Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Feb 1974

Vol. 77 No. 1

Private Business. - Transport Bill, 1974: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Dr. West

I just have a few more remarks to make and they concern mainly our urban transport. As someone who has spent a great deal of time in the US—too much perhaps— I realise the problems which the dominance of the car has brought to that society. The lack of provision for any proper urban transport has now run the US into tremendous problems. Here is a situation where the economists have been proved wrong. The economists subscribed some years ago to the abolition, the obliteration or the allowing to fall into disuse of the urban transport systems in the US. Now they are making dreadful and desperate efforts to resuscitate them and they are not having a great deal of success. At this stage in the development of American cities the expenditure required to buy any land for development of urban motorways or urban trackways is colossal and is causing great problems.

I should like to quote from the OECD Observer of October, 1972, an article entitled The Future of European Intercity Transport. It was an article which came from deliberations of the nine OECD members, including this country, and it is a discussion of some of the problems that occur when one tries to build urban motorways. I quote:

Moreover, the building of highways, particularly in heavily populated regions, meets with increasing opposition from the public on the grounds of pollution, noise, displacement of people and disruption of neighbourhoods. The current controversies in London, Zurich and Paris and the cancellation of highway projects in Toronto and in a number of United States cities testify to the growing public concern about urban highway construction and to the strength of citizens' protest.

We can be absolutely sure that any big urban motorway plan in this country would bring a similar outcry. In fact, it is now going on in Belfast where there is a great deal of pressure being put on the new Executive and particularly on Mr. Bradford, the Minister for the Environment, to stop Phase 2—I think that is the phase it has got to— and further stages of the big urban motorway development.

I should like to ask the Minister to say at what stage are our plans, particularly in the cities of Dublin and Cork, for developments of urban transport. I have here the very interesting Heanue Report on Transportation in the Dublin area. It is full of ideas. I do not intend to go through them in detail but one in particular interests me and that is the development of an underground system which, on page 28 of the Heanue Report, would start at Lansdowne Road, go through Merrion Square, Grafton Street with a central terminal somewhere in Westmoreland Street with branches to Broadstone Station. They envisage a bus lane or trains running from Broadstone again and then another branch through Parnell Square, the North Circular Road and Fairview. That is one of the many interesting ideas which are set out in great detail in the Heanue Report and he makes it fairly clear that it is not possible in the Dublin area to do great suburban motorway development, certainly in the centre of the city. There are some ring roads proposed but certainly in the centre of the city the ideal form of transport is the underground and we have been very slow in thinking of development of an underground transport system in this city. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about our plans for a Dublin underground.

There are a few other minor points. Out city bus services have an upper limit to their efficiency which is caused by the traffic density in the city. That is the main precluding factor. If one could cut down the traffic density by some means or other, specifically by the Richardson plan which I mentioned earlier, then one would help to solve this. Sooner or later we will have to tackle the problem, also mentioned in the Heanue Report, of cutting down traffic coming into city centres.

Heanue also envisages the designation of more streets as pedestrian ways. It is a great pity that the Grafton Street experiment was ceased, and there was one in Henry Street as well. Heanue makes it clear that if life is going to be worth living in city centres then there must be more streets for pedestrians only. Inevitably there will have to be a curtailment of traffic coming into city centres. That is one of the things we have to face.

Another problem CIE might face is the problem of pollution from the diesel exhaust fumes of the buses. I should like to see CIE in a civic-spirited way taking the lead and fitting these—I am not sure of the technical term—back burners or bafflers or whatever you put on exhausts. They are standard in many American States. They ensure that the emission from the exhaust is circulated again, and therefore comes out much less dangerous to the ordinary person. Anybody who comes into Dublin now, particularly from Holyhead on the mail boat to Dún Laoghaire on a clear morning, will see this pall of black gaseous material hanging over the city, and it is mainly fumes from cars, buses and of course household smoke. Anything that could be done to cut down the fumes from our buses would be a very important gesture by CIE. We should see that the national transport company is the first to make that gesture before legislation is brought in making these back burners compulsory.

Finally, I should like to ask the Minister about a service in which I have a special interest, having travelled on it very often, that is, the CIE service to the Aran Islands. The Naomh Eanna must be getting close to its replacement date. I know there is an air service to the islands now but it is essential that the shipping service to Aran Islands be maintained and it is CIE's responsibility to bear the loss. In other words, the taxpayer pays for it. It is an essential subsidy to make life on the islands more attractive, and perhaps the Minister would say something about that.

As I conclude, I would urge, somewhat in the same way as I started, that the accounts for this very large sum of money which we are voting to CIE, when the money is spent, be made available to the public representatives and to the media and that some sort of planned programmed budgeting system be used so that it is pretty clear whether the money is being well spent or whether it is being wasted. With such large sums of money it is very important that the public who are paying the piper should at least know the tune.

I am glad to see that over the last few years CIE's public relations have improved a great deal. It is very important from the point of view of public relations that the money is accounted for in a way in which the public can understand how its subsidy is being spent and where it goes.

Mr. Harte

I do not intend to speak for long because the Minister has been delayed here quite a long time, and I believe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare is outside and has important business to do. Anyway, if I spoke for as long as I had originally proposed, it would to a great extent be a duplication of a number of things that have been said.

What worries me is that there should be any concern at all about spending of money, particularly when we see from the Minister's statement the way the money will be dealt with, what the projections for the future of CIE are and what it is liable to throw up to the benefit of society as a whole.

I see society having an obligation to supply a railway system, even if it means a heavy increase in taxation. It is a social system and it is based on collective social endeavour. Consequently if you have that type of system and you need that type of system, it has to be paid for and there should not be any bellyaching about the amount. Admittedly, when you are living in a private enterprise society the question of social systems and a social ideal cannot run on its own; it must also run to some extent with desirable economic aims; on the other hand, if you go too far with the economic objectives there is always the possibility that if by any miracle the undertaking performs well we may have a gallant bid for it to be handed over to private enterprise. I do not think that is a danger but nevertheless it is a point worth making to support the fact that any social system based on collective social endeavour must be tolerated to a great extent in the sense of paying for the cost of it.

I am in sympathy with the views that were expressed about the areas that were cut off from a railway service. I am not going to go over the decisions made by the manager of CIE many years ago about the branch lines and the inadequacies of the substitution. However, if we speak about it on the basis of its being a social system and a collective endeavour, there is an obligation to have a look at those areas again and see if after an examination it is a practicable and realisable thing and not too costly to provide the service again. Despite the fact that decisions have been taken in regard to branch lines there is no reason why those same areas cannot be looked at again. This could meet the problem of the Senator from Donegal and the Senator from Cavan who find that the bus services that were provided to replace the train services available at one time, particularly freight trains, are inadequate.

I hope nobody from the private enterprise sector thinks I am trying to take work from them, but what I am about to suggest has happened in Guinnesses to a great extent. They have allowed a system to run in tandem with their own transport system whereby they have give very substantial contracts to CIE and created a great deal of necessary revenue, particularly in the light of the fact that they are a great source of employment and have a major wage bill to meet. Some inducement should be offered to other big enterprises—provided of course that it will not upset employment in one particular area—to operate on a social basis.

In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister if he could explain to us how there was a change from a substantial profit to a marginal loss on the Dublin buses.

Mr. McGowan

During the debate on the approval of the borrowing by CIE of £38 million, I think Senators are entitled to comment on and to offer criticism of the way that CIE has been run and how the money should be spent. It is a duty of Senators to come here and by their presence to give support and approval to the passage of this Bill. There is an obligation on them to comment. If I were asked to say simply and briefly why I thought CIE were losing so much money. I could do so very easily, because on my way to this House I saw two very good reasons. Number one, I saw that all the large container and truck service was all Euro-traffic. There were no CIE vehicles at all. I have not seen, on my journey to this House today, one single CIE vehicle, while I saw between 40 to 50 very heavy Eurolorries carrying heavy traffic.

I hope that the provision of this money will put CIE into that type of business. They have missed the boat here. I do not think they are aggressive enough. Their sales ability is not adequate. I hope the provision of this money will put them into this field and that they will compete. The carriers in Northern Ireland and the carriers in England and Germany are very prominently involved in the transport of goods to and from this country. Raw materials coming in here are being delivered and manufactured goods collected, and CIE are not active enough in this type of traffic. I blame the outdated policy of that company. I hope there will be a major change in policy towards road freight and a greater participation by CIE in that lucrative business. The cream of the haulage business now is in Euro-traffic. I hope CIE will take notice and will spend some of this money in getting into and getting a share of the business.

Another thing you can notice on your way to this House is the bumper to bumper traffic. Anyone with average IQ would understand that if you drive through the city you will see a few hundred buses, bumper to bumper, all using fuel and all making very little progress. Any one of us who sits behind them in the evening trying to make his way through the city would ask: how could that company not be losing a stack of money? The Government will have to tackle the traffic problem at the same time as they sanction the money for CIE. This is complete waste of money. The cost of the buses doing unproductive work, sitting there wasting fuel, wasting drivers' time and cluttering up the centre of the city, are obvious reasons why CIE cannot make money. They are obvious to the man in the street without studying a report of any kind. I should like to see the Government making progress on the traffic problem with this money being provided for CIE.

Another aspect I should like to speak about, even though it has been mentioned before, is school transport. On the experience I have had of the way they handle this transport, I can only be critical. There is a complete lack of policy here. In some cases in rural areas, CIE hire a minibus service and those people who hire minibuses to CIE have no straightforward policy, no hiring rates, no security. The arrangement is on a day-to-day basis—a sort of fair day arrangement, whereby you can get one man to drive for 7p a mile and other for 8p a mile. It is a makeshift arrangement. One area is completely out of step with another. This results in very poor transport being provided for children in rural areas. It does not affect city areas so much. I would ask the Minister to take a very active interest in CIE's policy for the provision of school transport.

We appreciate that we are still working with a very inadequate school transport system but CIE's approach to it makes it much more difficult. Their lack of policy, their lack of a proper uniform rate for the minibus service that is being provided on hire to CIE, results in a big number of problems and shortcomings in the school transport service. This ground has been partly covered by previous speakers. I would hope that the Minister would see to it in providing this money that sets of conditions are attached. I would hope that the Minister would ensure that we would have a more streamlined school transport policy from CIE and that it will not be put on a makeshift arrangement depending on an official in the area. That is not good enough. The rural areas are not given a fair deal. I would urge the Minister to ensure that there is an improvement.

CIE lack policy even in the handling of goods on their rail services, This was brought home to me forcibly not too long ago when I attended an auction of lost goods held by CIE. I saw an item of goods valued at £100 sold for £1. I regard this as slackness. The item of goods in question was a valve for a waterworks mains. That was something which would be difficult to lose. I do not for the life of me know how it could be mislaid because a limited number of people would manufacture this valve and a limited number of people would buy it. I felt this was very strong evidence of slack handling. This leads to a lack of confidence by the public.

Now is the time for the Government to insist on sets of conditions when money is being provided. I say this in the knowledge that my county can benefit very little from the £38 million that is being provided for CIE. We have a right to be concerned. Only recently my county applied for sanction to the Government for a small sum of money in comparison to this. The sum was around £50,000 to buy land for the provision of an airstrip. In the absence of a proper rail system in County Donegal I would have thought that our county council would have had no difficulty in getting Government approval for the raising of a loan to purchase land and provide an airstrip. The Government refused sanction to the Donegal County Council to raise a loan for the purchase of that land. Representatives from County Donegal are asked to come in here and support the raising of this money. We are entitled to be concerned and ask questions as to how it is going to be spent.

It is a pity that a greater proportion of this money than £4 million cannot be raised from the European Investment Bank. The raising of £38 million for CIE will restrict the general public in their borrowings. God knows, the public's borrowings powers are restricted enough at the moment. I would ask the Minister for clarification on that point. I only hope that the banks, when they decide to restrict lending, will not say they have lent up the maximum allowed by the Government and that this item of £38 million will go against the public borrowing powers. I sincerely hope the Government will give more thought to this. If they are given targets, incentives and directives from the Government they will do a better job. CIE need the money. I only hope we will see a healthier transport system as a result of the money being provided.

Mr. Deasy

I will not detain the House but I should like to add my support for this Bill. In doing so I should like to ask a few questions and make a few observations. The loss of £8 million in 1972-73 is quite colossal. I note from the Minister's brief that he expects it to be substantially higher in 1973-74. This must cause considerable concern to the taxpayer. The loss of more than £7½ million on the rail system alone is staggering. As an ordinary citizen I would never have believed that the whole rail system would have cost £7½ million to run. I should like if the Minister could outline briefly how we fell into such arrears. I know that not so many years ago British Railways admitted publicly that they had lost a train— engine, rolling stock, guards van and so on. Luckily enough it was not a passenger train. In their complex system, such a thing is likely to happen. For our small railway system, reduced as it has been in the past six or seven years by cutting off uneconomical lines, to lose £7½ million takes some believing.

The Government should at this stage seriously consider a provision whereby heavy traffic would by law be taken from the roads and put on the railways, especially container traffic. The taxpayer is being mulcted on the double. This heavy traffic is causing serious damage to our main network of roadways. On the other hand we have trains travelling with a very small amount of goods. Surely the stage has been reached when this traffic should be compulsorily diverted from the roads to the railways especially because of the staggering losses which I have mentioned. If this cannot be done I feel the public will not tolerate this type of loss on the rail system, and it will increase: £7½ million is bad enough for one year but if it is to increase they just will not tolerate it. In the event of not being able to channel what is at present going on the roads on to the rails, I feel that we should consider handing back our rail system and CIE generally to private enterprise, of course, putting in clauses to safeguard jobs and also making sure that the essential services are maintained.

Mrs. Robinson

I should like to approach this Bill from two stand-points—first, considering the more limited contents of the Bill, and, secondly, considering it from a more general standpoint: standing back from the Bill itself and analysing it, in a sense, in an institutional context.

First of all, on the more limited standpoint of the contents of the Bill and what it asks of this House, I should like to ask the Minister why this Bill has developed its own urgency, why it is now needed urgently? As I understand it, the application made by CIE to the European Investment Bank was one of the first applications made by Ireland to the European Investment Bank. If I am wrong, I should like the Minister to state when this application was first made by CIE. At the time the application was made, was it not realised that CIE would require statutory authority to borrow from the European Investment Bank, and was there not a considerable period of time during which statutory authority to borrow from the European Investment Bank might have been requested?

Has there, therefore, not been considerable negligence in this particular area, in that at the last minute, when the European Investment Bank have made it clear that they will make £4 million available on a long-term loan over the next 20 years, that we scramble together a piece of legislation to give CIE the necessary authority to avail of this loan? Is this really a very good way of going about this type of activity?

Secondly—and this is still on the limited terms of the Bill itself—this Bill, as Senator West has said, has a considerable financial significance for the State. It asks that a very large amount of public moneys be available to be borrowed by CIE by raising the ceiling of their borrowing power. This provision, extending so substantially the borrowing power of CIE, has come before the Dáil and the Seanad with an aura of urgency, and therefore, I would maintain, is not being given the sort of consideration it merits.

I have been present for some of the debate this afternoon, not all of it, and I have listened with great interest to the contributions of my colleagues. I have in particular been impressed with the detailed contribution of Senator West, who has obviously done a lot of homework on this Bill. I seconded his motion earlier this afternoon that the motion on the McKinsey Report be taken in conjunction with this Bill. I was—and I put it deliberately in this language—horrified that the excuse given by the Leader of the House for not taking the McKinsey Report motion was that the Minister did not consider it to be "convenient". That was the phrase used—it was not "convenient for the Minister" to take the McKinsey Report motion with this Bill. Yet the Minister himself in his Second Reading speech on this Bill referred to and argued from the McKinsey Report. He maintains, in fact, that part of the reason for this Bill is because CIE are implementing some of the recommendations of the McKinsey Report.

Then why was it not convenient for the Seanad to have this motion taken with the Transport Bill and so discuss the merits of the McKinsey Report directly rather than in a general sense on the Second Reading of the Bill? I think it is not satisfactory that the Minister would deem it inconvenient and that the House would be satisfied that it was inconvenient to the Minister, when the Minister himself is pleading the McKinsey Report as part of the agreement for the Bill itself!

As I say, Senators have addressed themselves to the merits of this Transport Bill and in doing so have commented on the role of CIE and on their position in the State. Their comments have been wide-ranging and very interesting. They have ranged from economic assessments to the sort of social assessment by Senator Harte, including localised comments on the role of CIE. I would maintain that this has been interesting from an academic point of view but not very useful. The role of the Seanad has been extremely limited in relation to this particular Bill and to Bills of this sort.

The Bill, if it is to be meaningfully discussed at all, would require some knowledge on our part of the criteria by which we should judge CIE. This brings me to the second standpoint with which I view this Bill—from the institutional standpoint. We do not know by what criteria to judge CIE because the criteria have never been set out by which we will judge any of the State-sponsored bodies, including CIE. We do not know whether CIE should try to make a profit. I would agree with Senator Deasy: it seems appalling that CIE can amass such a substantial loss—over £7 million—but have we ever required them to make a profit? Do we want CIE to run at a profit or do we want them to provide a social service? Do we see it as a service to the community, to run at a loss in providing such service with the State subsidising them and authorising them to borrow from the European Investment Bank or other sources in order to provide this widespread service at that loss, which we have costed in community terms?

This is the sort of debate which cannot at the moment get off the ground because the criteria by which we ought to judge this particular State-sponsored body and State-sponsored bodies in general have not been determined by us as a State in any way. We have allowed a very important section of our economic and social life to be controlled and run by these State-sponsored bodies. I do not think this is a good thing in terms of the Irish economy. It is a bad thing that there is no overall long-term thinking on this, that these State-sponsored bodies have been created in a haphazard fashion from time to time when it suited the particular industry, or a particular sector of Irish life. The composition of these State-sponsored bodies varies from one to the other. The way in which they are controlled varies from one to the other and, as I say, we have no criteria by which to judge them, or no long-term attitude of the State towards these public enterprises.

Following on this institutional argument, it is, in my view, not worthwhile as an exercise for the Seanad to debate in a subjective, off-the-cuff manner a Bill like this Transport Bill. It is not adequate, not satisfactory. What we must press for, if we are to fulfil a parliamentary function, is for the implementation rapidly of this promised committee on State-sponsored bodies. It would make a great difference to how the Seanad ultimately considered this Bill if we had a report from a committee on State-sponsored bodies, which committee could have examined it in detail without any aura of urgency. As I have tried to maintain, the aura of urgency is in any case artificial. I await the Minister's explanation as to why this Bill has come so late in the day and why, as I say, it is therefore being described as one which must be passed quickly by the two Houses of the Oireachtas.

This Bill could have been submitted to a committee on State-sponsored bodies if we had such a committee. That committee could have called for independent expertise, could have determined what should be the criteria by which we judge the performance of CIE, could have reported in detail to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Then we as Members of the Seanad would have had the benefit of that analysis, of that information, the benefit of the expertise of individual members of the committee, some of whom would be from the Seanad, and we could have a much more constructive debate as a consequence.

That institutional apparatus is extremely urgent when we see that the pattern of Bills which come up in relation to State-sponsored bodies is that they simply ask for more money as a grant, or for more potential money in the sense of more borrowing capacity. This is the sort of Bill which has come up again and again before the Seanad in the last session and now in this session, in relation to this and other state enterprises.

On a second footing this Bill is entirely unsatisfactory from our point of view because it stems from the fact that, quoting from the Minister's Second Reading Speech:

The immediate need for the present Bill is to enable CIE to take up a loan of £4 million which has been approved by the European Investment Bank for a term of 20 years at a proposed rate of interest of 8¾ per cent.

In order to assess the implications of that we would really want to know what other applications have been made by Ireland to the European Investment Bank, who had decided on the priority of these applications, what moneys could be available from the European Investment Bank—this sort of information.

If this Bill had been considered as having a European dimension by the fact that an application had been made by CIE, and that it was now looking for statutory authority to borrow from the European Investment Bank, then the Bill could have been referred to the Joint Committee on European Affairs. That committee could examine this European dimension; that committee could look at the role of the European Investment Bank about which I am going to speak in a moment; that committee could draw the attention of both Houses of the Oireachtas to this whole aspect of applying for long-term loans to the European Investment Bank and of the potential there for Ireland. It could be a source of real regional development apart altogether from the European Community agreeing on a regional policy and a regional development fund.

This European Investment Bank has enormous potential for Ireland. It has an enormous potential for applications by public enterprises and by private enterprise. It is at the moment almost unknown to Members of the Oireachtas. It is a body about which we must do long-term thinking and long-term planning. I would submit we must do it in the Joint Committee on European Affairs and in the open forum of both Houses of the Parliament; because the nature of applications to the European Investment Bank and the types of applications are very broad. We must determine what are our own priorities. This point will become clearer when I outline the applications that have been made and granted to Ireland already during 1973, and in the light of the fact that during 1974 a substantially larger fund of money will be available. Still more would be available if we had appropriate applications to the European Investment Bank for further loans. We have never really considered this from the viewpoint of establishing our policy.

An Cathaoirleach

I am sorry to intervene here. There is no question that the particular loan being sought from the European Investment Bank is relevant to the discussion on this Bill on Second Stage, but to go into detail about other possible applications or other actual applications would be to go beyond the scope of the Bill. It would be wrong to do other than make a passing reference to them.

Mrs. Robinson

I do not propose to go into great detail, in fact it would take me——

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid the Senator has already gone into some detail.

Mrs. Robinson

I think I can make my point relevant to the terms of the Bill. It is that before we pass this Bill, and before we authorise CIE to accept this loan from the European Investment Bank, we ought to know the framework in which it is being done, whether this is a loan which ought to get priority from Ireland. In other words, the question is whether we should approve this particular Transport Bill with the provision in it which authorises CIE to borrow specifically that £4 million from the European Investment Bank and giving general power to borrow in a European currency. If the Cathaoirleach will bear with me—I do not intend to be very long on this—I am trying to make the point that if we are to consider this aspect of the Transport Bill meaningfully, we can only do it in terms of the types of applications which have been made and authorised from Ireland—the list is brief—and whether we want to see CIE included in this way in that list, and what our overall policy on that is.

For example, during the year 1973 the bank has already awarded roughly £12 million to Ireland. It is revelant to see in what way these loans, because they are all long-term loans, have been distributed. The first loan was to the Sugar Company, another State-sponsored body, for £2.8 million to modernise their factories. The second loan was to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, of the larger sum of £7.5 million, for modernisation of our telephone system; and the third loan was to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, of £800,000 in order to relend that sum to the Irish Agricultural Wholesalers' Society to establish a factory in Cork for the manufacture of protein concentrates.

As the Cathaoirleach has pointed out, these matters are not strictly relevant to this particular application except in so far as they illustrate that these are the types of application which Ireland is making at the moment to the European Investment Bank. It is a similar application which CIE, under the authority of this Transport Bill, want to avail of since it has been approved by the European Investment Bank. We, as a House of the Oireachtas, are not in a position to have the information for an overall view of whether we approve of these four public enterprises getting this particular money in preference to other possible applicants. At the moment the applicants can come from these public enterprises or indeed from private industry and they are channelled through the Department of Finance so that there is that sort of governmental co-ordination of applications. But they should also be a matter of policy which would be assessed and reviewed in Parliament. It is an area which Members of the Oireachtas ought to have considered in depth. In my view they could not do this unless preliminary homework is done in committee session, with the possibility of getting expert information on it; with the possibility of interviewing various members of these bodies and the officials concerned in the making of these applications in order to determine what should be our priorities.

Should the priority be, in this case, to enable CIE to get "Supertrains", or should it be some other project like the development of small industries in the west of Ireland to boil it down to that? Is it appropriate to make an application to the European Investment Bank for the modernisation of CIE? I think that when we are faced with this type of Bill, which simply requests greater borrowing power and allows the Government to increase the amount by which it will guarantee loans to CIE, and when the Bill is considered in a single day in each House of the Oireachtas because of its "urgency", we reduce our parliamentary process to its most inadequate point. We reduce it to subjective, ill-informed comments by individual Senators on how they feel that CIE may or may not be operating, without any criteria by which to judge it properly because these criteria have never been set out or accepted. The debate takes place without adequate back-up information to assess both the role of CIE, as a State-sponsored body and the implications of this application to the European Investment Bank and the priorities we should have set out in that.

This to me is a rather depressing exercise. I hope that it is an exercise that we will not carry on much longer in our parliamentary life. I hope that we will evolve the sort of institutional control that will make Parliament more relevant to considering this type of Bill and which will make the type of questions asked when the Bill comes for debate on the floor of the House much more searching. We are not asking sufficiently searching questions because we do not have the back-up information to do it. It is not enough to speak off the cuff and to express a view on it. This is not adequate. It is not scientific. It is not constructive. It is not worth the time spent, and the whole amount of administrative machinery which is involved in a parliamentary process. I urge those Members, especially on the Government side of the House, who are in a position to do so, to have the committee on State-sponsored bodies established at the earliest possible opportunity and also I would urge the Minister, when he has a Bill of this nature to be prepared.

An Cathaoirleach

I am afraid I must intervene again. The Senator is arguing for a change in procedure when dealing with a matter under the current procedure which is laid down. The House is obliged to deal with this Bill according to the procedure which is laid down. It is not appropriate to discuss changes in that procedure while we are dealing with this Bill.

Mrs. Robinson

I accept the Cathaoirleach's ruling on that point. I have, in fact, made the point that I wanted to make within the limits— and sometimes obvious straying outside the limits—of a Second Reading debate. I end by referring to the specific question which I asked, and on which I should like a specific answer from the Minister, as to when the original application by CIE was made to the European Investment Bank and how long they might have had to seek this statutory authority to borrow? In other words, whether, in fact, there was a necessity for this to become a rather urgent matter rather than one that could have been taken at more leisure in the parliamentary process.

Mr. Lyons

I have some sympathy for the Minister who comes in with a simple Bill to ask the Seanad to give him the authority to borrow from the European Investment Bank. The reason I have sympathy for him is this. In my opinion, Senator Robinson has been completely out of order over the last quarter-of-an-hour.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is casting a reflection on the Chair's handling of the procedure.

Mr. Lyons

This is not casting any reflection on the Cathaoirleach; it is merely pointing out the fact that he is too much of a gentleman to take the lady to task over what she has said in the last half-hour. I want to say that Senator Robinson is a very charming lady with a magnificent brain.

However, the "cloud cuckooland" that she has been exploring over the last half-hour has nothing at all to do with this simple Bill before us. If we are going to relate borrowing for CIE to borrowing for every other little thing for which the Government seek money, and if everybody here in this chamber is going to speak at length on these matters, the Minister will not get his Bill in a month, never mind getting it in one evening. While as an academic discussion it might be useful, we have not time to listen to it and its relevance at this particular time is nil.

I am in agreement with the provisions of the Bill as proposed by the Minister. I could spend a long time here telling the Minister about the deficiencies of the service provided by CIE. I could talk for a long time about the type of train that goes to Mayo, and the times and the delays and all the other things that go with it, but I am not going to bore the people here this evening with the long recital of the many bizarre events that happened over a considerable time. Some people have mentioned the fact that the heavy traffic must be put off the roads and on to the rails. I agree entirely with this because if we are going to have the juggernauts that we see coming in from Europe at the moment carried on our road system, we will not have a road system in the foreseeable future. Compared to the amount of money that would be needed to give us a road system capable of carrying this type of traffic, the sum the Minister is seeking on behalf of CIE is a mere bagatelle.

The CIE rail services are so necessary that they must be brought to the highest possible level in the shortest possible time. This is something about which the Minister should concern himself. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the roads will not be able to carry the traffic in the future. I was listening attentively to Senator MacGowan talking about the deficiencies in the services to Donegal and other places. I want to tell Senator MacGowan—I do not know if he is here at the moment—that it was a Fianna Fáil Government that closed down the rail services, not alone in Donegal but everywhere else throughout the country.

Mr. Garrett

That is because they were in so long.

Mr. Lyons

They were in too long. One of the reasons why they are out now is because they closed them.

Mr. Garrett

Do not worry.

Mr. Lyons

However, this is a fact of life. Maybe, on the advice they had at the time and in the circumstances at that time, this appeared to be the proper thing to do. Forward planning is necessary at this stage, because we have arrived at a situation now where we have something imposed on us. The oil crisis has opened our eyes at every level, from Government level right down to the man in the street, to the dangers of having all our eggs in one basket and the dangers that exist if we do not have a diversified transport system. Maybe it is the best thing that ever happened. Everybody will now be concerned about the future. As Senator Robinson pointed out in her speech, various studies may be necessary to evaluate what type of transport is necessary in the short term and what the targets should be for the long term. In the long term we are going to be faced with situations of which we have no cognisance at this point in time. There should be a study made—I agree with Senator Robinson thus far—of the complete picture of transport now and 20 years hence. The time to do that is now.

I do not know whether it is possible to get other loans or EEC grants for the study of transport problems. If it is possible, now is the time to do it. Asking the Minister, who is just about a year in office, to suddenly evolve a new system of transport, when the existing system has been running down for years and to solve all our problems is asking for too much.

I believe that if we could get the type of "super-eggheads" who would evaluate the whole situation, as Senator Robinson envisaged, we would not be able to pay them enough. I know the Minister wants to get away and I do not wish to delay him. I shall be writing to him about the situation vis-á-vis rail transport for west Mayo—the delays, the carriages that are put on the trains as apart from the “Supertrains,”—the fact that up to a very short time ago it was possible to get a train at Westland Row to travel to the west of Ireland at 8.10 p.m. in the evening. This was a mail train with one or two passenger coaches attached if necessary. That mail train still travels to the west of Ireland but there is no passenger coach on it. Some other Members of the Oireachtas and I who often miss the first train would like to know that this late train was available.

I would also refer to the difficulty of getting from the centre of the city to Heuston Station. If there are road repairs going on—and they are nearly always going on—along the quays anybody who tries to get a bus to take him to the station on time will find that he is delayed.

It is imperative—I am sorry to say this because it might sound parochial to other Senators—that when a mail train travels to the west of Ireland on a particular evening there should be no great problem in putting on a passenger coach or two. I hope this will be done as soon as possible.

The Seanad are prepared to give the Minister the Bill. We hope that in the final analysis CIE will break even, or make a profit, but in the present circumstances, as we see it at the moment with the cost of fuel escalating beyond anything ever thought of a few months ago this is certainly not possible. Any money that is expended over and above that which is necessary to make CIE break even is good social spending and very necessary in giving to the people in outlying areas a service which they need and to which they are entitled. Roads are already overcrowded and unable to take the present heavy traffic. Anybody driving out of Dublin behind one of the juggernauts and trying to pass it out on the type of road we have will know what I am talking about.

The Minister is not a miracle worker. The rolling stock is old. Most of it is outdated and to find the millions necessary to bring it up to modern standards is going to be a mighty problem. I want the Minister to take into consideration that the rail service must be brought up to the highest standard. In Japan at the moment some trains travel at 200 miles an hour. They are express trains. The railway system here will never in our time be able to take trains doing 200 miles an hour. The modern idea of welding rails does away with all the old bolts and shackles that we had previously. The improvement must be started and the sooner it is started the better.

Dr. Martin

I shall be very brief. I shall begin by noting the extraordinary rhetorical skill with which Senator Lyons set out by consigning Senator Robinson to "cloud cuckoo-land" because she was dealing with an overall principle and how in the course of his own speech—because, I think, of the inherent honesty of the man himself —he found himself crying out in almost similar terms for an overall plan for transport and the environment and finally seeking and finding sanctuary in the coach attached to the mail train on the way back to Mayo. That progress of Senator Lyons' speech highlights the manifold difficulties that face a Minister for Transport and Power in dealing with the extraordinarily complex problem of a transport system in Ireland today.

We have seen in the course of the debate today elements of the transport system as varied and farflung as Senator Quinlan's well-placed nostalgia for the West Clare Railway of Percy French fame, and Senator Deasy's insistence on the importance of transferring to the rails a great deal of the container traffic which at the moment is threatening our entire road transport system. That is of enormous importance.

It is also of importance that the Minister has to face the fact that there our cities are being very seriously threatened. The buses going into the centre of the city bring excessive weight on the roads. Enormous pollution of the air is involved. Buses have to struggle through traffic while very often one-passenger-car traffic clutters up the centres of our cities.

Any Minister for Transport and Power seeking moneys for the improvement of rail and road transport will have to come to terms with the enormous problem in the cities. This has been mentioned already. He should even consider the possibility of a Sunday ban on driving which they have had in Holland and with which they are very pleased. Apparently in Holland they go out on their bicycles on Sundays and the whole environment is cleansed. I know the Mass-going population would have difficulty, but the ban could start from 12 o'clock onwards. This would also help in many ancillary ways particularly in regard to what we call the power crisis at the moment.

The problem that was raised by Senator Robinson, and afterwards implicitly by Senator Lyons, relates to the fact that transport and power as an area of activity involve many other areas of our entire lifestyle. Much has been said recently about the quality of Irish life and concern has been expressed about it. The quality of Irish life was seen largely in moral terms when applied to the Family Planning Bill. The quality of Irish life involves the very air we breathe, the roads and the streets we walk on, and they are increasingly being polluted by noise, litter and excessive traffic. Edmund Burke has said that if we are to love our country our country must first be beautiful. We have a beautiful country, but it is being enormously polluted. One of the agents in this is obviously the vehicle, the internal combustion engine, which plays such a large part in the whole problem facing the Minister for Transport and Power at present.

When Senator Lyons and Senator Robinson agree to this Bill we can all agree to it, but it is unsatisfactory to agree to this loan. We would rather know where the money is going. We are rather like somebody with a suitcase on which there is one label, "London": we know we are going as far as London. After that another label "Paris" goes on and we are going as far as Paris. Then another label may indicate that we are going to come back to Sheffield, and yet another label goes on. In other words, the legal enactments involved seem to me to be similar to the slapping of a label on to some sort of State coach the destination of which has not been decided on.

Senator Robinson suggested that a way out would be to establish a Committee on State-sponsored Bodies so that we could get an overall view. I would have a different kind of view.

It would be that it is time this country, like the North of Ireland and England, should have a Minister for the Environment. It seems to me that a concern for the environment should dominate all other considerations or, if we like to use that other phrase, the quality of Irish life. If we had that we could reverse an unfortunate trend which is taking place in Irish society. Everybody who has had anything to do with the Civil Service knows about that if one wants to get anything out of any Department in this country that Department has to apply to the Department of Finance. The money is available there. The Department of Finance seems to exercise spiritual and mercenary lordship over everything that is done.

I should like to see a situation in the future where the Minister for Transport and Power would use his influence and good offices in regard to environmental matters. I doubt if he will disagree with me on this. I should love to see that every enactment in the future that concerns transport, power or industry would ultimately have to be submitted to a Minister for the Environment. He should be somebody who would have not just a mere grip on the pursestrings but somebody who would have an appreciation of the beauty of our country and of its potentialities—from the West Clare railway á la Percy French down to that coach attached to the mail train which would take Senator Lyons back in time to meet his constituents in Mayo after his triumphs here in the Seanad.

Some such type of all-embracing idea would give meaning to this enactment we are going to vote on here today. It would give us a sense of purpose as people. One does not quite get that sense of purpose from the manner in which people are approaching this sort of ad hoc motion today.

Mr. McCartin

I will be very brief because I know the field has been widely covered and I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered by other Senators. A constructive discussion cannot take place in the House on a subject such as CIE and the raising of a loan without a broader discussion on many aspects of the work done by CIE. It is necessary to have a constructive debate on two or three various aspects of CIE. I should like to have a discussion on the social aspect of CIE. Those parts of the service which can be regarded as a social service should be segregated from the rest and evaluated on their social advantages. There are sections of CIE which should fit into the category of a business that is economically viable, or ought to be. In addition, there is the section which is not an economic proposition but for which there is no alternative.

The Dublin city bus services, school transport and road transport in rural Ireland would all fit into the social category. We could decide on the areas making a loss, and if a loss were justified we could decide on how far it ought to go. CIE are doing a very good job. They are providing a social service and there is no obvious replacement for the company. The railway should be improved and maintained. It is a pity that so many of them were not only closed down but torn up and sold for scrap when they could have been left where they were. They might have suited changing economic needs in years to come.

I recall the fight put up by Senator Martin's family in Ballinamore to save the railway. At the time it was not economically viable but if left there it could have fulfilled a useful role in the future. Road haulage is a part of CIE. I have no figures for this separately, but I should like to know the position in regard to this aspect of CIE. If this part of CIE were not protected by legislation as things are at present it could not compete with private enterprise. If this is so, is it a good policy to maintain this part of CIE to the disadvantage of industry in many areas?

Many small industries are forced to provide transport of their own because they cannot employ local contractors because haulage plates are very limited. That transport is taking up executive time, brains and investment in small companies which can illafford to spend the money. It would be better if they could give this work to local contractors. Instead, those people are prohibited by law from doing this sort of work because the road haulage section of CIE must be protected according to Government policy. I can see no social or economic reason for keeping that section of CIE in existence if it cannot compete openly.

This point should be examined seriously in the future. In many cases companies are forced to keep seven or eight lorries. Even though CIE can charge double the rates of a private haulier, they can still show a loss. On the other hand, the private haulier can be the richest man in the locality although he is working at half the rates charged by CIE. A reappraisal of this situation need not mean a loss in jobs. The work could be more efficiently and economically done. This would suit the smaller industries in my area better than the system used by CIE, and would be a relief to the State in general.

I should like the Minister to give serious consideration to this point.

Mr. Cowen

I do not intend to detain the Minister too long. I welcome this Bill mainly because we all realise that CIE will not survive unless they are strongly subsidised. The purpose of this Bill is to extend their borrowing powers for capital purposes. As Senator Robinson stated, we know so little about CIE that it is doubtful if it would serve any purpose for any Senator to examine in detail the actual workings of CIE. It is essential to maintain a public transport system. The railway service is vastly improved and is catering for many more passengers. Because of the present fuel crisis a great many more people will travel by train in the future. I ask the Minister to channel through his office a directive to the management of CIE instructing them to improve the passenger services to meet the needs of the greater number of passengers.

The road freight service is the only sector within CIE which has paid dividends during the year 1972-73. There are conflicting views in regard to this sector. I agree with Senator McGowan that CIE are not doing an effective job in regard to this sector. There was a small profit of £22,000 in 1972-73 against a loss of £134,000 in 1971-72. This is a significant point and shows a vast improvement over a period of 12 months. On that score alone the Minister can see that a greater effort should be made to ensure that this sector is modernised. Senator McGowan pointed out that he did not see any CIE freight service lorries on the road when he travelled up to Dublin today though he passed many of the trucks which are now converging on Ireland from Europe. Against that, there is the argument by Senator McCartin that the main reason why this sector is doing any good is that it is protected. I go on facts and figures. Irrespective of what is stated in regard to private hauliers, there is need for vast improvement from CIE.

It was brought to my notice recently by a man who had been employed with CIE for a period of 35 years that he had the paltry sum of £1.88p pension per week. When he retired at 65 years of age he had something in the region of £2 5s. per week. When he attained 70 years and received the old age pension this pension was reduced to £1 2s 6d and his present rate of pension is £1.88p. The Minister should do something to remedy that situation. It is desperate that a man who was employed by CIE for 35 of the best years of his life should receive a paltry sum of £1.88p pension. I sincerely ask the Minister to look into this aspect of CIE pension schemes.

I just want to say that I welcome the Bill on the basis that it will pour money into CIE to develop the social service that we cannot and I hope will never be without.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

I will not detain the Minister very long. I wish to support the general views of those who have suggested that a discussion on transport should be a general discussion on the role of transport in society.

First of all, in relation to transport, CIE and Ministers for Transport and Power have come under heavy onslaught for certain reasons. They have come under onslaught because the operations for which they are responsible are not making money. In an article in New Society in 1970, which studied transport systems in most of the modernised, if one may use that term, countries of the world, it was pointed out that one country was in fact making a profit on such systems.

Who in fact benefits and who in fact does not benefit by having an adequate and well financed public transport system? The blind cannot drive. The very old cannot drive. The people who are below driving age cannot drive. There are in our society a number of significant minorities who have no great public volume, if they perhaps have a voice, in making their case for having an adequate public transport system. For that reason the allocaton of moneys for an efficient transport system should not be judged on the criteria of market economy. In fact, the savage, historic judgment of those people who have said that the railways must make money and that buses must make money has driven these voiceless minorities into their homes and deprived them of transport. What we should do is this. We should not be ashamed at all. We should say we will not have transport policy dictated by the norms of private enterprise economy. We will have a transport system which will serve social necessity. This means that if at any time the Minister says "We have made a loss in public transport" I, for one, will not be at all unhappy.

The minorities of whom I speak— the people who are too ill to drive, the people who do not qualify for a licence by reason of age, blindness or some other disability—are entitled to the finest of transport, if we believe in a humanitarian society. The mistaken notion of translating a private enterprise economy into the public utility service has resulted in the most savage cutting back of infrastructure in regions where it was most demanded.

It is whimsical to speak of the West Clare railway in some respects. I admire people who like to listen to Percy French. I have studied the mounds of fish carried on the railways in Connemara to the London market in the last century. They are far larger than the fish being transported to the London market in the present century, all because of a railway system. Therefore, I urge the Minister to increase his borrowing power. He has noted with caution that it will be with the sanction of the Minister for Finance that he will extend the area of his borrowing to the European Investment Bank for example.

This country has suffered a savage blow from the people who ravaged the railways. The Beechings had their counterparts in this island. I am in a charitable mood and I will not name them. They decided that transport must be efficient at all costs. Transport is efficient in two respects. It is efficient when it serves all of the public well, including the most voiceless minorities of the public—the people who are too old either to get a licence or to drive a car, the people who are too young and the people who are unable to drive a car. Transport is also justifiable and efficient when it serves the infrastructure well. The attempt at regionalisation being made at present through the Industrial Development Authority, through various agencies and through the new grant which has been allocated to Muintir na Tíre would be very much easier if the country's railways had not been so savagely struck down. Those short-term plan people in the Beeching fashion, who imagined that the best way to advance an economy was to relate its total results to a particular section of society and that you could achieve efficiency by just simply knocking off lines, were stupid and ill-informed. This was extremely bad economics. We may find ourselves spending more on road transport when we could have saved a great deal if we had saved our railway lines. More than that we destroyed a way of life.

Now it is my turn, perhaps, if I might be allowed a minor whimsical note. There were people who sometimes came to market by train when it stopped in almost inaccessible places. The Fianna Fáil Government of the day said that all of these transport facilities would be replaced by bus facilities. Women all over rural Ireland who used to travel carrying various commodities, from eggs to daffodils, to markets in different towns were suddenly driven to their homes and told to stay at home because that promise was never fulfilled.

Let us be perfectly clear. Certainly the Minister's borrowing powers should be extended to borrow; certainly we should spend more on transport; but never should a transport policy be evaluated by strict economic criteria. If one day the Minister comes back in here and if by some strange miracle I am here and he says "I have made a fantastic loss on transport, but I have brought a whole host of people into the social engagement of life" he will be applauded by me at least. For that reason I suggest, echoing as I said, at secondhand, views put far more concisely by Dickinson in an article in New Society in 1970, the fact that the criteria for the judgment of a transport policy are not private enterprise criteria but social policy criteria.

Minister for Transport and Power (Mr. P. Barry)

I should like to thank the Seanad for the hearing they gave this Bill today and for their contributions to it. I would not find myself greatly disagreeing with the last speaker when he said that it was not necessary on strict economic grounds that a transport system should make a profit. Apart from the fact that it increased the morale of people employed in CIE, the greatest value of the sales gimmick with the appalling title of "The Great Train Robbery" was that it brought people out, made them travel, move around and mix amongst other people. That was a tremendous social benefit to the country as a whole. There is understandably some confusion here and in other places as to what my role is in regard to transport. There were some extremely intelligent and well argued suggestions here today about the relationship between public transport and the car, parking in cities and the construction of motorways for cars. As Senator West pointed out, there is evidence in the United States the more superhighways that are built the more cars appear to overwhelm them. I should make it clear that such matters are not my function. These are matters strictly for the Minister for Local Government. There is an overlapping of the Departments here.

In reply to a point raised by Senator West, we presented to the Government, sometime last month, a proposal for Dublin city traffic which embraced the points he made. It included a new bridge over the Liffey and the development of the rail commuter services. This was an effort between CIE, the Department of Transport and Power, the Department of Local Government and Dublin Corporation to find some solution to the congestion in Dublin's streets. It is in the interests of these four bodies to come together and see how this problem can be solved. I hope the studies conducted by An Foras Forbartha will result in some easing of the congestion in Dublin city.

A number of Senators made the point that it was not sufficiently clear what the money being borrowed by CIE from the European Investment Bank was for. In my brief I said that it was for the replacement of antiquated road and rail facilities, the modernisation and improvement of equipment, terminals and premises and the improvement of staff amenities, provision of modernised mainline rail operations to provide fast and efficient passenger and goods services and for the development of the Dublin rail commuter services. These are broadly the heads under which the money will be spent. Those people who are looking for various improvements in the operation of CIE would be catered for under that.

A suggestion was made by Senator Dolan and others representing the north and north-west, who have not got a rail service, that the money now proposed to be spent by CIE in the modernisation of the railways should be proportionately distributed to the roads in their areas so that there would be better roads to bring people to the centres of population. That is again the function of the Department of Local Government. Money raised by CIE could not be spent on roads.

Senator Dolan also said that good communications are essential to attract industries. I accept that point of view. As Minister for Transport and Power, CIE are one of my responsibilities, and I can say that no other lines will be closed. It is unfair to criticise those who closed the lines ten to 15 years ago because then there was not the volume of traffic on the roads. There was not then—and we are probably very conscious of this at the moment because of the fuel crisis—the same necessity to carry large volumes of people and goods at the cheapest rate from one point to another.

Reference was made by Senators to the fuel crisis and the possibility that this may help CIE. I must point out that CIE are subject to the increases in the cost of fuel as well as the ordinary private individual. They cannot shove aside costs of this nature. There are only two sources from which CIE can get their money, that is, either by increased fares or by Government subsidy. We—that is the Dáil and Seanad and I as Minister will have to make up our minds, annually maybe, as to how the expenses of running CIE should be apportioned between those who use CIE and the taxpayers in general. The year before last CIE operated at a loss. This was because they had applied to the National Prices Commission in July, 1972, for an increase in fares which they did not in fact receive until 1973. This meant that, in spite of inflation, they had to wait a full year before getting an increase. The Exchequer had to make good the losses and that, in turn, had to be passed on to the taxpayers in general. That is a matter which will have to be decided by me primarily and by the Government. It would then become part of budgetary policy to decide by how much we were willing to subsidise the railways, how much people who use bus and train services should be asked to pay and how much the taxpayer in general should subsidise.

Senator Robinson referred to the statement by the Leader of the House that it was not convenient for me to discuss the McKinsey Report here this evening. When I said that to the Leader of the House today I did not mean in any way to be discourteous to the Seanad or to indicate that I was unwilling to discuss the McKinsey Report with the Seanad. I said in my speech:

CIE, on the basis of the general recommendations of the consultants, have been developing specific plans for the rationalisation of main line railway operations and improvements in operating practices which will involve inter alia increased capital investment in modernising terminals, rolling-stock, track and signalling. These plans are at present under examination and I hope to secure the early approval of the Government for CIE to proceed on the lines proposed.

My point was that it would not be right for me to discuss with the Seanad something the Government are at present considering until I had got the Government's decision on that. For that reason I asked Senator O'Higgins not to include the motion on the McKinsey Report in this discussion today.

Mrs. Robinson

I thank the Minister for the information he has given. Might it not be of value to the Government in coming to a decision to have the benefit of a debate in the Seanad and have the views of Senators on the McKinsey Report before the decision is taken? What point is there in having a debate afterwards?

Mr. P. Barry

I think it is generally done the reverse way. I introduce a Bill here with the approval of the Government. The discussion then is on what the Government propose.

Mrs. Robinson

I accept the Minister's explanation.

Dr. West

I accept what the Minister says but it is not the way motions are dealt with in the Seanad.

Mr. P. Barry

I accept that, but when the Government are on the point of coming to a decision about it, I think that makes a difference.

In an inflationary situation the losses in CIE will of course continue. If CIE did not try to modernise and improve their position, the forecast of their losses in the early 1980s would be phenomenal. Senator Deasy, Senator Markey and Senator McCartin are appalled at what the losses are now. But where 64 per cent of the company's outlay is in wages, you can see that there is inflation every year. Unless there is increased Government subvention to the company or an increase in fares, then there are bound to be increased losses every year.

A number of Senators made the point, Senator West included, that the Government will be not able under the EEC regulations to give this blanket subsidy to CIE and that it will be easier for the public to see exactly where the money is being spent and for what reason it is given. This might be useful. The Government must in future break down their subsidy to CIE under the headings of (1) payments in respect of public service obligations borne by the railways— that is regulation 1191/69; (2) payments in respect of burdens borne by CIE not borne by other transport undertakings—that is the normalisation of accounts, regulation 1192/69; and, (3), aids by the State in respect of (a) infrastructure costs, (b) public service obligations other than those covered by regulations 1191/69 and (c) the remaining deficit of CIE.

The last point—(c) of No. 3— is a let-out for the Government and will enable them make up the balance of whatever CIE lose. However that will probably be phased out in the years to come and another regulation introduced to more tightly control the amount of money the Government can provide for public transport.

Mr. M.D. Higgins

As a social utility.

Mr. P. Barry

Maybe that. I cannot foresee what will happen but that is possible.

Senator Moynihan made the point that in many people's minds rationalisation is equated to redundancy, and there is no doubt that that is so. He made the point also that the management structure of CIE was inefficient, overloaded and top heavy. In fact, the McKinsey Report found that CIE were well managed. I assure the House, and Senator Moynihan in particular, that if rationalisation in CIE leads to redundancy, it will be, I hope, by normal wastage over the years and it certainly will be done only in consultation with the trade unions. There will be full agreement between the trade unions and the management on any redundancies that may take place.

It is obvious that signalling will have to be very much modernised and coordinated in order that trains may run faster. Senator Lyons pointed out that in Japan trains are running at 200 mph. We probably will not see that in our time, but the railway system will have to compete with private transport. The same applies to rail freight, to take Senator McCartin's point. There was a loss on the road freight service the year before last and the year previous to that, but last year it made a profit. Unless it can stand on its feet and make a profit, it should not be subsidised to compete with private companies. If the railways, either for freight or for passengers are to compete with road transport and private cars, they must run faster, they must run more efficiently and they must be more attractive to the users.

It seems ridiculous that in the mornings that there might be 50 cars at one set of traffic lights in any city or town and stuck in the middle of them one bus which could carry the occupants of the 50 cars at the one time. This certainly does not seem to be the best use of transport or of people's time. If the buses were more efficient people would leave their cars at home and would come in the buses. Because the buses are inefficient, there are more cars on the roads. Therefore, the buses become more inefficient and you are getting into the situation of the chicken and the egg —which came first.

I have always held the view that in cities and towns public transport should have priority, that it is there for the type of people Senator Higgins was talking about. This transport should have priority in the use of roads. This matter will require a lot of study by the Department of Local Government, and I would not like to enter into that now. Traffic plans and parking restrictions should all be geared towards making buses run quickly, cheaply and efficiently between suburbs and city centres.

Senator Quinlan made the point about the possibility of the fuel crisis helping to make CIE profitable. I was interested to hear Senator Quinlan refer to "the main line train" as if there were no other main lines in Ireland except the one between Cork and Dublin. There are other main line trains as well.

Senator Quinlan made the point again about cutting down the number of cars coming into the city with only one passenger. Senator Quinlan and a number of other Senators strongly stressed that the measure of our support for CIE is our faith in our own future, and I think that is very true. I do not know whether it would have been usual here ten years ago to find the same support in this House, or in the other House, for CIE as there was today. There is now quite a pride in Irish people in CIE—I see Senator West nodding assent—and I think the management and the workers in CIE will react to this and provide for us a better service and possibly for the taxpayer less of a burden.

One of the most beneficial results of the sales promotion campaign a few years ago to get more people to travel by train was its effect on the morale of the people working in CIE. It improved their morale immensely, made them proud of their job, no longer regarding themselves as on the backs of the public. They are not. They are performing an essential service, a service it is not possible, here or anywhere else in the world, to run at a profit on the rates being paid. CIE workers and management should understand that the people and the Government fully back them, but we want to see them having faith in themselves or having, as Senator Quinlan said, the measure of the faith in their own future by having faith in themselves now and in their own organisation. I think this is possible and it is certainly desirable.

Many points were made by Senator O'Brien and Senator West, suggestions to the manager of CIE, experiments that might be made to get more people interested in train and bus services. I will see that the whole of today's debate will be given to the management of CIE. They will study every one of these suggestions and see if it is possible to implement them, or, if there are ideas that they themselves have not already thought of, they will be applied to the benefit of their organisation.

Senator Keegan spoke about the school transport service. That is not actually the responsibility of CIE. They are merely contractors to the Department of Education for that. They run the school buses as dictated by the Department of Education.

I think the last point I want to make before I explain how this Bill became so urgent—I hope I have covered everything raised by the Senators—concerns the pensions to CIE workers. As Senator Cowen said, when people come out of CIE at 65, besides the pension they get from CIE, they also get their social welfare benefit. This is a very complicated matter. There are many different pensions schemes within CIE and they are all being examined at the moment. I hope certainly to be able to say something about some of them in the reasonably near future. These must be examined with the Department of Finance, the trade unions involved and with CIE and my Department. There are a number of views that must be got together in this.

Now I will explain about the urgency of this Bill. I will begin by contradicting myself and saying that it is not urgent in one sense at all. But it is urgent in the sense that, if it is not there, there is a danger of the interest rate going up. That is the only urgency. It would be quite possible to leave this for another month or two. The reason that it came here at an awkward time is that the loan was agreed to by the European Investment Bank only in December when both Houses had risen. On the first sitting day after the Dáil came back, which was this day week, I introduced this Bill in the Dáil and it was passed there yesterday.

It had to come here today because the President cannot sign it before five days and he must sign it within seven days, two days after that again. This brings us up to the 19th February, which is the date for the next meeting of the European Investment Bank. It was better not to take the risk that the cost of the loan, which is at a very attractive interest now of 8¾ per cent, might have gone up in the meantime. We decided it was better, with some inconvenience—and I apologise to the Seanad; the Dáil was sitting anyway—to try and get the legislation through so that we would not be deprived of the advantage over a long period of a considerable sum at what in modern money terms is a reasonable rate of interest.

I should like to very sincerely thank the Senators for coming back here and for agreeing to give me this Bill to-day and perhaps more particularly, for the many useful suggestions and for the high tenor of this debate this evening. Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages to-day.