on the Minister and, secondly, on the inspector. In is the function of the courts to assess an alleged offence having regard to the circumstances of each case and to determine the penalty. We have substantially increased the penalties for offences.
I cannot accept the amendment, however much work went into it. The amendment is inappropriate and it conflicts with the existing provisions of the law. It would be setting up two systems. It would give the Garda powers of arrest without warrant and it would give powers also to CIE inspectors. CIE inspectors would be put in a very difficult position which could attract hostility. They would have to make qualitative type judgments as well. This would not be appropriate. They themselves are employees of the company and consequently nemo iudex in sua causa would apply here as well. The inspectors would be acting as judge and jury with regard to the offence. The purpose behind the amendment is to improve enforcement in relation to the business of the railways but on the basis that we have already accepted amendments providing for very substantial penalties I am afraid I am not willing to accept this amendment.
This amendment does not suggest that we set up a conflicting system of authority taking away from the Garda Síochána their role, as already agreed, in the previous amendments. What is suggested here is that the Minister, looking at the range of offences covered by the various Acts referred to and the regulations referred to can identify offences that could be covered by on-the-spot penalties. I do not suggest for a moment that the unfortunate breeze block incident is one that would be appropriate for this. What this amendment is trying to address is the proper order of persons who have recourse to a rail journey. We must remember that we are dealing with carriages travelling at speed and often nonstop from one city to another that there can be disturbances, that disrespect can be shown for other passengers or for the authority of inspectors on the train and that they would be assisted by an opportunity to impose a penalty. An immediate offence that comes to mind is the non-payment of a fare. The person in question can admit his error and can realise that he would have no cause if he went to court. It is open to the person to say that he was wrong and this is the basis on which the whole on-the-spot fine system works. I know that things are clear cut in so far as a tax disc must be displayed or that a car is in the wrong place, but a person can make a defence citing an emergency, or a mishap that can obviate the imposition of the penalty. It is open to a motorist to refuse to pay the fine and to go to court and plead his case. Equally, a person on a train can do the same. Offences like causing damage to fittings, interfering with property, scratching graffiti on the walls of toilets and putting feet on the seats should be dealt with by the inspector by the imposition of a fine. How often have we watched the spectacle on trains of some people refusing to respond to a request from an inspector to keep their feet off the seats? That kind of thing can be dealt with effectively by this type of procedure. The regimes on foreign rail services are far more strict and one dare not abuse the facilities because of the penalties that would be imposed if one did.
I do not intend to press this amendment but I felt it important that the issue be aired because it is a question that will come back to this House in the future. In that context will the Minister indicate whether his Department have had the opportunity to discuss the desirability of this suggestion with representatives of CIE? I understand that CIE and Iarnród Éireann are anxious to have powers analagous to this and are anxious to introduce this into their regime because they do not have an effective way of dealing with people who do not show the appropriate respect to a social service like this.
The sentiments of the amendment are very noble but it could not be enforced. It would be possible to enforce it if we were a very regular well disciplined society but when one considers the loutish behaviour that one has to endure on public transport there I despair of ever being able to enforce anything like this. If an inspector handed one of these people a notice requiring a payment the person would use two words which we all know but which I will not repeat in the House and that would be the last one would see of him, the fine or anything else. The fact that the Minister has increased the penalties in some of these latter section does not really matter because a system of enforcement is not there. I wish somebody would contradict me and prove that I am wrong but my experience is that it is not there.
I do not travel as much by train now as I once did but I expect to do so again shortly. I have had so many bad experiences of that type of behaviour on Irish railways that I cannot see that the system would work. It does not happen on the Continent or in Britain because people will immediately object and there will be law enforcement agencies on the spot to meet the train. In this country we have a casual system where everybody takes things in their stride, whether good, bad or indifferent — and they are mainly bad and indifferent. I do not see it succeeding, although I wish it would. We need to bring discipline into our society. I cannot envisage us catching a fellow who pulls a communication cord, breaks a window, spills drink over somebody or insults somebody. We have not yet come to that mature stage as a society whereby we have the resources to apprehend culprits. Loutish behaviour is seen not just on public transport but in the streets and in restaurants. It is everywhere. It is most awful in the confines of a bus or train because one is stuck with it for the duration of the journey.
Deputy McCartan's amendment is fine but I do not think it has a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented, nor have many of the fines and penalties in the Bill generally. We are not dedicated to pursuing people who break the law. We accept as a matter of fact that they should get away. It is totally wrong. It is one of the greatest impediments in our society that we are so prepared to let people of this nature get away with it.
I do not want to be cynical but I do not see great justification for increasing the fines as proposed in the amendments and with the best will in the world I cannot see that what Deputy McCartan is proposing would work. I would be quite happy to support it if I believed otherwise but I do not think there is any hope whatsoever.
All the reasons Deputy Deasy has advanced show why this amendment is necessary. I am happy the House has ventilated the issue. I directed one or two queries to the Minister and I would ask him to make a short response.
I understand that some consultation did take place with CIE and we also took legal advice. It was as a result of careful consideration on the basis of all the advice we could get that I told the House I could not accept the amendment. I would not accept that loutish behaviour in public places and in public vehicles is confined to Irish people.
It is more prevalent.
I had an experience in a neighbouring country which I never saw on the Dublin to Cork or Dublin to Belfast run. As a student, I was very impressed by notices in railway stations in Spain which stated "look after your train" and "look after your railway station". These signs carried a strong message of which we in this country could take cognisance. The difficulty of dealing with people who in the first place break some kind of rule or refuse to pay fares would be as Deputy Deasy suggests. If they were law abiding and socially responsible people they would not be in that state in the first place. I have no doubt that the railway inspector would have grave difficulty in extracting a fare from somebody refusing to pay or in putting him under control. We have put into the Bill sufficient penalties and powers for the Garda to see to it that some of these abuses will be wiped off our social map.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I express my appreciation to those Members of the House who contributed on Second Stage and who gave the Bill a thorough teasing out on Committee Stage.
Question put and agreed to.