I wish to place on the record of the House my thanks to the many Senators who participated in the debate. Fortunately, I had the opportunity yesterday and today to hear virtually the entire debate on this motion. It has confirmed the belief I have held over a very long period, coming to the Upper House as a journalist and subsequently on occasions as a Minister of State, that the general relaxed atmosphere here and reflective approach is very suitable to a debate of this kind.
Many of the Senators had the opportunity of bringing to the House the benefit of their own experiences with CIE and also, of course, their own expertise in a whole variety of fields and, in addition — probably the most supportive thing of all — bringing to the House a reflection of what their constituents are saying. I often think that pollsters and people who make soundings of public opinion could, in fact, save themselves a lot of money from time to time by just picking out a suitable cross-section of Senators and of Dáil Deputies — I am not saying this in regard to party political matters as, for instance, in this morning's papers — and, generally speaking, they would get a very accurate reflection. We have had the benefit of that reflection during the course of this debate.
Members, of course, did not confine themselves to the narrow or small issues but ranged over many of the very important wider issues which have to be considered in relation to CIE, general policy matters and long-term future. Senators looked at such issues as the role of CIE and transport in Ireland and in our economy, whether the services provided generally represented good value, where, overall CIE were going, the level of direct State support for CIE and the adequacy or otherwise of the moneys now being made available to them. The message came clearly to me that there is wide support for a realistic policy, where CIE's role is defined as clearly as possible. The board must demonstrate their value to the community and the Government must bear their responsibilities in relation to CIE. There is clear agreement that provision of a level of financial support for the social aspects of transport must be within the limits of what the taxpayer can afford to pay. Understandably, I do not agree with everything that was said here. I am not including the Sligo train in that general statement but opposing views have their value also and often help to generate solutions to problems which are more generally acceptable.
I now wish to turn to specific points raised during the course of the debate. I will tend not to dwell so much on points where Senators agree with Government policy in relation to CIE or on specific points which fall for examination by CIE, but to answer questions raised and in giving general information. One common theme was the need or capacity for the improvement by CIE in terms of finances and operations. In this connection, Senator Hillery made an interesting case for the gradual privatisation of CIE's road passenger and road freight services. It was a theme taken up by many other speakers, particularly as regards road passenger services. We appeared to get two sides of the picture. On the one hand, an appealing prospect of private operators busily competing, holding down costs, giving improved services and all at less cost to the consumer and at less cost to the taxpayer; on the other hand, we had Senator Kirwan painting a contrary view based on the unfettered competition of the private operations in the twenties. Senator McGuinness came along to give what might be the outcome of both those approaches. I believe that our objective must be to provide within our limited resources the best possible public transport system regardless of whether it is public or private.
The present legislative framework covering road passenger transport services was devised in the thirties to meet the conditions, naturally, of that time. It has served us well but conditions have changed considerably since then. CIE through their road passenger services and despite the competition of the private buses and private cars, are still the largest bus operators in the country. However, we must also recognise the resurgence of private bus companies which have become a force in the market place in the last ten years. The possibility that private operators could have a larger role in passenger transport is something that we can no longer afford to overlook. We must be prepared to consider other possibilities also.
One thing is clear and that is the need to review the restrictions in road passenger legislation which is now over 50 years old. The Minister has initiated a comprehensive review of the 1932 Road Transport Act which, when completed, will provide a clear basis on which future policy in this area can be developed. On the road freight side the Minister has been considering for some time recommendations on liberalising by the Transport Consultative Commission and is in the course of seeking Government approval for this approach to the issues raised by the commission.
In summary there appears to be scope and a need for competition in public transport. These matters, however, are complex and we must be careful to ensure that a situation is created where the level of investment and involvement in transport is commensurate with its role in the economy.
Before passing on from the subject of privatisation of road passenger services, I should point out that there can often be something of a contradiction in the arguments put forward in the road passenger service area. Indeed, that contradiction was manifested in Senator Hillery's overall approach yesterday. He wants to preserve the railways subject to a review of services while giving free rein to the private sector on the road passenger side. The issue of the railways, which was raised by a number of Senators, is of particular importance since it is the railways which require by far the largest element of subvention.
The losses being sustained by the railways bring me back again to the question of trying to define the social element in our public transport services. This is a question which was raised by quite a number of Senators who asked for specific information in that area. Senators, like all public representatives, must have a big interest in such a definition. They mentioned relevant factors both in terms of hardship — some examples were given — to people who would suffer without particular services and in terms of present or potential passenger demand. Certainly these are criteria to be considered. However, our experience has been that it would be exceptionally difficult to quantify scientifically the social element of public transport services in such terms or on a basis that would be universally acceptable especially in the short-term. In these circumstances, therefore, the Government have adopted the only practicable alternative open to them. This has meant defining their commitment to the maintenance of social service, not in terms of specific services but rather in terms of what Government can at the maximum afford to pay. This, as already mentioned, is the basis on which the Government approved the subvention formula which, as the Senators know, gives CIE a subvention of the lesser of 50 per cent of revenue or 33? per cent of expenditure. It is, of course, not ruled out that at some time in the future we may need to go into the social role of CIE in a more fundamental way. Overall, I think the definition as outlined by me there and the general approach by the Minister and the Government will be beneficial to CIE and also a very clear cut recognition of the social element involved and that, of course, will continue to be involved.
A number of Senators raised the question of CIE's role in the freight market. Senator FitzGerald saw it as an area which could be developed usefully by CIE and Senator Ferris yesterday also touched on this aspect in connection with the exports from our meat factories. CIE's role in the freight market has changed very considerably over the past ten years or so and this was alluded to in many of the contributions. Throughout the seventies there was very considerable reorganisation of and investment in the board's freight operations. By and large, at present CIE's freight business is in the transport of bulk traffic such as Guinness, cement, mineral ores, fertilisers and dangerous bulk substances. One form of traffic mentioned by Senators was the board's sundries rail freight which at one time was quite substantial. Indeed, in this area there has been a dramatic change. This part of CIE's business declined through the seventies from something in the region of 200,000 tons to approximately 60,000 tons, a very dramatic change indeed. This dramatic decline occurred mainly on account of competition from private sector road operators and also mechanisation of labour intensive activities.
The McKinsey Report naturally figured very largely in the contributions as it must do in any general debate on CIE. It is in relation to the freight aspect of CIE's operations that McKinsey have made the most definitive proposals. Looking at McKinsey the most important point to remember about the report is that it is not an instant solution to immediate problems. In fact, it takes the long-term perspective, an approach supported here by Senator Cregan amongst others. The report addressing as it does the major long-term policy issues clearly requires mature consideration. The new subvention arrangements are designed to give the Government and CIE the freedom from immediate financial crisis to consider the longer term issues raised by the McKinsey Report.
A final point on the McKinsey Report that I think I should stress is the fact that the report did not recommend the closure or attenuation of the railway but presented a number of options as well as those in relation to complete closure. I have noted the considerable reservations expressed by Senators Ferris, Kirwan and others as regards implementation of the McKinsey recommendations. As I said a moment ago, McKinsey made a number of recommendations and presented a series of options without a specific recommendation in relation to the railways. We must not be afraid — indeed it follows from the contributions here — to study the issues raised by McKinsey and having taken account of the views of the various interests concerned take any decisions which may be necessary in the long-term interest of the community, the development of the economy and the management of the State finances. These should be our criteria. The Minister made it clear in opening the debate that he has still to finalise his recommendations to Government and these will be made shortly after he has heard from the new chairman of CIE.
Senator Fallon raised the question of the development of a new national transport policy. There is a great deal of confusion about this idea of an overall national transport policy and a great deal of loose and, indeed, facile thinking. People who refer to the need for a national plan or a national policy do not seem very anxious to say what exactly they have in mind. It has to be remembered that while the transport industry is subject to a reasonable degree of regulation, the country's transport services are not all in State ownership nor are they under direct State control.
When we talk of a national policy is it suggested that there should be greater central and public intervention in the transport industry? Is it, for instance, envisaged that the State should determine which transport modes should be used for particular journeys in different types of traffic? Those who apparently advocate an extension of State direction of transport and travel must face up to these questions. The publication of some new form of plan will not in itself eliminate the losses on the railways, or improve the quality of transport services, or in some way serve as a panacea for all transport problems, problems which have defied and continued to defy solutions in almost every other country in the world.
The new subvention arrangements for CIE make it clear that there is no lack of policy planning as far as the transport area is concerned. The Minister since his appointment in late 1982 has devoted an enormous amount of attention to this area. We are seeing the fruits of it and will continue to see the fruits of it in the very near future as he crystalises and finalises ideas and takes them to Government.
Not unnaturally I share the concern expressed by many Senators from the west of Ireland about the quality and quantity of CIE services through the area. Senator O'Toole and Senator Fallon raised the question of development work being carried out at Athlone station. This development is part of the general development work being carried out by CIE. I am sure that Senators will appreciate the need for this development, having regard to the inefficiencies involved in operating two railheads in a town the size of Athlone. The developments, which are subject to the availability of capital, also take into account the need to reorganise transport facilities over the Athlone area. I can allay absolutely the fears of Senator O'Toole that the improvement works being carried out in Athlone — I can assure the House as well — implies any sort of a withdrawal across the railway bridge of the Shannon or, indeed, across Custume Bridge or otherwise, from the west of Ireland. In that respect, I am sure that Senator Andy O'Brien, who was complaining that his bus station was not being looked after in Cavan would be delighted if works were proceeding there. I understand that CIE have a project planned for the bus station in Cavan and there is no doubt that, like many other things throughout the country, it is affected by the pressure on capital expenditure and this has prevented its development so far.
Senator O'Toole also — we have the personal experience of many Senators — told us of the rather interesting experience of being able to avail of a mobile sauna bath between Westport and Claremorris on his way to Dublin. I can assure Senator O'Toole, lest he might have any apprehension in that area, that CIE have no intention of imposing any extra charge for this particular luxury on his way to Dublin.
The new carriages being built at Inchicore will go a long way towards removing many of the complaints that we have and, hopefully, complaints we have about the western train going to Senator Cassidy's town and terminating in the capital of my constituency. However, there will remain concern about transport services generally within the Connacht area. In this connection Senators raised the possibility that CIE would get better results using smaller buses and a more flexible approach to services. I sympathise with that view but I am not sure that it is valid to the extent that it would produce the result that many contributors thought it would.
The suggestion about smaller buses is made because Senators acknowledge that in many cases mere handfuls of passengers are being carried on existing services. This is the real problem that even the privatisation of the service or, indeed, the use of smaller buses, cannot resolve. The difficulty is if the passengers are not there. One does not need to be an economist to see that business without customers cannot survive without some special arrangements. The CIE subvention is designed as that type of special arrangement. However, we must not delude ourselves into believing that it can be stretched to cover every case of every hardship no matter how deserving.
The question of school buses was also raised by a number of Senators. The prospect of fleet replacement and the use of school buses at marginal cost for other purposes were among the issues touched on. I share many of these concerns as, indeed, I am sure does the Minister for Education who is directly responsible for the school bus policy. I have no doubt that the issues raised here will be considered by Government when consideration is being given to the replacement of the school bus fleet.
It is clear that the House shares my concern and the Minister's concern about industrial relations in CIE. Senator O'Brien based virtually his entire speech on this aspect before turning to a number of the local areas in his Cavan-Monaghan area. The views expressed in the House are indeed but a reflection of the views expressed by many outside this House and outside CIE. It is clear that public patience is fast running out. I can assure the House that the Minister has made clear to all levels in CIE the need for improvement and he continues to impress on all the urgent need for a rapid and a big improvement in this area.
On a small but very important point raised by Senator Fitzsimons, the question of the availability of CIE annual reports. I can tell him that the reports for 1980, 1981 and 1982 were held up because of a problem associated with accounts of the hotel section of the industry and the CIE hotels subsidiary, as the Senator may be aware. That has now been resolved and I am glad to be able to tell him that the accounts are being printed and will be ready for presentation to both Houses of the Oireachtas in the course of the next few weeks.
I have noted Senator Durcan's remarks about the difficulty for the disabled travelling by CIE. This is something which I am sure many Deputies and Senators have come across in their constituency work, perhaps not altogether in as acute a form as it came up in the particular case that the Senator mentioned and that received some national publicity recently. The best procedure for me in this case is to forward a copy of the debate to the chairman of CIE and no doubt he will consider many specific operational questions raised by Senator Durcan and others in the course of this debate. Generally speaking, because of the value of the debate as I see it, both the personal experience, the general experience and also the advice given, it would be very wise if CIE had a very close look at the entire report of this debate. I often fear that in political discussions of one sort or another, in our discussions within the Houses of the Oireachtas where great ideas are made available by a variety of people bringing an enormous amount of expertise to bear on them, that they are never read by anyone. One of the values arising out of this debate is that the report should, in fact, be read very carefully by the people who make the policy and by people who work for CIE.
I would like to repeat my thanks to Members of the House for presenting their criticisms and also, let me say their praise of CIE in many cases for a variety of things, and the proposals and approaches to change. I admire their frankness even where I would find difficulty in agreeing with them on policy issues. The debate means that the Minister will have the views of Senators on the record of the proceedings of the House as an input into his consideration of the long-term future of CIE and related matters.
Is mian liom buíochas a ghabháil leis na Seanadóirí uile as ucht an tslí 'nar phléigh siad an rún seo i dtaobh cúraimí Chóras Iompair Éireann. Bhain mé taithneamh as an díospóireacht bríomhar suimiúil a bhí anseo inné is inniu.
Measaim gur cóir go mbeadh flúirse le rá ag Seanadóirí ar an chóras taistil náisiúnta. Ní aontaím le gach rud a bhí le rá ag Seanadóirí ach cuireadh a lán smaointe os mo chomhair a scrúdófar go cúramach nuair a bheidh an tAire ag ullmhú moltaí don Rialtas i dtaobh cúrsaí iompair sna blianta atá romhainn.
