Transport Bill, 1970 (Certified Money Bill): Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

This Bill is a temporary measure to meet CIE's immediate financial difficulties and provide an opportunity for a more thorough examination of the position in relation to future years. It provides for payment to the board in the current financial year of additional subsidy not exceeding £2.98 million, which is the amount of CIE's estimated net loss this year after account is taken of the board's annual grant of £2.65 million.

The annual grant of £2.65 million was fixed just 12 months ago. On 31st December, 1969, I made an order under section 6 of the Transport Act, 1964, increasing the grant from £2 million to £2.65 million per annum. The order had previously been approved, in draft, by both the Dáil and Seanad.

CIE have a statutory obligation to break even, taking one year with another, with the aid of the annual grant and the revised grant of £2.65 million was regarded as a realistic estimate of the minimum subsidy with which CIE could get by, during the five-year period ending 31st March, 1974, on the basis of effective management and increased efficiency and productivity. The board has not succeeded in breaking even and the main reason can be summed up in one word—inflation.

The annual grant of £2.65 million was fixed on the basis of estimates of CIE's annual deficits for the five-year period 1969-70 to 1973-74. These estimates did not include any provision for the 12th round increase in salaries and wages on the grounds that it was appropriate that national wage rounds and other increases in labour costs which might arise during the five-year period should be recovered by way of increases in fares and rates, to the extent that they could not be met by way of economies and increased productivity. Likewise, the estimates did not include provision for additional revenue from increases in fares and rates. This, in my view, is the only reasonable approach to the fixing of CIE's annual subvention.

No one could have foreseen in December, 1969, that the 12th round settlements would be of such magnitude that they would cost CIE almost £5 million in a full year or that the overall increase in the board's labour costs would amount to an estimated £6.7 million in a full year. Other costs have also increased—charges for materials and services, financial charges, depreciation provisions, etc.

Apart from the effects of inflation, there are many other factors which have contributed to the substantial increase in CIE's losses. I will mention just a few. Strikes, both inside and outside CIE, cost the board about £277,000 in gross revenue in 1969-70— to date this year they have cost CIE another £430,000. Strikes in the cement and fertiliser industries contributed substantially to a decline of 3 per cent in rail freight tonnage in 1969-70— over the previous five years there had been an increase of 34 per cent.

There has been a continuing decline in the number of passengers using the Dublin city services—over 7 million fewer passengers were carried in 1969-70 than in the preceding year; compared with the year 1964-65, the number of passengers carried in 1969-70 was down by almost 28 million. The growing traffic congestion, which is, of course, a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, continues to be a major cause of disruption of Dublin bus services. It has, no doubt, contributed to the decline in passenger numbers. It has certainly contributed substantially to the reduced profitability of these services. The net profit on the Dublin city services was only £61,000 in 1969-70 on a turnover of £7.7 million and on the basis of present estimates these services will show a net loss of £280,000 in 1970-71. While the board's coach tours continued to expand in 1969-70, the hoped for development was retarded due to the disturbances in Northern Ireland, which were responsible for the cancellation of many bookings.

One important factor which is often overlooked is the time-lag between the date of implementation of increases in salaries and wages for CIE employees and the date on which consequential increases in fares and rates are introduced. Depending on the time taken to complete negotiations, the retrospective element of salary and wage increases can be quite substantial—this was the position with the 12th round increase. In such cases, the time-lag can have a significant effect on CIE's losses.

Even with the two increases in fares and rates in June and October, 1970, which will bring in additional revenue to CIE estimated at £3.5 million in the current financial year and £6.6 million in 1971-72, CIE's estimated net deficits in 1970-71 and 1971-72 will amount to £5.63 million and £4.79 million respectively. The board's annual grant will, therefore, be inadequate to the extent of £2.98 million in the current financial year and £2.14 million next year. The present Bill is an ad hoc measure to deal with CIE's financial difficulties during the current financial year.

To a certain extent, it might be said that CIE are this year the victims of circumstances and not the masters of their own destiny. Nevertheless, the Government are gravely disturbed by the board's progressively deteriorating financial position. They are particularly concerned about the growing losses on the railway. In 1964, when the Government took the major policy decision to preserve the railway system, subject to such further concentration and reorganisation as might be practicable or desirable, operating losses on the railway amounted to £905,000. In 1968-69 these losses had grown to £2.1 million; in 1969-70 they amounted to £3.1 million. Adding financial charges, the net deficit on the railway last year was £4.2 million and CIE estimate that even with the increases in fares and rates, total net losses on the railway will exceed £5.6 million this year and next year.

The growing losses on the railway are symptomatic of the inflation to which I referred earlier. The railway is more vulnerable to wage inflation than the board's other services in that salaries and wages of railway employees represent approximately 81 per cent of total railway revenue, compared with 67 per cent for Dublin city services, 61 per cent for road freight services and 54 per cent for provincial road passenger services.

Railway losses of over £5.6 million per annum cannot, however, be accepted with equanimity and I have, therefore, set up a joint committee comprising representatives of my own Department, the Department of Finance and CIE to investigate the deterioration in CIE's financial position and to identify possible corrective measures.

I have agreed that the committee should enlist the aid of consultants in their task. The first priority will be to examine the reasons for the increased losses on railway working and to determine what can be done, in the short term, to reduce these losses. A report on this aspect of the matter should be available early in the financial year 1971-72 and we will then be in a better position to decide what should be done about CIE's losses in that year.

A study in depth to establish what measures might be taken in the long term to achieve a reduction in CIE's losses will also be undertaken. Arising out of this study, which will outline the various alternatives to existing policy in relation to the railways and the implications of these alternatives in terms of Exchequer assistance for CIE, employment, reduction of services, et cetera, the Government will be better informed as to whether any change is necessary in existing policy and, if so, the various options open to them.

I should mention that the Bill must be enacted before the Christmas Recess, as otherwise CIE could run short of cash before the end of January.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Professor Dooge

The Bill the Minister has commended to us is a simple Bill but it is a reflection of a very complicated situation, complicated financially and complicated also in its physical aspects. We have a long history of legislation in regard to transport. If one looks back at the history of this legislation, the arrow is all the time pointing in the same direction: the hope that a settlement can be made which will involve a certain limited financial commitment on the part of the community, a reorganisation of the system and the holding of the line. It is proving as difficult to fix and hold a line in regard to transport policy as it is to maintain a shoreline in an area of active coast erosion. Some Members will recall that on the occasion of the 1964 settlement the Minister for Transport and Power brought to us a new Bill. The settlement was on the basis of the information available. The Government had made the decision that it should be possible for CIE to operate on a subsidy of £2 million per year and that CIE should be made operate on this subsidy, that the amount of subsidy should be fixed and it should then be the managerial responsibility of CIE to operate within that particular financial constraint. In making that decision the Government had the benefit of the Pacemaker Report, one of the most thorough studies done on the CIE system. I said at the time, and I repeat now: the Government did not read clearly the conclusions and implications of that report. They did not recognise clearly enough that the choice involved was a more clear cut choice and a choice which was larger in consequence.

I do not think this is the appropriate occasion to go through that debate again. What we are concerned with now is keeping CIE going while the new inquiry proceeds. When the Minister does come back to us with the new final settlement in regard to public transport I would ask that the information which will be obtained—and I hope made available to Members of this House—will be as broadly based as possible. There was reason to complain at the time of the 1964 settlement in regard to the availability of the Pacemaker Report to Members of the Oireachtas. One or two copies of this report were placed in the Oireachtas Library a short time before this important legislation was introduced. I would ask the Minister to arrange that, when the various reports or such parts of them as can be made public are ready, they should be made available to Members in good time. I think this is our due.

The Bill which we have here is entitled "An Act to make further provision in regard to transport." It is really only making provision for public transport, for the CIE system. We could make mistakes by looking at the CIE system in isolation rather than at the whole transportation problem which we have in all parts of the country. I am slightly worried. The Minister has told us that consultants have been asked to do a certain job in regard to this. Both in public enterprise and private enterprise it has happened a good deal more frequently than it should that the terms of reference of management consultants are written in such a way that the range of proposals which they make are necessarily restricted. Very often, because they are only asked to look at certain aspects of an operation and only, in fact, look at these, they do not get a complete picture. Transportation is a good example of the type of system in which grave blunders can be made by looking only at the work in this field of systems analysis, operations research, are warned against the dangers of sub-optimisation, that is of producing a solution that is clearly the optimum for that particular part of the system but is not an optimum for the system as a whole. It is, as it were, the peak of a local hill but it is not the highest point in the whole range. I would ask the Minister that he should ensure that, when consultants are brought in on this or when any other groups are asked to examine it, their terms of reference are as wide as possible. In particular, I would ask that their terms of reference should specify that, if they feel any need to go beyond their terms of reference, they should immediately seek extended terms of reference.

As is quite clear from the Bill before us today, the cost of making decisions in regard to transport is not merely rising but is rising with a tremendous acceleration. We have seen the steep rise to the public Exchequer over the years but it is not just rising along a sloping line—it is now curving upwards. The indications are that it will continue to do this. I am not suggesting it is possible to produce a public transport system that will not cost us money of these orders of magnitude. Subsidies at a high level are inevitable and as the cost of providing transport increases, so does the cost of mistakes. It would be well worth our while to have the most thorough examination possible. Money spent now on a complete examination of this problem, even if it means some delay in the decision, would, I suggest, be quite a small fraction of what is going to be involved.

While the experts are looking at this and that aspect of our transportation system, we, in public life—and, through us, the public—must prepare ourselves to realise what is involved here. I have said that the range of options and alternatives should be as wide as possible, but we want to start to prepare ourselves for the fact that on the basis of what was said in the last deep investigation in the Pacemaker Report, the range of options in regard to the railways is very narrow indeed. We have all got to reconcile ourselves to that. We do not have to make the decision on this Bill but we shall have to make the decision on the next Bill. Anything that I have heard or read since this matter was discussed—I think, in July, 1964, when I gave some views on it to the House—impels me more and more to believe that there can be no decision of running-down the railways in a piece-meal fashion. The decision that we are going to have to face is a decision of maintenance at any cost, at the astronomical costs that we may face ten or 20 years from now, and a complete shut-down.

The overheads of the railway system and the technological nature of this system are such that a policy based on getting-by, of doing the best we can, is apparently no longer an option. In the investigations no option should be neglected. It may be found that there is some way of doing this but, on the face of what is available to us at the moment, there is not. Therefore, let us be prepared. Let us, indeed, be gratified if some such solution can be found in some way, but there are no signs of such a solution. We must face this. We must clearly face the fact of what we are letting ourselves in for. We all know that there are social and economic arguments for the maintenance of a railway system but let us realise that this is not what we are concerned with. This is common ground between everyone on this particular problem. What we are concerned with now is that we are going into an era of transportation in which the costs are going to be orders of magnitude higher than those which the Exchequer has been asked to bear in the past.

I can speak on this with a clear conscience. During the 12 years that I lived in Cork, I used my car to travel to Dublin about once a year and no more. Now that I am again living in Dublin, I travel by public transport to my work every day and, it so happens, by train. In each case, the service which I enjoyed from Cork to Dublin, the service which I enjoy now from Seapoint to Westland Row, is a most excellent service and, to my mind, by far the best way of accomplishing these journeys. This does not blind me to the fact that we may well find the cost of the maintenance of these services too much to bear in the future.

On this occasion, I do not wish to go into the details but merely to make, firstly, the point that this investigation must be complete—that it must be not only an investigation into CIE but it must also take into account the relationship of CIE's operation to the whole transportation problem, the whole problem that we have, that people wish to move from place to place and that there are many alternative ways of this movement being facilitated.

It may well be that special investigations will be necessary in regard to the problem of the Dublin conurbation. Here, many more people are concerned besides CIE. It is disquieting to find that there is a decrease in the numbers using the Dublin passenger service. In his speech, the Minister tended to give a false picture here. It is disturbing that there are falls in the numbers of passengers carried which are expressed in millions but, when one talks in terms of these falls in millions, they are still a matter of an annual fall in the order of about 3 per cent. The fall in the public passenger service is not quite so catastrophic as suggested by merely stating the bald figure of so many million passengers lost between one year and the next. Of course, it is a serious factor but it is not catastrophic.

This problem of the Dublin conurbation is one, as the Minister has said in his speech, which involves many people. Any attempt to look at it must involve all these people and not just involve them by looking for their views but involves them all in a concerted effort to reach some sort of solution. I should like to make a brief comment on the suggestion that has been made by the Minister for Local Government of a trial period in which the centre of Dublin would be closed to private cars. If this is to be done, and if we are to get advantage for it, I would suggest that this should be used not just to see what public reaction is to such a proposal—not just so that we can have photographs in the newspapers showing the different appearance of this street or that. But if the decision is made to carry out this particular operation, then I suggest that this should be used as a controlled experiment in the study of the Dublin city traffic problem. If we are going to go to the trouble of keeping private cars out of certain parts of the centre of the city, it is of tremendous importance that we should find out what affect this has on the suburban areas. This proposal, I take it, has been agreed among the five or six authorities who are responsible for traffic in the Dublin area. They, with the possible aid of consultants already engaged upon our problem, should use this particular operation as a controlled experiment. Data could be obtained on this occasion which would be invaluable for the report of consultants reporting on the area of the Dublin conurbation. If this operation is carried out, there will be an opportunity to do something which otherwise would be simulated on a computer model because, undoubtedly, the question of the exclusion of private traffic from the centre of Dublin must be one of the possible strategies that would be considered by consultants when considering the problem of the traffic within the Dublin area. This is a possible solution and they would be concerned with its consequences. Take, for example, factors such as the numbers of people who attempt to defy it. This operation should be made an occasion of a very particular traffic census.

It may well be that what would be of much more interest for our traffic planning for the future might not be what the appearance of the centre of the city was like but the appearance of some of the ring areas. It might well be that the important thing in this is not how many letters are written to the papers afterwards, either in favour of or against it, but some sort of traffic census, a sampling survey, which would enable us to find out by how much were people's travel habits changed during this particular period. If disruption in the normal habits of the people of the city of Dublin is to take place then let us get value for it. We can get real value for it.

I do not want to go into the details of transport policy apart from the appeal that this should be a thorough operation and that the results should be made available to public representatives and indeed to the public in good time. Also, I do not wish, this morning, to discuss any details of the operation of CIE. There is a temptation to talk about this problem and that problem. This can be very useful. It can fulfil the function for this House which is served in another place by the Estimates debate.

I should, however, like to say one word which is not a point of detail but one which affects the whole of the CIE system. When we last discussed this matter in detail in 1964, I expressed myself as being very happy not only with the standard of management in CIE but with the management structure which had been developed there. I expressed the view that the deconcentration of decision-making in middle-management in CIE was mitigating the losses which might otherwise be made. There is some suggestion that, in recent years, this deconcentration of decision-making has been, to some extent, reversed. The indications are, and this is perhaps something which the Minister should investigate, that the managers in the areas throughout the country are not as free to make decisions as they were in 1964; that too much is being referred to headquarters for decision. If these indications are correct, if this has occurred, it is very undesirable. It was one of the strengths of CIE's management that real decision-making power was given out into the districts and into the areas. If there has been any drawing-back in that regard, it is undesirable and, if it should go any further, it may well be disastrous.

It is a shock to us to get a bill of this magnitude. The Minister came to us a year ago and said that the £2 million settlement of 1964 could no longer hold and, looking forward for five years, suggested £2.65 million as being the proper subsidy rate. While perhaps a little shaken by the rise from £2 million to £2.65 million, one could accept it as being due to inflationary costs. Even though it was a rise of over 30 per cent, it could be accepted as an adjustment of the 1964 settlement. But now, with another £2.98 million added on to the £2.65 million, we are moving into different territory. My fear is that we cannot say, even now, were we to agree here on a figure of £6 million, that this particular line can be held.

The Minister is wise and is to be commended that he comes to us and asks us to approve the amount of money that will keep CIE going for a year so that we can have the fullest possible investigation. Because CIE are doing what we charged them to do, we cannot do anything else but agree to the Bill which the Minister has put before us. It may well be that, following the range of strategies being made available to the Government, it will appear that this can be financed in different ways. It may well be that the fares should be made to bear the particular problem. It may well be that it will be decided to run the Dublin bus service without fares at all as has been done in a number of urban centres. It may be decided that the service of public transport, whether it be the railways or the Dublin public transport system, be changed from the present position to much higher fares, closer to the economic costs, or, otherwise, we should recognise that the social benefits of a public transport system are so worthwhile that we go to the very limit of subsidy where nothing at all is charged for the service. We have to make up our minds on these points. We shall have to make up our minds, above all, on the crucial point of our railways. The choice here is to maintain what we have, with an open-ended financial commitment, or else take a decision to close completely. In that connection, I should like to repeat what I said in 1964. I said then that I thought it unwise that there should be any heavy capital expenditure on the railways. The Minister's predecessor at that time indicated that he saw no great reason for restraining capital expenditure on the railways and that he was satisfied that the railways would always be with us. I do not know if the present Minister is quite so convinced on that point now.

I would make the suggestion again that there should not be a heavy commitment in regard to capital expenditure. It is no doubt technically good and no doubt it would improve the service if we had an all-welded track between Dublin and Cork. The provision of this might take five or six years and we are in the position, if we want to do that particular job, of making a decision now on which capital moneys would be spent over the next five or six years. It might well be, by the time the capital was finished, that we had eventually reached the stage, in regard to subsidy of these services, where the cry was for "halt". It is not usual for members on these benches and it is not usual for me to ask Ministers to suspend action or to suspend judgment but I think this is a case in which the plea can be made— certainly during the next 12 months.

With these reservations, let me plead for the fullest possible investigation— not just from CIE—of the complete problem of transport in Ireland. This may require the investigation of much of the present type of private transport, whether for passengers or goods. It is important that the investigation in this regard should be completely unfettered. A solution that would be half-way palatable on this may be something which none of us could think of at the moment, something completely outlandish, something so different from what we are accustomed to that, for the moment, it boggles our own imaginations. If such a solution could emerge, it can be done only if those who are asked to investigate this are given complete freedom, are given as wide a scope as possible, and if everybody concerned with transport plays a full part in the investigation.

Mr. Keery

I should like to make a brief contribution inside the theoretical framework which has been laid down by Senator Dooge. I agree with most of what he had to say and I think his general approach to the problems of transport in Ireland is very much to the point. The few thoughts I wish to put on the record arise from an advantage I had recently. I made a number of train journeys and had an opportunity to enjoy the comfort, to sit back and think, and also, perhaps, to see if, in the course of these journeys, some practical points might come to mind which would help to ease the burden of cost on the railways. I should like to mention these briefly. I feel sure they are points that readily come to the minds of many of the experts but sometimes one does have the odd brainwave that passes the expert by.

First of all, briefly, I should like to make the point that particularly here in Dublin—and I am sure the same applies in Cork and Limerick—CIE at its railheads must own tremendously valuable sites for development. I wondered if there was any way, technically, in which the office blocks which have become so much a pattern of our development could be built over the railway tracks or on some other part of the railhead site. This might be a way, should it be feasible, of drawing in capital or certainly of getting some return from these sites if they could be developed in this way. That is just one point about the possible land use of the railheads in urban areas.

Another point that came to mind, particularly as I travelled from Dublin to Sligo, is that I noticed that, successively, at the stations there was a small staff who were there all the time, and obviously had to be there all the time, but who would not be fully occupied or fully stretched during the day through no fault of theirs. That is a pattern of the rail service. There are periods of activity and then things become quiet again. Apart from the men available at these stations you also have, in some cases, excellent premises but premises, again through the pattern of change in the railways, which in some cases are beginning to decay. Why not consider the railway line, in a sense, as a conveyor belt in an industrial process? There might be something in the suggestion that some kind of small industry, perhaps a craft industry, based in a small way on a number of stations, might yield some return or would certainly involve the men there during the day and possibly in a way in which they might get some return from their efforts in contributing to the craft industry.

Take an industry which produces simple things like wooden toys. A very basic industry might well be the making of small wooden engines in the station at, for example, Longford; small wooden guards' vans in the station at Mullingar; small flat trucks in the station at Collooney. If we envisage the railway line as a conveyor belt, we should have a service whereby the little pieces of craft manufacture could be picked up at successive stations and eventually assembled and packaged at Sligo. This may seem to be a frivolous or outlandish suggestion but it is the sort of thing that, with a little bit of co-operative spirit or individual initiative by interested people in those areas or possibly by a bit of organisation among the rail staffs themselves—even if the return was small—would be good for morale and be a working proposition involving the use of the system which is so readily at hand to them, with the available labour, premises and so on. I daresay that, even in the surplus stores which may lie in Inchicore and elsewhere, it may be found that there is potential material for quite a few small industries of one kind or another. That is just a suggestion that comes to mind.

One point that I have mentioned before in the House is that I recognise that you have to have staff available in a rail system to deal with possible emergencies. There is always the danger that somebody will be hit by an open door or that something may stray across the track. The more effective use of telephones available in railway stations should be made, particularly for the control of trains. This could ease the staff situation. I would agree with the point made by the previous speaker that this is perhaps a bad time to consider major expenditure on rolling stock and so on.

I was thinking about the design of rolling stock the other day when I was on the same commuter route as Senator Dooge. The most dangerous part of the train is the door as it opens as it may possibly kill people who are standing in a bad position on the platform. They are the one aspect of the train which involves the use of labour in the station because all those doors have to be closed before the train goes out. Why have we not got the same type of door, for example, as one becomes familiar with on the London Underground? There is no fear of anyone being killed by that type of doorway as it is controlled electrically and so can be opened and closed by the one man on the train. The reason we have not seen this type of machinery in operation here may be because we use, on our commuter routes, main line rolling-stock. As I was indulging in the luxury of thinking about these small aspects of rail travel, it struck me that I should mention them here.

I have become a city bus user in recent times much more than previously for the same reason as I am an enthusiastic rail commuter: we are reaching the stage where, in a street such as O'Connell Street, it is better to take a bus from one end of the street to the other, regardless of the cost, than to be buffeted and bashed and delayed on the pavement, walking from one end to the other. It might encourage cross-city use of the buses if, regardless of the route number and destination of the bus, a label stating "Cross City" or "North to South" or "East to West" were shown on the bus so that even if a person not familiar with the numbers and the routes noticed a bus going in the direction he wanted to go, he could hop on it and get there.

Dr. West

I should like to say what a pity it is that the large contract for rolling stock should have been awarded to a firm outside this country. This means that the Inchicore Engineering Works are being used only for repair operations and not for major construction. Surely it would have been better to keep the money involved in this contract inside the country?

I should like to compliment the company, through the Minister, on their services. The rolling stock is in good condition. The timings are extremely good. The company have introduced extended colour light distant signalling which has helped timings considerably. It is right for us to compliment CIE on their services and initiative and on the fact that they have spent money on these services and also that they have extended the length of rail for mineral lines especially in Bennettsbridge. I do not think we should look at these rail services with a closed mind. If the rail services are to be kept in operation— and this is highly desirable—then we shall need considerable capital expenditure to maintain and improve them.

I want to mention the suburban services referred to by Senator Keery. Things are not quite so good here. The rolling stock is practically all obsolete and will have to be replaced very shortly. I would make two suggestions to the Minister which I am sure have been considered by the transport experts. The first suggestion is that when the new rolling stock is purchased, there should be more standing room in carriages. Take, for instance, the services going south to north, say, the journey from Bray to Dundalk. The passenger density is very high for perhaps nine or ten minutes of the journey: there are nine minutes on each side of the centre of the city and, for this time, the passengers could easily stand. For people travelling a longer journey seating accommodation is needed. Here, again, we might look at the London Transport Authority's solution to this problem which is to have seats along the sides and a lot of room in the carriages for people to stand for just short journeys: for people on the longer journeys there is enough seating accommodation.

My second suggestion is that a new loopline be considered linking the northern line somewhere around Howth Junction and serving Dublin Airport, Ballymun, Finglas and Cabra and joining the midland line around Liffey Junction. This would use two existing lines. It would form a loop and provide services for some of the very densely populated areas, which are growing greatly, without enormous expenditure because one would use a large part of the existing system. I think this is being considered and I commend it to the Minister.

The rail services are essential. The company are to be commended on their courtesy and initiative in the development and maintenance of services.

Finally, I want to make two small points. These involve further expenditure for CIE with virtually no return, but there are several other services of this nature which are essential to the community. The first is the Aran Islands steamer service. There is an air strip under preparation in Inishmore. Incomes on the islands are not high. We must maintain the services and try to keep the fares at their present level because there is a very vibrant community on these islands. There are our people and we owe them this service.

The second small point is the canal navigation scheme which is the responsibility of CIE. I would particularly underline the condition of the Barrow navigation scheme which is not being used at present because it has not been properly dredged. I would ask the Minister to see if he can do something about this. The whole canal scheme will not give a financial return, but, socially, it plays a most important role and will develop considerably if the canals are properly maintained.

Ruairí Brugha

I propose to be very brief. Fortunately, many of the Senators have covered points that I had in mind. We have, of course, to support this Bill. That does not mean that many of us are not startled by the situation the Minister disclosed in his opening address. There are three problems that I see. One is the peak hour traffic in Dublin and the fact that CIE buses are not adequate for peak hour traffic whereas there are far too many buses for the valley hours. I recommend a completely fresh approach not alone in the transport area but in the whole area of work hours in Dublin. It ought to be possible to get the trade unions, who have a very direct concern in employment in CIE in this area, and the employers to look at the question of staggering work hours. We have a situation in which so many thousands of people are trying to get in at the same time and to get out at the same time. Apart from the problem of motor traffic, our bus system is just not able to cope with it and our streets cannot cope with it. Another factor causing tremendous congestion is the carriage of industrial goods to and from the port. It might be possible to confine this type of carriage to certain hours outside of peak hours. Perhaps this is not a reasonable suggestion but it is part of the congestion.

In relation to many service industries in the city, it might be possible to arrange with employers and employees to have different hours of starting and finishing. For instance, in the case of the ordinary shops, insurance companies, and so on, they perhaps could start at 10 a.m. instead of 9 a.m. and end perhaps an hour later in the evening thereby spreading the workload, the peak traffic period, enabling CIE to carry more passengers and enabling traffic to flow more freely. These are the problems I see and I am coming in and out of Dublin all the time. With regard to what is happening as a result of the essential carriage of industrial goods to and from the port, it might be possible to direct this traffic towards the north and south rather than up and down the quays, blocking the main arteries particularly during peak traffic hours. It should be possible to get the huge industrial containers to take the north route around the city and to take the southern route on the other side. They are the only points I wish to make as we are running out of time.

Mr. W. O'Brien

This is a hefty subvention but the figure is not as important as that for which it is intended. One often hears criticism of CIE but, as somebody who worked for CIE for a long time, I think they have been unfairly criticised for many years. I have heard the private individual say that he could run a transport service at a profit. There is no doubt that that is quite possible if he selected the economic routes and the economic traffic. CIE are a national transport company and they have to take the good and the bad. They make an important social contribution to the country. They deal with school transport, they deal with the industrial worker and they give a very fine service. We must take into consideration a staff of 20,000 people. Can we afford to refuse a subvention to keep these people in permanent employment?

It has been suggested by people in both Houses that we might do something about the rail section. I disagree entirely with the idea of singling out any particular section of CIE because all sections must run as a unit.

We had the experience down in West Clare of the closing of a branch line. Some of the managers in CIE believed that the bus section would gain very much when the railway was closed down and to make sure that the protests from the many people throughout Munster, particularly in Clare and Limerick, would not take effect the branch lines were torn up immediately. To me that was the greatest mistake CIE could have made because the day will come—it may be three, five or ten years hence—when there will be a demand for the replacement of branch lines.

That view is contrary to what we have been hearing in both Houses over the past couple of days but that is my opinion, as somebody who has worked with CIE, because the roads in this country are not built to take the type of traffic now on them. One sees in Dublin city the congestion that has deprived CIE of very substantial receipts in the past 12 months. The same will apply in rural Ireland if we interfere with the rail section.

I am somewhat disappointed that a contract for something like £2½ million was placed outside this country. The contract could have been left at home; Inchicore and Limerick could have done the very same job. The Minister made some reference to an inquiry into the position and I hope this will be held.

I have noticed that we are to have consultants. I sincerely hope they will take into consideration the social contribution made by the rail services because if they do not they will have another job as consultants. They will have to be employed by the local authorities to do something about the rates for the road services.

Dr. Belton

The first point I intended to make has already been mentioned by Senator West and by Senator O'Brien. The Minister should at least reply and give some cogent reason for the fact that this rolling stock was got from a place outside this country and not from Inchicore or from other places that normally deal with rolling stock. I shall not enlarge on that.

Senator Keery raised the point of building office blocks over railway sites. In theory I agree with this point but the railway sites where office blocks would be an attractive proposition financially would be around the Dublin area, nearer to the centre than to the outskirts of the city. This would lead to further traffic congestion which might in the end worsen the situation. If offices were built over Connolly Station, Amiens Street, for example, traffic congestion would be increased. This is all right in theory but in practice it might not work out.

The Minister said:

The board's annual grant will therefore be inadequate to the extent of £2.98 million in the current financial year and £2.14 million next year.

do not understand this statement. There is no explanation of how the figure of £2.14 million has been arrived at. If it is £2.98 million this year, what are the circumstances that will change it or reduce it to £2.14 million next year? The Minister did advert to various factors that reduced revenue from the various CIE enterprises, like the state of affairs in the north of Ireland and the resultant lack of tourism and other aspects of that nature but, to my mind, they will extend and overflow into next year too. I do not know if that is the reason for this reduction. My own view is that the Minister would have been better advised not to forecast that next year's extra subvention to CIE would be £2.14 million. He is being optimistic in thinking he can hold it to that figure. I should like him to explain in his reply how that figure was arrived at and the reasons why it is so much lower than the figure of £2.98 million for this year.

Mr. B. Lenihan

The rates of fares have gone up.

Dr. Belton

Will they go up again?

Mr. B. Lenihan

It is for a full year.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to avail of this opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions which appear to be bothering the public. The first thing I should like to know is what are CIE's terms of reference? Are they to supply a service of a social character or are they there as an ordinary commercial company to make a profit as a viable outfit? Some people possibly hold the view that they do neither. Public transport in Dublin, since the fares have been increased, is very costly especially for people who go home to lunch. Since we must have a national transport service and since the Exchequer is subsidising CIE to the extent that it is, we should encourage more people to avail of public transport and, therefore, ease congestion in the city. CIE had an advertisement on Telefís Éireann last winter showing a number of cars fitting into one bus. It was a very good advertisement. Nevertheless, up to the point of the recent increase in motor tax it was much cheaper to run one's own car than to travel by CIE.

It is true that small things tend to work against CIE and a lot of publicity is given to the occasional fracas on the late buses where bus conductors are beaten up or injured. These isolated cases should be dealt with more severely by the courts and thereby discouraged. Similarly, very often a small number of people on mystery tours were allowed to get away with antics which discouraged many decent ordinary people from availing of these very worthwhile trips.

From the tourist point of view, it does not look well to see a huge 40-or 50-seater coach with about a dozen obvious tourists scattered about in it. CIE, when they are getting new rolling stock, should have more smaller coaches, perhaps 20-seaters. This would look much better and these smaller coaches would take up less space on Irish roads.

I also feel that CIE have a definite obligation to compete for the container traffic. Driving on the main Dublin-Cork road now is quite a problem with the ever-growing length of the lorries and trailers with container traffic. While the drivers of these private vehicles are most courteous, nevertheless I do not think our roads are suitable for these vehicles. CIE should be able to compete more efficiently and to put this type of traffic on the rail system. In the last 18 months there have appeared on our roads long vehicles carrying six or eight cars. Surely this is a service from Dublin to Cork for which CIE should have been able to compete? What is wrong with the management of CIE that they cannot attach a couple of extra coaches or carriages to trains? I cannot say what is the economics of hauling one extra truck or piece of rolling stock on the railways or whether they need a complete extra engine or not, but surely CIE could do more to relieve the road system?

It is difficult to know how we survive at all in this country because everything one looks at is being subsidised. The taxpayers must pay a subsidy to CIE. They also pay through the nose for the maintenance of our road service. Yet neither of these services pull well together.

I do not know if the Minister is greatly interested in the inland waterways. I am sure he is. I read in CIE's annual report that they propose to get rid of the canals or perhaps I heard the Minister say this on the radio. I should like to impress on the Minister that if it is proposed to dispose of our canals his Department should not look for a profit on them and they should be handed over in good condition to, I suggest, the regional tourist organisations. I suggest that if there had been any scrap value in the canals CIE would have had them flogged long ago. They are becoming more popular and in the national interest should be utilised.

I should like to refer briefly to the school bus service. We need larger buses and if CIE put more of their own buses on this service it would be of more benefit to the children. I cannot understand why CIE will not take fare-paying children on these services. I accept that there must be some kind of scheme but when a small boy or girl living less than three miles from the school reaches the age of ten he or she must walk. Most of the parents of these children would be only too glad to pay the ordinary bus fare for them. With CIE losing money, surely they should not refuse to take a passenger of any age who is willing to pay? I know sufficient room must be kept for those entitled to this service but the red tape in CIE has bound the organisation a bit too much. Also on the question of the school bus service, I think some contractors to CIE are not giving a good service. They are being paid to do a job and they tend to cram children into very small mini-buses, perhaps 20 or more children for a 12 or 14 seater. I know of cases where contractors do not take the children as far as the schools. These are genuine grievances and the administration of this service should be more closely watched.

I should like to ask the Minister if the old spirit of the railway company still exists. I remember some time ago railway workers set their watches when the train passed because they had so much confidence in the company. I wonder if this spirit is still there?

The Minister is bringing in consultants. Many of these people seem to be experts in every sphere. This is difficult to understand. This country has been overrun by consultants and, while it is nice to have a second opinion, I do not think we should be bound by their findings. The rail service should be maintained and the operation of this service should be more flexible. Professor Dooge said earlier that he always availed of the rail service. I would prefer to travel by train myself but I would have to wait over in Dublin for a day if I wanted to travel home to Portlaoise by train. Even for shoppers the earliest train from the midlands is the Cork or the Limerick train which does not arrive in Dublin until after 11.30 a.m. CIE should find it a viable proposition to have a train to serve workers coming from the midlands to Dublin each day.

The semi-State bodies will not undertake something unless they think it will turn out to be a goldmine. Many private bus companies have grown up over the past decade. One runs from Urlingford to Portlaoise twice daily. There is also one from Castlecomer to Carlow. CIE would not put on a cross-county service like that. I urge on the Department to preserve CIE as a social amenity and by all means run it as economically as possible.

If, following the new report about which the Minister spoke on the radio last week, it is decided to abandon any further rail lines, I would join with Senator O'Brien in asking that the tracks be left for a few years. Decisions have been hastily taken in the past and it will not cost the company anything to leave these lines dormant for a time. Because CIE should give the country a service and because the public need that service I support the Bill and what it asks.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. B. Lenihan)

I shall deal with Senator McDonald's points first. He spoke about the terms of reference of CIE. Really what we have here is a situation where we are seeking to balance the two interests of the social service given by having a State transport system with also the desire, in the taxpayers' interest, that the system be run as efficiently and in as commercial a way as possible. That, in fact, is what the statutes, the Transport Acts, 1958 and 1964 enjoin CIE to do. The 1958 Act sets out CIE's duty, under section 7, to provide transport services for the country. In the 1964 Act CIE are given the duty to break even, taking one year with another, within the limits of the annual subvention given to them by the Exchequer. It is a job in which the balance has to be preserved between commercial, economic management and the provision of the transport services they are enjoined to provide by law.

Senator McDonald also spoke about the canals system which is a relic of the past to the commercial viewer but is now developing into a new tourist attraction from the waterways point of view. In that connection I said in my reply in the Dáil that at present we are discussing with the Office of Public Works the best way in which to hand over the canals system, now held by CIE, to that Office to be operated in conjunction with the Shannon Navigation System, for which the Office of Public Works is responsible. It has the responsibility of maintaining navigation, providing buoys, providing quay facilities, providing a whole range of amenities and navigation precautions and aids necessary to keep the Shannon itself in a navigable condition, and if we transfer the canal system to that Office, we can have a unified inland waterways system. At the moment we are devising the necessary legislation for this purpose. CIE are a commercial carrier organisation; the canals have developed into a tourist amenity and it is not appropriate that this amenity should be under the umbrella of a commercial organisation; it is more appropriate to have it as part of the overall inland waterways navigation system. I hope to have the necessary legislation introduced inside the next six months.

A number of other points were made by Senators in the course of the debate. Senator Dooge, in particular, put his finger on the problem in regard to the assessment of CIE's future role. We must come down to a straightforward decision and consultants, McKinseys, have been engaged to aid the joint committee, comprising representatives of my own Department, the Department of Finance and CIE, which has been set up to investigate the determination in CIE's financial position. McKinseys have done excellent work for us and for other countries throughout the world. What we want is to have pointed out exactly what options are open to us, as a State, in regard to our future transport policy. One does not hire consultants as the be-all and end-all of everything, who will give all the answers automatically. One only hires consultants when one has a fair idea oneself of the problem and this is very important. It is good to have a second opinion on a matter in order to highlight the problem.

The problem here is that we have a rail system which is losing substantial amounts of money in the strict commercial terms of losing money. As a community, do we or do we not continue to have that rail system in the overall social interest? In my view, we should and we must. I should like the matter to be fully thrashed out in public, highlighted by independent consultants, so that we can have a total social cost benefit analysis, rather than a narrow accountancy cost benefit analysis. This is very necessary because in the sort of world in which we are moving, with growing congestion on the roads, with the massive type of investment that would be required to have our roads brought up to a standard where they could replace the railways and in view of time and energy lost arising out of delays on our roads system. In the overall national interest, provided it is properly costed and that we know where we are going, there is a very strong argument for continuing to have an alternative method of transportation other than the road system.

CIE have come in for a lot of unfair criticism. That is why I am very keen and glad to have this independent outside advice on the whole scheme of operation organised by CIE. The facts are pretty straightforward. The last CIE report showed that every sector of CIE, other than the railways, the canals and the vessels, is making money. This should be emphasised, both from the point of view of the morale of CIE and from the point of view of correcting a lot of wrong impressions held by the public.

During the year 1969-70—the last accountancy year of CIE's operation— the Dublin city bus passenger services had a net surplus of £61,000; the provincial road passenger services had a net surplus of £633,000; the private bus tours and the private hire section of CIE had a net surplus of £132,000; the road freight section had a net surplus of £84,000; the hotels and catering section had a net surplus of £193,000; the railways had a net loss of £4,212,000; and the canals, which will be hived off shortly, had a net deficit of £95,000. That is the picture. The consultants cannot do an awful lot with that but, as Senator McDonald said, they can give a second opinion and can highlight for us exactly what options are open to us. I hope to have the fullest ventilation of this whole matter. When the reports come forward they will be made available to the public. I should like to have a full public debate on the matter and a complete decision reached by the Government and by the Oireachtas on where we are going in the future with full public knowledge of where we are going.

That is why in the Bill before the House the sum to be sought is for this financial year alone and, as far as the future is concerned, the next financial year and the years ahead will depend on the outcome of this report, and on the public discussion which will follow, and on the decisions made by the Government and the Oireachtas. As a community, we shall have to face up to the task of properly costing the rail system. Say it is costing us £x in commercial, financial terms is it worth it, from the social cost benefit point of view, to have a railway system for the reasons that I mentioned earlier on? I am not anticipating what the result of the discussion will be, but my own personal view is towards preserving the basic railway system. However, I feel that the community also should fully understand where it is going and what is the cost involved.

In regard to carriages, Senator West and Senator O'Brien were concerned about the placing of the contract with a firm in Britain. I want to emphasise here that at the moment negotiations are proceeding between the trade unions and the CIE management to see how the existing shortage of skilled staff at Inchicore can be overcome, with a view to having as much of the work as possible done in Inchicore, on a sub-contract basis with the firm who tendered successfully in Britain. The Inchicore works are not geared for the particular type of work involved in these carriages. It may be possible to have some of the work done there and both management and trade unions are discussing this possibility.

Senator Belton raised the question of the reduced CIE loss that is expected next year. I should like to explain that the increased fares and rates that have come into operation recently will entail, for the next full financial year, that there will be a reduction in CIE's losses compared with 1970-71, by reason of the additional revenue in that year from those increases.

Senator Brugha raised the point of different starting and finishing times for work. There is a lot to be said for spreading the work load on the transportation system here in the city of Dublin. However, it is easier said than done. I have knowledge of this both in the Department of Education and in my present Department. My predecessor, in the Department of Education, sought to get, for instance, school holidays changed—this would be ideal from the point of view of balancing out the tourist season—and failed completely. There was a very strong reaction from the teacher organisations in that respect and I would anticipate a similar problem with regard to the starting and finishing times for work. It is a matter that is worth considering and I have already put the idea out myself. The problems arise roughly on the lines that I have mentioned.

The Bill itself is an ad hoc measure to deal with the particular problem existing in the current year. I hope to come before the House inside the next six months with very comprehensive provisions, arising out of the reports that will be made available to me, to deal with future transport policy. As I have already mentioned, experts have been engaged with a view to getting a second opinion on the matter. It is quite clear from the contributions made both in the Dáil and in the Seanad that the public representatives, the Government, myself and CIE have a very fair idea of the problem. We realise the magnitude of the problem. I would like a cool look to be taken at the problem, so that our options are made quite clear and that the community as a whole is fully aware of where we are going in the future, and that we can decide on a line of progress that may cost us £x a year as a community but that we will do it with our eyes open and in a rational manner.

CIE, in human terms, is an employer of 20,000 people, and 10,000 of those are on the railways. It is a very important organisation, a very important element in our community and economic life. One should look at the whole problem and realise that it is not just an Irish problem but a world problem. Even in the Ruhr, where there is the highest density of population in the world, railways are now losing money. It is not specifically an Irish problem, but a microcosm of a problem that is facing every country in the world at the present time. We must decide what is best in the community interest, taking into account above all else the very important social considerations and any analysis of the problem and any attempted solution to the problem must take into account the social benefits that are just as important, from the community point of view, as the economic or accountancy considerations.

Mr. McDonald

I should like to ask the Minister one question. Can he tell us if CIE intend to continue the pleasure cruises on the Shannon?

Mr. B. Lenihan

Yes. They are an economic proposition. The whole tourist side of CIE, including the cruises on the Shannon, the bus tour operation, hotel operation, is commercially viable. I want to emphasise again that this money is solely for the railways in case anybody is under a misapprehension. Apart from the canals and vessels, every other aspect of CIE's activities is commercially viable. This money is solely for the railways.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill put through Committee, reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Friday, 18 Dec 1970