Supplementary Estimate, 1979. - Vote 44: Tourism and Transport. – Dáil Éireann (21st Dáil) – Tuesday, 13 Nov 1979

Supplementary Estimate, 1979. - Vote 44: Tourism and Transport.

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

I would point out that a time limit applies in the case of this debate.

Mr. Bruton

Is this a Supplementary Estimate or the main Estimate?

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

There is no limit on the first speaker; there is a limit of one and a half hours on a Member speaking on behalf of an opposition party and other speakers are allowed one hour. The Member replying to the debate is allowed one and a half hours. It is laid down under Standing Orders.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Faulkner)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £12,342,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of December, 1979, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Tourism and Transport, including certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain grants-in-aid.

This Supplementary Estimate results from excesses of £13,101,000 on six subheads offset to some degree by a total saving of £722,000 on other subheads plus an overall surplus of £37,000 on appropriations-in-aid.

An additional sum of £890,000 is required on this subhead, to meet the £372,000 cost of the application of the terms of the first phase of the pay policy contained in the National Understanding 1979, and the £518,000 cost of increases in salary to a number of the technical and subordinate grades consequential on concession of pay increase claims to other civil service and public sector grades with whom they had established pay relativities and increases in salary to higher officers arising out of implementation of the recommendations of the review body on higher remuneration in the public sector.

The original subvention provision for CIE in the 1979 Estimate was £35 million and this was increased to £45 million under the Supplementary Estimate passed on 18 July 1979. The additional subvention of £10 million was provided at that time as an interim measure to enable CIE to maintain services and it was recognised that there would still remain a further significant excess deficit on the year's operations. CIE now estimate that the total deficit in 1979 on subventible activities will amount to £56 million, representing an increase of £21 million on the original provision.

The need for the increased subvention arises mainly from increases in labour and oil costs, revenue losses due to the effects of industrial disputes and the subsequent non-recovery of customers and to a shortfall in anticipated revenue on freight traffic, particularly in the sundries sector. The increases in labour costs not provided for in the original Estimate amount to over £9 million while increases in oil costs are over £5 million. The shortfall in anticipated revenue amounted to nearly £4 million. The balance of the excess deficit arises from increased pensions, additional maintenance costs and other miscellaneous items. A major factor in the CIE deficit over the years has been the cost of maintaining a railway system which is not viable in commercial terms but which successive Governments have regarded as essential for economic and social reasons. This is a problem which we share with many other countries, including countries with larger populations and larger travel distances than we have in Ireland. The railway still accounts for the largest part of the CIE deficit. In 1978 the deficit on the railway amounted to £30.9 million and the latest estimate for 1979 is £38.8 million. I am glad to record that the pattern of increased passenger carryings on the railway is continuing. On the mainline services the increased business can be mainly attributed to the new timetables introduced in 1977, with increased frequencies on all routes and a reduction in journey times, and to vigorous marketing activities and the development of an attractive fares structure. Proposals for the acquisition of new mainline coaches are under consideration.

There has also been an increase in total rail freight tonnage but sundries traffic has declined. The reduction in sundries traffic is disturbing in view of the considerable capital investment which has been made in the modernisation and re-organisation of rail freight services. It is hoped that the decline in this traffic represents only the transitional problems involved in the changeover from the old to the new systems of operation and that the investment made in the service will prove worthwhile.

Passenger carryings on the Dublin suburban rail services continue to increase. The value of these services has been recognised in the Government's approval of the electrification of the Howth to Bray line, including the provision of new rolling stock and signalling equipment at an estimated cost of £46 million.

Turning from rail to road services, we find that the Dublin city and provincial road passenger services have become a much greater factor in the CIE deficit in recent years. The estimated deficit in 1979 on Dublin city bus services is £11.7 million, compared with £5.2 million in 1978, while the estimated deficit on provincial bus services is £4.6 million compared with £1.2 million in 1978. Apart from the serious deterioration in the financial results, a further disturbing feature is the drop in the number of passengers using these services in recent years. The main fall-off has been in urban areas, particularly Dublin city. There are, of course, serious problems in providing efficient public transport services in the conditions of traffic congestion which exist in Dublin and other urban areas. It was for this reason that I asked the Transport Consultative Commission, which I established in September 1978, to give priority to an examination of the arrangements for the provision of passenger services in the Dublin area.

The situation I have described portrays a gloomy picture of CIE's finances in 1979 despite all the efforts in recent years by the CIE Board and Management, in consultation with the trade unions, in trying to secure cost economies and to attract new traffic. The position is particularly disappointing as the results in the last few years had given hope that the deficit would at least be stabilised in real terms.

Deputies will be aware that, when moving an amendment to a Dáil motion relating to CIE on 3 July last, I expressed my concern at the scale of the increase in CIE's deficit in 1979 and stated that I proposed to have a critical assessment of CIE's financial position undertaken to see what remedial measures should be adopted and how savings might be achieved. In the meantime, I have announced the engagement of McKinsey and Company Incorporated, Management Consultants, to undertake this study. The consultants have been given the following terms of reference:

To examine the reasons for the deterioration in the financial position of CIE and recommend such corrective measures as may be possible to bring about an improvement in the position.

The engagement of McKinsey and Company is not intended to reflect any criticism of the board, management and staff of CIE, whose efforts in recent years to contain losses and increase productivity have already been acknowledged by me. The sharp increase in the board's losses in 1979 is, however, alarming and, even though I appreciate that increases in labour and fuel costs have contributed substantially to this increase, the fact that CIE require subvention of £56 million this year is a matter of serious concern for the Government.

Apart from identifying the reasons for the substantial increase in CIE's losses, the consultants will carry out a study in depth of CIE's four main businesses, the railway, Dublin city services, provincial road passenger services and road freight, to establish whether there is any scope for further cost reductions and revenue improvements in each of those sectors. The consultant's task will take about six months and, as soon as they have reported, the Government will be better able to decide whether any change is necessary in existing policy and, if so, the various options open to them.

Deputies are aware that the Transport Consultative Commission are at present examining the role of urban road and rail passenger services in the Dublin area. I understand that the Commission expect to be able to submit their report to me in this matter early in the New Year.

I must also compliment the members of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies on the valuable and well-balanced report on CIE which they recently published. Their report will make a useful input to the formulation of future transport policy.

On the tourism front, I do not have to spell out the special difficulties that the industry had to contend with this year. The postal dispute affected the entire industry to some extent but principally in the non-STD areas. These difficulties were intensified by the petrol problem which was with us throughout the whole of the high season and appeared to threaten a collapse of the business. Apart from these difficulties, the worldwide energy crisis led to higher international travel costs and higher inflation and pushed the world economy further into the minor recession that now exists. The energy problem affected the level of discretionary income and the propensity to travel, so that tourism demand, worldwide, was slightly dampened and we saw the effects of this in some of our markets.

I am glad to say that the response of Bord Fáilte and the entire industry was magnificent. The board exercised all its resources to assist the industry to overcome its problems and co-operation from the carries and the industry itself was exceptional. The combined effort saved us from the worst effects of the difficulties. On the fuel front, the Government responded very early to ensure adequate supplies to the industry for heating and cooking and later, when the petrol shortages began to bite, the Government approved the introduction of the petrol voucher scheme which provided a great reassurance for intending visitors and enabled the industry to continue selling its products. Bord Fáilte, in conjunction with the carriers and the industry, launched aggressive marketing efforts to make up for lost ground and I, personally, spearheaded promotional campaigns in England, Germany and the Netherlands. I had, of course, done a tourism promotion in the US earlier in the year. I am glad to say that the concerted efforts of the whole industry have paid off and have confounded those who were prophesying disaster and, indeed, thereby aggravating the problems. The bleak situation at the beginning of June was completely turned around. By the end of August the industry had recovered and September and October were very successful months.

It is still too soon to predict the final outcome for the year. However, I am quite confident that, while some areas and sectors will have done better than others, overall we will at least have held our own with 1978, which, it must be recalled, was our best year ever for tourism. Preliminary figures at my disposal would suggest that we will slightly exceed last year's record overseas tourist numbers and that total revenue will exceed the £400 million mark for the first time as against £376 million in 1978.

All of this extra activity to overcome difficulties, to operate and maintain the petrol voucher scheme and to undertake extra promotion in key areas cost money. On the other hand, Bord Fáilte were able to effect savings throughout their organisation by general economies introduced across the board and by saving in particular areas. The net cost was of the order of £390,000, to which must be added the cost of salaries under the national wage agreements, producing the total sum of £550,000 now required.

This Supplementary Estimate is designed to provide an additional £39,000 for the Shannon Free Airport Development Company Limited. The company require this amount in order to cover increases under the 1979 agreement on pay policy as well as other pay increases. Provision was not made in the original Estimate of £673,000 for the pay increases in question.

The Supplementary Estimate for subhead M includes a sum of £456,000 to meet expenditure arising out of the establishment of a tribunal of inquiry into the Betelgeuse disaster at Bantry Bay on 8 January.

The provision covers such items as the engagement of consultancy and technical services to assist in the investigation and assembly of evidence for the tribunal, the cost of accommodation and the provision of back-up services for the hearings and the fees and expenses of the assessors. To date, payments totalling about £280,000 have been made. The hearings of the tribunal are continuing.

Mr. Deasy

This Supplementary Estimate makes most depressing reading. I hoped the Minister had some good news for us but it seems to be one loss after another for CIE. I just do not know where it is going to stop. Would the Minister spell out a little more clearly what the future holds for this State-sponsored body? What hope has he of reversing the trend of ever-increasing losses, year after year, losses which have to be made up by increased State subventions? Only last July we had a Supplementary Estimate to keep CIE on the road—or on the rails, for that matter. On that occasion, it was for a very hefty sum of some £10 million. Today we are asked to provide an additional £11 million.

We all accept that CIE, to an extent, are a social service and that their road section, in particular, is bound to be in a loss-making position. We are entitled to ask, as representatives of the taxpayers, does the loss have to be so great? Is the only solution to reduce the amount of railway lines and the number of people working within CIE? We were told during the late fifties and right through the sixties that the solution to the losses on the railways was to close uneconomic lines and hundreds of miles of railway lines have been closed in the past 20 years. The losses, however, have not stopped; they have increased drastically. According to the National Prices Commission report last March, the losses on the railways have increased from £3 million in 1969 to an estimated £30 million in 1979. The losses have multiplied by ten in the space of ten years.

I was interested to read the comments of the general manager of CIE when he spoke in Dublin recently. He said that it is not fair to blame CIE for these losses year in and year out, that the reasons were not totally theirs, that they needed a very heavy subvention to modernise their rolling stock and to provide a good standard of service to the public, but that the capital for the rolling stock in question—the rolling stock to which he referred were passenger carriages—was not forthcoming when requested from the Government. I would like the Minister to tell us this evening why this capital has not been provided. Surely if the service is to do well they must have an adequate level of equipment at their disposal. I have been aware of comments to the same effect from other senior personnel within CIE in recent months when they stated categorically that they are not getting the capital to provide the necessary equipment they need for the type of service they wish to provide. They say that the shortfall in moneys being voted to them has gone on for some two years past and that virtually no new rolling stock has been provided during that time. I ask the Minister to make some comment on these statements by senior executives of CIE. We have not had any public reply from him or from any spokesman in his Department in answer to these statements. The public and we on this side of the House are entitled to know his views on such an important item.

I do not know where to start and where to stop the curtailing of rail services. I have always been of the opinion that traffic should be diverted to the railways and that there should be some form of compulsory system whereby heavy traffic would be diverted from certain roads and highways to the rail system. It seems a horrible waste of good money to have road freight services competing with railway goods trains carrying the very same type of traffic when there is such a vast shortage of fuel oil and petrol at present, which is so costly to import anyway and when the availability of supplies in the future is so much in doubt. I ask the Minister if he has any proposals or ideas about how duplication of such services could be stopped.

The Minister pointed out that he has asked a firm of consultants who are experts in this field, McKinsey and Company, to report on the workings of CIE and to make suggestions as to how matters might be improved. He said that that company have been asked to examine the reasons for the deterioration in the financial position of CIE and to recommend such corrective measures as may be possible to bring about an improvement in the position. We are politicians and we do not have the business acumen to point out the methods by which services could be improved, but as laymen we are intelligent enough to know that there must be something drastically wrong. The Minister makes a rather blanket statement when he says that the fault is not within CIE, it is not with the management of CIE and it is not in the running of CIE. I contend that it must be. Where else does the fault lie? I am sure that McKinsey are going to point out glaring deficiencies in the running of CIE at present.

Not alone are we entitled to ask why the railway services are losing such huge amounts of money, we must ask why services which heretofore have been highly profitable, such as the road freight service which is barely holding its own at the moment, and the provincial bus services which were losing a small amount a couple of years ago but whose losses have trebled, according to the Minister, within a matter of a year or so, are losing so heavily. Why are the Dublin bus services losing heavily? According to the report from the NPC last March, this year it is estimated that losses on the Dublin bus services will be over £5.5 million, whereas not too long ago those very same services were making a profit. Something drastic has happened within the framework of CIE which has resulted in very heavy losses. The railway deficit has increased from £30.9 million last year to an estimated loss of £38.8 million this year which is an increase of virtually £10 million in losses. You will have to excuse me, a Cheann Comhairle, when I state that the figures in the NPC Report last March are incorrect in that it is estimated that this year the loss will be £11.7 million compared with the loss of £5.2 million last year, and this is another huge increase. The losses in the provincial bus services this year are estimated to be £4.6 million compared with £1.2 million last year. In some cases the losses have doubled and in other cases they have trebled inside a year and they cannot be explained away by oil increases alone. Early in his statement the Minister told us that oil increases are responsible for losses in the region of £5 million. The losses during the past year to which I have referred are considerably in excess of that amount. Indeed, they are multiples of £5 million. Something must be extremely wrong in the organisation of these services.

The railway system in this country is not extensive; in comparison with Great Britain or any continental country it would be quite tiny. To have a loss in the region of £39 million or £40 million is just inconceivable and, in view of the fact that that railway system has been decimated over the past 20 years by previous Ministers, it is difficult to understand the present high rate of loss. Last year there was a proposal, regarding another very large stretch of railway line running from Rosslare Harbour to Limerick, to close the goods train services on that line. Luckily, that was stopped and the proposal did not go ahead. It is highly inconsistent and very wrong that we should close railways. In years to come we will rue the fact that so many of the railways were closed down and the lines sold back to adjacent landowners. If the services were not paying, at least the lines should have been retained until such time as the railways would be in a position to make a reasonable profit or even to be run at not too great a deficit.

In view of EEC regulations for juggernauts and other heavy transport our roads are not able to stand up to the strain of container traffic coming in from the Continent. It seems very foolish policy to allow that traffic to go on our roadways and to break up road surfaces when that very same traffic could be moved throughout the country by means of our railway system. Some of our semi-State companies do make great use of the railway lines but far too many private operators do not do so. This heavy centralisation of this very substantial traffic should be done away with or curtailed seriously. I cannot see the sense in having these very heavy vehicles breaking up road surfaces, the repairing of which is costing tens of millions of pounds each year. The Minister for the Environment is being pressed by local authorities all over the country for huge increases in the estimate for his road programme every year because the roads cannot take the battering they are receiving from the huge increase in heavy traffic. They were not built to carry this type of traffic.

Our commissioner in Europe, Mr. Dick Burke, recently put forward proposals to the EEC Commission for substantial subventions to improve the road and railway systems here. Have the Government put any specific proposals to the EEC Commission for substantial sums of money to finance the type of improvements which have been put forward by our commissioner? They involve vast expenditure on a number of roadways. The ones mentioned were the Dublin-Galway road, and the Dublin-Cork road as well as a vast amount of the railway network.

It is not compatible to have two systems of transport running side by side and to have one costing us money because it is destroying the roadways and the other costing us money because it is not being sufficiently utilised by the people transporting goods. It seems very basic to ensure that we are not duplicating services but rather are complementing them and, in some cases, supplementing them.

There is no simple answer to the railway system even if a lot of the heavy traffic at present using the roads was diverted to the railways. Railways are a social service and in all circumstances they should be retained. They are a very safe method of travelling, despite the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's unfortunate experience, and they are fuel-saving. We need to look towards fuel-saving services in these days of very scarce oil supplies, which are in jeopardy from day to day depending on the situation in Iran and other parts of the Middle East.

It is hard to believe that we are losing money on services which in the past were profit-making and which should still be in that position. The road freight service is just about breaking even. This is pointed out quite clearly in the report of the recent Joint Oireachtas Committee on State-sponsored Bodies when we were told that road freight is one of the few things holding its own. Private operators with less lucrative runs are making a very handsome income. Why cannot CIE make a good profit in the operation of this service?

The provincial bus services, according to the Minister's statement, had a loss last year of £4.6 million. In the past those services were a profit-making concern and there is no reason why they should be losing money at the moment. I know of a number of private bus operators throughout the country who are making a very good living. They have the poorest possible routes because the money-spinning routes have been retained by CIE. If private bus operators can make those bus services pay, it is very difficult to understand why CIE with the more lucrative runs have to incur a loss of £4.6 million in a year. There must be a case for handing back to private enterprise a lot of the bus routes.

I believe this idea has been put forward to the Minister by the Association of Private Bus Owners who would be very glad to get their hands on some of the services which CIE are operating at the moment, and which the private bus owners feel could operate at a profit. This would save the taxpaper and would provide the people in the private sector with a good living. We would have to make sure that the employment content was retained. I do not see any difficulty in this regard because CIE have had a rationalisation programme with regard to employment in recent years. Their staff have been reduced to such an extent that it should be possible to retain the existing work force within any sector in CIE handed over to the private sector.

We cannot say that the troubles in CIE at the moment are due to too much manpower. They probably only have sufficient to carry on with. It is necessary to look elsewhere within the organisation for the reasons behind their losses. We look forward to the McKinsey Report telling us quite clearly where the problems lie and what should be done to rectify them.

The Dublin bus services were the pride of CIE some years ago because they were making a very good profit. The Minister's statement today shows that there has been a complete reversal in that trend. They have gone from a profit-making situation to a heavy loss-making problem. Other factors besides fuel increases must be taken into consideration. The traffic chaos in Dublin must affect the bus services and must inhibit CIE's chances of making a profit. It is very difficult to quantify the degree to which this traffic chaos is responsible for the loss in the Dublin bus services. A scheme was put forward some years ago to leave a lane free for buses alone but that scheme did not get off the ground and was abandoned. A similar attempt should now be made to solve the problem. How can buses be expected to run to schedule when there are thousands of people using private cars on inadequate roads? It is necessary to have some rationalisation in this sector, whether it is banning private cars from the city centre or using some rota system. We cannot allow an unlimited number of cars to travel in and out of Dublin every day and be in competition with bus services which are losing us £11.7 million this year.

If our experience of other reports from consultants regarding State bodies is to be repeated in this instance it will be several years before the McKinsey report is available and perhaps several more years before its proposals are implemented. Even after such a length of time we may not be satisfied with the extent of the proposals or with the method of their implementation. Therefore, I urge the Minister to impress on the traffic authorities in Dublin the urgency of the situation.

It is important that CIE work in conjunction with the corporation in working out a viable system immediately and not wait for years, because something must be done drastically in this situation. The £11.7 million loss this year is more than double the loss in 1978. If that trend continues the loss may be £20 million next year and up to £40 million in the following year. Time is all important in dealing with this situation. We cannot afford to delay at a time when the traffic situation in Dublin is so bad, when the bus service is poor and when the public are becoming more frustrated because of the non-availability of a proper transport service.

We must be prepared to take the drastic action that is needed to rectify the situation. We must ensure that at least the buses are allowed run freely instead of being held up in traffic jams at peak hours. As some comedian was heard to say the other day, rush hour in Dublin has become the time of day when nothing moves. Any of us who has experienced Dublin traffic between, say, 4.30 p.m. and 6 p.m. any day will realise how bad the situation is. At that time traffic is at a snail's pace so that one might spend an hour on a journey of only a very short distance. That situation can only worsen having regard to the increasing number of cars on the road. Unless the necessary traffic restrictions are introduced, the situation will not improve and the losses will continue to be incurred.

The Government have the duty of ensuring that CIE as a semi-State body must, in co-operation with the local authority, devise solutions to the problems which are costing the State and, consequently, the taxpayer enormous amounts of money.

The other services operated by the CIE board are not as extensive as those to which I have referred. Most of the hotels that were operated by the company have been sold. While I wish the new proprietors the best of luck, it can be said that they brought these various premises at bargain prices, for a song, as it were. If the premises were to come on the market again, they would be likely to fetch up to 10 times the price paid to CIE for them some years ago. However, that is all water under the bridge and the hotels that were retained by the company seem to be operating on a good financial basis.

I am intrigued by the fact that CIE, as part of their operations, own a harbour, that is, Rosslare Harbour. Perhaps the Minister would let us know the amount of money that has been spent on that harbour. I am raising the matter because people associated with other harbours consider it unfair that they should have to compete with a harbour that is owned by the State and which is thereby in receipt of subventions from the State. Rosslare is an essential harbour and its performance down through the years has been excellent but there is such a concept as free trade. I wonder whether harbour authorities in other areas are able to avail of the same type of financial assistance as is the case in respect of Rosslare. If the answer is in the negative perhaps the Minister would consider whether these other harbours are entitled also to these subventions for the purpose of undertaking major works. With the exception of those harbours which were included in the 1946 Act, harbours in general are neglected. Many of them could put financial subventions to good use. Rosslare Harbour is in the enviable position of being able to call on State funds when necessary.

If the Minister had done his job with regard to the postal dispute and if the truth about the petrol situation had been spelled out in time, this year might have been exceptional too, perhaps exceeding the £500 million mark.

The estimate before us gives rise to great concern. Indeed, what it contains has been the subject of a number of editorials in the national press. These editorials put the question as to when there would be a halt to the vast losses being incurred by CIE. It is imperative that the McKinsey Report be available within a matter of months in order that something might be done to remedy the situation rather than to have us going into the eighties with the prospect of a deficit of the order of £56 million or more than £1 million per week in terms of losses incurred by CIE. At the present rate of increase it would not be too long until the company would be in a loss situation of £100 million per year.

I trust that the Minister will show some initiative in tackling this problem. The taxpayer must not be expected to foot the Bill year after year for these extraordinary losses. We want to hear what the Minister intends doing to try to halt the present trend for 1980 and for the following years.

Dr. O'Connell

I accept that on first reading this Estimate appears to paint a very depressing picture with the massive losses by CIE. However, I am of the opinion that CIE provide a national social service. It was never intended that CIE should make a profit but rather that they should provide a proper rail and road service for the country. Therefore we must accept that CIE must be and will be a loss-making operation. Like the rail services throughout Europe, and indeed through the world CIE rail services can expect to continue to be a loss-making operation because they must serve remote areas and in doing so provide a social service. Having said that, I do not accept that they should continue their hell bent course of massive losses every year. Those losses should not go unrestrained.

I am dismayed to hear that McKinsey and Company have been engaged to carry out an examination of the whole structure of CIE and make their recommendations. Indeed I came across that body before they were a great favourite with the late Mr. Childers who was one time Minister for Transport and Power. They came out with a complex set of documents in relation to our health boards which never solved our health problems in any way but set up a massive bureaucracy and the costs of our health services have run riot ever since. There should be a vote of no confidence in this company. In fact, engaging McKinsey and Company is a total indictment of the present management of CIE. In doing that we are saying that the people in CIE are not able to do their job and should be fired. McKinsey and Company are only pseudo-experts, masquerading as experts; they come in here and profess to be able to solve our problems. In 1960, long before I had anything to do with politics, I met a man socially who told me his company in Britain were engaged to come here and examine the structure of CIE and report on their losses and to provide solutions. He told me at that time that his fee was £155 per day. He came over on a Monday morning and went back to Britain on a Thursday and he was being paid £155 per day for doing this job. No one knows what his credentials were. The loss-making operation continued and escalated in the next few years. This is what is happening with this latest firm of consultants being engaged here and it is a terrible indictment of the management of CIE that this should happen. The Minister should call in the management of CIE and tell them that he is not happy with the way things are running and that he would like to see an improvement.

That is the course of action that should be taken by the Minister.

I will go over certain aspects of the service. As Deputy Deasy said, we are all laymen but that does not necessarily mean that if we bring in economists we will get the service operating better or the management structure improved. I do not subscribe to that opinion at all. It seems that the rail services have deteriorated with regard to freight because CIE have openly campaigned for an increase in road freight services to the disadvantage of the rail freight services. CIE have openly promoted road freight services which are cluttering our roads and damaging road surfaces. They are the big villain in this because they have actively promoted this. That is the first mistake they have made and I do not hear the Minister asking what is being done to halt that terrible slide away from the rail freight services.

Next I will take the Government's lack of insight in not providing for a massive capital investment for CIE over the years. This has been sadly lacking and as a result the whole service has deteriorated. Let us take the case of the provincial bus services. They were profit making and operating reasonably effectively. Whenever things were going wrong the experts in CIE, with the tacit approval of the Government, shoved up the fares all the time. In this respect there is a lesson to be learned from the Swedish internal airline. They brought in a new executive in his thirties and when he saw that the airline was declining badly and was a vast loss-making operation he immediately reduced the fares substantially contrary to normal economics and now the Swedish internal airline is a very lucrative operation. That was his approach to a declining commercial operation such as an internal airline and this is what I would advocate for CIE. The fares on the provincial bus services have been increased to the extent that they have become prohibitive and discourage people from using the service. Now the private operators come in operating much more successfully at a cheaper rate and we have the situation as it is now.

In Dublin also we have the same thing. We have discouraged the public from using the buses. We have increased the fares over and over again until people say that it would be better to provide their own transport. In addition there has been a vote of no confidence in CIE city bus services. This has happened because CIE have not been able to provide a proper, reasonable and effective bus service; our whole bus service has collapsed because they have not taken effective measures to provide a proper service. Some time ago I advocated that they might look at it rationally to see how could they improve the bus service. When I made this proposal I was told it was not a matter for them and when I brought it up before the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy he said it was not a matter for him. The problem is that Ministers are inclined to compartmentalise their operation and never look beyond this narrow tunnel in which they are in their Department; they never see that perhaps they might consult with their colleagues to bring about solutions to problems.

I will mention that Dublin city's traffic is in an appalling situation every day, not only at peak hours but throughout the day. At the same time trucks are double-parked while loading and unloading throughout the day. This makes the situation even worse. I suggested that such loading and unloading might take place during off-peak hours, thereby facilitating the flow of traffic. The drivers would get through their work in a shorter period. Arrangements could be made for those people to work for shorter periods to compensate for the unsocial hours they might have to work outside normal peak working time. This one measure could bring about an efficient traffic system and would facilitate the operation of CIE buses.

I think there are nine railway stations around the perimeter of Dublin and they could be opened up tomorrow. If the suburban rail services were used it would be of considerable benefit to all. Those stations could be opened tomorrow if there was the political will and if there was proper management by the board of CIE.

I suggested also that we might provide an incentive to car drivers by providing proper car parks on the perimeter of the city, perhaps at the stations, and operate a fast, non-stop, single deck bus service to the city. I know that car drivers would avail of this service if the proper facilities were provided. CIE have not taken any approach with regard to this matter. When I came into this House in 1965 one of my first questions was to ask the Minister to consider this suggestion, but it was ignored. It has been ignored ever since even though I have raised the matter on numerous occasions.

The bus lanes were never seriously tried. It was an experiment that was done in isolation. It is not possible to get miracles from one operation. We will need a combination of factors: bus lanes, off-peak loading and unloading of trucks, perimeter parking and a fast bus service to the centre. It could be done very easily. It would facilitate the proper operation of CIE buses so that they could keep to schedule, thus restoring confidence in CIE services. It could also contribute to improved profitability for the bus service. I wonder why an effort has not been made to do something about the traffic situation. If CIE are not competent they should be fired. That is what would happen with any other firm and I see no reason why it should not happen to CIE. The attitude and policy of CIE has been to increase fares all the time, thus discouraging people from using the services. It is the law of diminishing returns. The losses will get greater each year because no proper vision has been applied to cope with the traffic problem in Dublin.

CIE have an appalling industrial relations problem and they have contributed on many occassions to very many strikes. We have no indication now that we will have a winter free of strikes in the bus services. We should consider setting up some body to examine the industrial relations problems in CIE on a regular basis. In this way we could have an early warning system with regard to possible strikes. We would be able to forestall them and ensure that the public at least could have a proper bus service. This is an area that calls for immediate action. Bus drivers and conductors are in an unusual situation. I know from the medical point of view that the stress on them is tremendous and that the incidence of coronaries among these people is higher than normal. The Minister should consider seriously how their working conditions might be improved; he should consider shortening their working hours. If this were done they could tackle their work with much more satisfaction in the knowledge that the stress was greatly reduced. The wages and conditions in CIE are not good. People are forced to work abnormal hours in order to get a proper wage and that is wrong. It is a bad example for a semi-State body to set for the rest of the country.

We have been very short-sighted in our approach to CIE's problems. On the advice of experts the Harcourt Street line was demolished. Within a month of the decision the bridge was demolished and the rail tracks were pulled up. This was a criminal thing to do but it was done with the approval of the Government. Now we are going to see the same thing happening again. The experts will make their recommendations,- the tracks will be pulled up and the system will be destroyed. Nothing can restore the Harcourt Street line but at the time they could not rip it up fast enough. I am afraid the same thing will happen again as a result of reports from organisations such as McKinsey, the management consultants.

I do not know who has been in command in CIE but they have done their best to destroy the system. They have sold off the hotels, the one profit-making area. The bus-making operation in Inchiore was handed over to private enterprise. We knew it was an effective service, that we needed it badly because it was part of the CIE operation; but the board, with the approval of the Government, were prepared to pass it over to private hands. We know what happened. It collapsed and CIE are depending now on foreign companies to provide buses. This is a terrible indictment of CIE. They disregarded the national interest and it should never have been tolerated. I am critical of CIE management and their policy. To my mind they have not operated in the national interest.

It was depressing to note what happened with regard to tourism last year. All of us should feel rather shocked. I think this country is hell-bent on selfdestruction. We have strikes continuing and going beyond the beyonds. We hold the European record with regard to strikes. There is a lack of political will and there is no effort to try to forestall strikes. The Chair may think I am departing somewhat from the matter before the House——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is off the track.

Dr. O'Connell

The Minister mentioned it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister mentioned it in passing as one of the causes for certain things happening in relation to tourism and that is all the Deputy may do.

Dr. O'Connell

It is depressing that it should have happened. We have a tourist industry which could bring us great benefits and great revenue. Everything should be done to try to expand it. We should not be trying to destroy it. We are in keen competition with other countries with far more favourable climates. We should remember that fact. We should do everything possible to promote the tourist industry and not try to sabotage it by direct or indirect means. I hope the Minister will look beyond today and tomorrow to next year to see how we can avoid the mistakes of the past. The tragedy is that we do not seem to be able to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Mr. Moore

I welcome the Estimate, which shows a sense of realism despite the fact that it is very costly. The Minister gave us a very good explanation why we have to pay these vast sums of money. It is depressing that each year we witness these losses, but there are reasons for them. Despite the best efforts of the Minister, during the year he was not able to wipe out the deficits; but I have no doubt that because of his actions they have been kept in some check. Were it not for the actions taken by the Minister and the Government the position could be much worse.

This year especially we must examine very deeply the causes of the losses and try to set up some priorities so that in the coming year we will be able to reduce the deficits despite rising costs. Like other State bodies, CIE have been badly hit by strikes in the past year. I agree this is not the time to discuss industrial unrest, but I suggest that as a top priority we must try to ensure that we have a satisfied staff in CIE. If there is goodwill all round we can achieve that, and that is the basis on which we can build a really good transport service. Without it, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a service which suits the public and the industrial sector so far as the roadfreight and rail freight services are concerned.

I am particularly interested in the Dublin bus services. I use them occassionally but not very often, unlike most Dubliners and most visitors. The Government and the local authorities will have to take drastic action if our bus services are not to cease altogether. I get continuous complaints from people in the city about the infrequent and bad bus services. CIE admit that the services are not what they want them to be. In fairness to the management of CIE, we must recognise the fact that the traffic conditions in the city are very bad indeed. Recently a CIE official stated that it took a bus one hour to get from the Ringsend depot to the centre city, before starting to provide a service to a suburb, because of the traffic jams on that route. There was a time when peak hour traffic could be avoided, but now every hour seems to be a peak hour and there are traffic jams all the time. Yet, when the local authority come forward with an imaginative suggestion to improve road conditions it meets with great opposition.

It must be recognised that CIE are trying to operate a modern bus service on streets designed for 18th century traffic. There have been some improvements outside the city, but not in the inner city. It is almost impossible to keep a double deck bus moving in some of the streets. I should like to pay tribute to the crews on the buses who try so hard. We will also have to consider further road measures to provide free access for the buses to and from their termini. Very shortly the corporation will be introducing a trial bus lane. We tried this before but the idea was not proceeded with, wrongly I thought. This time we will proceed with it, and it may prove to be of some help to CIE.

Recently during the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, CIE put up a tremendous performance. They gave us a great service by rail and by road. The road service was helped by the fact that there was a huge reduction in the number of cars allowed into the city that morning. CIE came through with flying colours on that day when the city had a colossal influx of visitors going to the Phoenix Park.

I can see many faults in the management of CIE. I refer to dirty buses. I saw a bus yesterday morning and all the sweepings had been left on the step. If we are to reduce the deficit on the Dublin bus services we will have to make them attractive to people. CIE might consider reducing fares to make them more attractive, or even abolishing them altogether. This might attract the mortorists who are blocking the streets to use the services of CIE. It is a vicious circle. CIE do not provide a good service and, therefore, people use their own cars, thus causing more congestion. The Minister might consider advising CIE to reduce their fares. The service must be made attractive because too much money is being lost.

I know we have powers to keep cars out of the city, and in some cities certain cars are prohibited from entering on certain days. In one city I read about they are allowing cars in with even numbers on certain days, and cars with odd numbers on certain other days. I am not for compulsion. There is no use in asking people to make use of the present bus service. If you walk down O'Connell Street or any street any night during the winter, you will see unfortunate people in a huddle waiting for buses which may take an hour to come. They are drenched and they are very discontented with CIE and the rest of us. Dublin is expanding so fast that the problem is becoming more difficult. CIE will have to pull up their socks and provide us with a decent bus service. At the same time the motorist will have to learn to help in this drive to give us a really efficient bus service.

I know CIE will say the corporation should put their house in order and provide better streets and reduce the volume of traffic in the city. We have a traffic study group composed of the Garda, who are the traffic authority, the corporation, CIE and some officials of other bodies. They examine the traffic problem all the time and they make interim reports. Interim measures are taken, but they are not working effectively.

I appeal not only to motorists but to manufacturers delivering goods in the city. I shall mention one sector, namely, the breweries. There are very many public houses in Dublin, hardly a street without one, and we seem to have an insatiable thirst for the products. The result is that it is very difficult to drive through a street where brewery vans, distillery vans or mineral water vans are delivering. These goods go into the cellars which opens on the pathways. Pedestrians cannot get by and go on to the road and very often have to walk outside the parked delivery van. You have the congestion caused by the van aggravated by the congestion caused by the pedestrians forced to walk outside it, creating further hazards for themselves and those using the roadway. Delivery men may say they will not work unsocial hours but I appeal to them to consider doing so for a trial period. Let them be compensated either financially or with time off. I am convinced that if this were done it would lead to great improvement in the city traffic situation and that CIE would be helped tremendously.

I have great sympathy for CIE drivers. I do not know how they tolerate the fumes from buses and cars while caught in traffic jams—these fumes tear out one's lungs and make this a most unhealthy city. On the occasion of the Papal visit the people showed what we could do and on the basis that we could do this we should be able to provide citizens and visitors with a proper bus service. To be able to do so we must all make a little sacrifice which would be well worthwhile. Otherwise, we shall have the city choked with traffic, no bus service and no cars moving.

Most people are affected by the bus service in the city despite the number of cars we have. Many have no cars and we must think of them. Children going to school, people travelling to hospitals and people going to work must all be catered for. I appeal to all concerned to ride over the difficulties. If we could do it for the Papal visit, we could do it again if there was goodwill. It costs the taxpayer a great deal to keep CIE going but apart from reducing that burden it is much more important to provide a better bus service than we have at present. I am continually getting complaints by people who use buses about the lack of service and I appeal to CIE to try out some new ideas to relieve the hardship there is at present. I am told that absenteeism is very rife in CIE. I do not want to cause alarm but it is something which should be examined. I was recently shown a bus depot which was full of buses. I thought it might be a valley hour when they were not needed but I was told that there were no crews to take them out. There must be some reason for the absenteeism and it must be probed to discover the cause and, if possible, the cure.

Next year I look forward to having a brighter picture of CIE. I believe that the management is efficient but perhaps not bold enough in their measures to improve the service. I am glad that the Government have agreed to the electrification of the old Bray rail line which will be a tremendous help. I trust the work will be expedited. I regret the passing of the electric trams, which gave good service. Provided the ESB could supply the necessary current—which is not at all sure—we could reduce our oil imports. Electrification of rails will help enormously.

The Harcourt Street line was mentioned already, and in the next few days the corporation and CIE are meeting to see if there is any possibility of restoring that line. I am not very optimistic but it is worth a try because south-east county Dublin has been built up to such an extent since that line was destroyed and there are so many thousands of extra houses now in that area that if we could get back some sort of rail service there it would be a great boon. People living in Blackrock, Dún Laoghaire, Bray or on the north side are fortunate to have a train service to the city which is widely availed of. If some of the closed stations were reopened pending electrification of the line, it would ease the burden on the buses. I do not know why CIE do not tackle this matter with greater vigour. People would now use the old stations.

We must remember the great loss of production due to the late arrival of workers at their jobs as a result of bad transport service. A person in Tallaght, for instance, who has no car is dependent on buses which are not reliable. We should demand that efforts be made to improve the Dublin city bus service because people are becoming exasperated by having to wait hours for buses, some of which never come. The rail service could be a tremendous help and go a long way towards solving traffic problems.

I am not surpised at the loss on CIE railways because I doubt if any rail service in the world is paying its way today. Railways were great when motor cars were not popular or available, but in our present affluent society not only is there a car to each family but in some cases many families have three cars. Yet most families have no car and must depend on buses or trains. Bus and train services are essential and cannot be done without even if everybody could afford a car. I look forward to the report of the consultants which the Minister has appointed and also to the report of the other committee that is sitting in the hope that some concrete proposals will emerge that can be quickly acted on. A proper bus service is essential for the vast majority of the people. This is partly because the city is extending so much. The SDA houses are now out in County Kildare, in County Meath and County Wicklow. We are trying to cater for these people with an antiquated service. I wish the Minister well in dealing with the problems he is facing. We can do a good job but it should be done quickly because people are really suffering all the time.

On tourism, the Minister must be congratulated on his report. We probably never had a more disastrous year than last year. We had a post strike which adversely affected our tourist industry and an oil shortage which affected almost every other country as well. Despite that, Bord Fáilte buckled down to the job and the Minister visited several countries. This had a tremendous effect on tourism and next year may be better.

We can all help in the tourist drive. The Irish people have a tradition of hospitality and I hope we have not lost it. Nothing impresses a tourist more than to meet a friendly person. This is even more important in these days of violence. There is violence in most countries nowadays. We are learning to live with it. We thank God that we do not have violence in most of this country. I congratulate Bord Fáilte on the wonderful job they have done in attracting tourists, despite the propaganda of violence.

The tourist industry is the second most important part of our economy. While all tourists are welcome, we should concentrate on attracting the British tourist. Many of these people have been coming here year after year because they enjoy themselves. Each person should play his or her part in the tourist drive to make the stay of the tourist more attractive.

A sum of £50,000 is being provided in this Estimate to pay for the inquiry into the Whiddy Island tragedy. I sympathise with the relatives of the people who died in that tragedy. Unfortunately this money will not bring any of them back, but I hope we will never have another such tragedy.

I hope the suggestions I made will help. CIE are facing a gigantic task but with Government backing, with CIE initiative and with the help of the local authorities, we can give this city a better transport service because the present service is pitiful. I know there are reasons for this but we must find solutions. It is unfair to ask the people who use this service to continue suffering. People who use cars may become immune to the suffering of the people standing in bus queues. I sometimes use the bus service and I am not impressed. To force a person to stand in a queue on a cold evening after a hard day's work is just not good enough. If CIE cannot provide a better service, some thought should be given to changing the system.

Again I congratulate the Minister for his efforts in the transport and tourist sectors. I hope when he presents his Estimate next year we will have not alone have cut the loss incurred by CIE but will have provided a better bus service for this and other cities.

Mr. Hegarty

I could not agree more with what the previous speaker said. We wish CIE well but down the years they have missed a number of opportunities. At one time as chairman of a sugar beet organisation I put a very sensible project to them. I had gone to the United States to research that project. The idea was that the sugar beet would be taken to local venues, weighed and then hauled to where it was needed. Regrettably they did not take my advice and their share of the sugar beet haulage market at the moment must be minimal. The result is that hauliers, who at that time had comparatively small vehicles and would have been very pleased to row in with the situation, have now invested in juggernauts which have to travel on roads which are incapable of carrying them. As a result of CIE's failure to capture this very lucrative business for the railways, we now have an endless stream of traffic on our roads, in particular the Cork-Mallow road, which are incapable of taking this traffic. My colleague, Deputy Deasy, will deal with that subject in more detail.

This has been a disastrous season for the tourist industry. I met a number of hoteliers during the by-elections and they told me their problems. They have a complete lack of confidence in the coming season. That is the message I am getting loud and clear. They have a short-term problem with their banks because this year has not measured up to expectations, far from it.

Tourism is a very significant employer. It is the third greatest industry in the country. Direct employment amounts to 25,000 people, 85 per cent of whom are full-time and almost all are Irish. The tourist industry confers benefits on the less-developed areas. There are many hotels in Dublin but there is also a considerable hotel business in places like west Cork and the west. There is also indirect employment, utilisation of Irish raw materials, and last, but not least, the tourist industry creates a considerable level of overseas earnings.

If we are to tackle the problem in the way in which it should be tackled, the Minister will have, to secure a substantial amount of money from the Minister for Finance in order to make credit available to hoteliers for the provision of more amenities. The layout of hotels is important, as is the provision of staff accommodation. Instead of grant-aiding the building of extra rooms and the installation of bathrooms and toilets, we should be considering hotels as units. Most of our seaside hotels are of Victorian standard and had attractions 50 years ago as watering places. We should try to improve our harbour facilities and our fishing and golfing facilities.

We pride ourselves on being friendly and we claim to have a wonderful environment and climate. What are we doing about the pollution of our harbours and estuaries and about the problem of litter? We are supposed to have penalties for litterbugs, yet some of our local authorities have difficulties in relation to the erection of warning signs. Some of our local authorities are now contemplating pouring raw sewage into Cork Harbour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is broadening the debate.

Mr. Hegarty

We must face the fact that we are in a changing situation. We have many problems, including the availability and cost of petrol. The economic situation in overseas markets has been bad, especially in the US market which has shown a drop of 12 per cent. The violence and political unrest has had a severe impact on the UK market. The poor quality of our postal and telephone services is another problem. In his dual capacity the Minister should consider the introduction of a direct-line system in the West. The high inflation rate at home and abroad has also affected tourism.

I should like to compliment the Minister on his trip abroad this year when he endeavoured to convince the citizens of the UK that our problems were not as severe as they were alleged to be. However, a further exercise of this nature is needed. I have recently noticed a hostile feeling towards us in the UK among many people who normally come here on holidays. We should invite British journalists here in order to assure them that, despite some horrible incidents, we are friendly and welcome UK citizens, who can have a most enjoyable holiday. The time has come for a reappraisal of our tourist industry. Should this be done by our existing agencies such as Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus and so on, or should be think in terms of a broad-ranging commission that would set the course from now until the year 2000? Many factors are changing which will have a marked effect on tourism in the future: energy restrictions on travel, international awareness of the value of a pollution-free environment—that cannot be over emphasised—changing work attitudes which affect the concept of service, a new affluence among young people, more leisure time induced by the microchip and better education which is stimulated by the mass media. New tourism products are needed if we are to take advantage of this situation. In a commission, international in form, we need to have business people, sociologists and educationalists who with a consciousness of changing international demands can produce objectively the kind of formula Ireland needs.

In today's world a structural lack of sophistication could be more valuable than sophisticated portion-controlled plastic tourism. We need to know if this is really true and if it can keep the cash registers ringing merrliy because that is what it is all about. What we have is a 1950 product, almost 30 years old. It was a good one by 1950 standards but is it good enough for 1980? When people stay in Irish guesthouses is that what they really want or is it that they cannot afford to stay in our top-class hotels?

The atmosphere of the industry for investment is poor at present. Lending agencies are giving a cold shoulder to hoteliers. A blanket credit squeeze involving everybody and everything is bad. There will have to be more selectivity in it. It is not right to put a man investing in a solid business, such as a hotel, in the same category as somebody who wishes to spend a lot of money on a new car, luxury yacht and so on. We have had a bad year with the cumulative effects of petrol and post and this has created all the gloom. It is a pity that it should because there is no justification for it. All that is needed is a statement from the Minister that he will support the hotel industry in every way, ensure that credit is available at reasonable or subsidised rates and ensure that every step will be taken to see to it that we will not have a repeat of last year's performance.

The Minister is responsible for both the postal service and for tourism. He should ensure that we will have adequate fuel for our tourists, a good postal service and he should do something about setting up an air transport policy. Some airline companies like Laker do not fly to Shannon, Dublin or Cork. They drop people in places such as London and Amsterdam. We should have a service there to bring these people here. We need a feeder service urgently if we are to have a successful tourist industry next year. I am not saying we should be in the numbers game as Spain is. There is no virtue in going after numbers for the sake of numbers. A mass influx of people who hike around the country and spend little money would only add to our problems. We do not have the infrastructure to deal with mass numbers. We need the kind of tourists who stay in hotels and guesthouses and spend a lot of money.

We must restore confidence and that is the Minister's function. It would be a more profitable exercise than having to go abroad in the height of the campaign as he had to do last year. The Minister should give every possible financial encouragement to hoteliers. He should extend grant aids to cover every aspect whether it is developing grounds, pony trekking or whatever to ensure that they will be ready for tourists. In the case of people who, despite all the problems, go ahead and spend money, will they get a commitment from Bord Fáilte now or do they have to wait until after the budget? There are a number of people waiting for the green light to go ahead and get on with the job.

Approaches have been made within EEC countries for VAT to be removed from the hotel business. I should like the Minister to support the association of nine countries in putting pressure on to have this done. For most of us this island is a haven of rest and that is basically what we have to sell. We do not have sunshine or warm Mediterranean waters, but it is a good, restful place for a holiday. I should like to think that everything will be done in the coming year to ensure that people whose livelihoods are at stake will be given every assistance to recover part of what they lost this year and enable them to forge ahead in the future.

I hope the Minister will maintain close contact with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, ensuring a pollution-free country because this is one of our greatest assets. Also I should like to see more money, real hard cash, being spent on the protection of our national monuments and generally on the cleaning up of our cities and towns. More work should be done also on our public parks and our beaches, some of which are filthy at present. Money will have to be spent in providing basic facilities at these beaches: slipways and giving grant aids to people who are courageous enough to invest in expensive boats and yachts for charter service. This is something which is catching on and is of great importance to places such as Ballycotton and Youghal, where people have had the courage to purchase expensive boats. Substantial grant aid should be afforded such people. The provision of these facilities is essential if we are to recapture the United States market, one which has been a traditional market for us and which has been on the decline. The figures are there to prove it. With renewed effort we can recapture that very worthwhile market. Also we should be looking more to our Scandinavian friends. This is where air transport enters the picture. We rarely see Norwegians and Swedes here; yet they are to be seen all the time on the mainland of Europe.

The Minister holds a very important portfolio in tourism because he is in charge of our third greatest industry. As a matter of fact I would place tourism on a par in importance with an oil find. It has massive potential but, like an oil find, one just does not turn on a tap and find oil: large sums of money must be expended. Indeed, successive Governments have not fully appreciated tourism potential. We have not had the courage to spend that sort of money.

Now that we are in the European Economic Community, a member of the family of Europe having direct contact with our fellow European parliamentarians and so on, I hope we will be able to persuade our friends to come on holiday here. If and when they decide to come—and this is the important thing—I hope we will not disappoint them.

Mrs. Lemass

First, I should like to say a few words about tourism. It is very significant that for the first time tourist revenue this year will probably exceed £400 million. This must indicate that it has been a good year for tourism. Even having regard to the difficulties experienced earlier in the year with the postal strike, the increase in the price of petrol and its shortage, we shall still emerge, in contrast with last year's figure of £376 million, with a total revenue exceeding £400 million. When that is taken into account I cannot see how anybody can suggest that our tourist Industry has not been successful in the past year. Indeed, having regard to the fact that 1978 was such an extraordinarily good year, to have improved on that this year is really remarkable. In the past three years tourism has increased to an extent that would not have been imaginable heretofore. Ten years ago our hotels were diminishing in numbers. There was too much bedroom capacity. In the last couple of years new hotels have sprung up all over the country. They have been full this year, their bedroom capacity being utilised to the maximum, as were the small guest houses and farm houses. I know there were some regions where the postal strike and telephone disruption caused people difficulty. They were small pockets in remote areas. I realise that such people did experience extreme difficulty which diminished their potential this year.

I am glad to note that overall the tourist season was a success, that the hotels were full and that tourists were able to get petrol coupons. The petrol scheme operated satisfactorily, because I spoke to several visitors about it during the summer season. The system enabled them to drive into a town or village and obtain petrol at certain filling stations without any difficulty whatsoever. Therefore, it would be most unfair to criticise the Minister or the Government for any shortfall in the tourist industry this year, because when the final figures are available it will be shown that it has been a success. Hopefully next year will be an even greater success. This is one area in which this Government have worked extremely hard. Our tourist industry has increased considerably in the last two or three years. I am quite certain this trend will continue and that it will continue to constitute one of our main sources of revenue.

To revert to the problem of CIE, possibly people living in Dublin realise better CIE's problems than people living in rural areas. Probably Dublin and Cork are the two areas most hampered by lack of CIE transport. There have been many committees set up, many traffic study groups and so on and many reports published. The Consumer Association of Ireland have produced a report. All of these people are extremely worried about the traffic situation in the city, which incurs such losses for CIE. The problem all stems from affluence. People might say that that is a strange thing to say when CIE are losing millions of pounds and have to be subsidised by the Government, but that is the problem. People have become so well off in recent times that nobody wants to travel by bus any more. They want to get into their car, drive to work or wherever, even though it be only a short distance away. This is part of the problem confronting CIE. They cannot provide a good service. They cannot run their buses on time because all of the city area is clogged up with cars. It is a sort of chicken and egg situation. We will not have a good bus service until there is a good flow of traffic through the city. That will not occur until something is done about the number of cars passing daily through our streets.

In my view the increase in the number of cars has a lot to do with our young population because young people are earning very good money. I spoke to a 17-year-old recently and he informed me that between his wages and bonus he can earn up to £90 per week. As soon as such young people can save a few hundred pounds—that does not take too long because they do not give up much money at home; about £10 in most cases—they go in search of a car. Hundreds of young people apply every week for provisional licences so that they can take cars on the road. We must do something about that.

Mr. Bruton

Like abolishing road tax?

Mrs. Lemass

One way of dealing with the problem would be to increase the age limit for driving from 17 to 19. Young people are too pampered. My daughter will sit in this House for up to two hours in order to get a lift home with me rather than use the bus service. I do not blame her because she would have to stand in Dawson Street for up to an hour waiting for a bus. That delay is not the fault of CIE; it is caused by traffic. Double parking is also a problem. In Molesworth Street cars double park on both sides of the road and I wonder why they cannot be towed away. The situation is much the same in Harcourt Street. It has been suggested to me that a special force should be established by the Department of Justice to deal with traffic. There is a lot of merit in that suggestion. I would like to see trucks towing away cars by the dozen if they are found in breach of parking regulations. I would be inclined to laugh at the way some people park their cars were it not for the fact that they are parked so dangerously. People park, and double park, on corners.

The introduction of the bus lanes in Parliament Street is a worthwhile experiment. I suggest that Dublin Corporation approach the Department of the Environment with a view to getting funds to erect multi-storey car parks in the city. Such car parks could be used by those who arrive in the city between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. and park their cars adjacent to their work place. That would leave the parking areas on the streets free for those who wish to do some shopping or park for a short time. We must remember that a huge amount of money is lost daily because of traffic congestion. Many man hours are lost and we must be wasting millions of pounds worth of fuel daily. That money could be devoted to erecting multi-storey car parks or improving CIE. However, CIE can do a lot to improve the service. I spoke to an official to-day in connection with an extension of a bus route in the suburbs and he informed me that the company could not afford such an extension. It is appalling to think of the length of time it takes workers to travel by bus from Tallaght, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and the outskirts of Ballyfermot. We should agree to the introduction of bus lanes from the outskirts and the company should provide a non-stop service from those areas to the city centre. It takes workers from 7.45 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. to get from places like Tallaght and Clondalkin to the city centre.

It has been suggested to me that CIE should use minibuses to shuttle people around the city centre. In my view that would encourage people to park their cars on the outskirts and use the minibuses to go to the city centre. The buses operating in the city are too big and at certain times of the day they travel through the city with very few passengers. A small bus would not use as much fuel and would provide a speedier service. Perhaps CIE, and the unions, could agree to running such buses with one operator. I have vast amounts of correspondence about CIE and the traffic problems in Dublin at the moment but unfortunately I did not have time to go into the matter deeply.

I hope the Minister will be supported in this Estimate but I hope also the Minister will go into the problem in greater detail and will introduce some constructive plans for us to work on apart from a new roads system which is badly needed in the city. In the near future I hope we will have a discussion about the rapid rail system which would be of immense help to the people living in the new perimeter towns such as Ballyfermot, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and so on where stations already exist but are closed. If these stations were re-opened we could provide a rapid transport system for these people. It would cost a lot, but I am sure grants are available from the EEC for this purpose. It seems that we were better equipped 30 or 40 years ago than we are now. One could go to Bray, to Dalkey, to Dundrum or to Milltown with no bother. The closure of the Bray-Harcourt Street line was a disaster and I am sure that whoever made the decision to close it has had many sleepless nights since.

Because people travel more now we must increase the services and ensure that CIE are viable in the future. If CIE continue to operate in the way in which they do I can see them being closed down and it would be sad to see such a long-standing company coming to such an end. I hope the Minister will take up some of the ideas which have been expressed by Deputies during this debate and that CIE will also take up some of the ideas so as to get the bus service moving.

Dublin Corporation are doing all in their power to help to initiate bus lanes. CIE's problems have been discussed in detail by the corporation and the city manager issued a very good report recently about the traffic problems, and outlined measures which could be taken to remedy the situation. I hope that next year CIE will put their house in order with the support of various groups and Departments who may work with them. Approximately three cars would take up the amount of space which a bus would occupy on the road and it is ridiculous to have three cars carrying one person each and using all that petrol where one bus could carry 60 people. If people were encouraged to travel by public transport it would save everybody concerned a lot of heartache and frustration.

Mr. Bruton

I am sorry that this debate came so quickly after the publication of the excellent report by the Joint Committee on the operations of CIE. There has not been enough time for most Deputies, apart from those who were members of the committee, to assimilate the very far-reaching contents of that report. I have not had an opportunity to read the report to prepare for this debate. Deputy Lemass deplored the increase in the demand for cars. One of the major factors in increasing the demand for cars was the abolition of car tax promised by Fianna Fáil in order to bring them to office and which was subsequently introduced by her party. It is no accident that there was a massive increase in the numbers of new cars produced in 1978 following the abolition of car tax and this contributed directly to the problems now being experienced by CIE. The Government not only gave up revenue by abolishing car tax but also reduced the economic viability of CIE, thereby forcing themselves to spend more money in subvention to CIE. The Government lost on both counts. The decision to abolish car tax was one of the worst decisions made in fiscal affairs for many years.

I agree with Deputy Lemass's suggestion about the introduction of minibuses as a means of speeding up public transport in the city. I was fortunate enough to visit one of the most crowded and cramped cities in the world in the last month, that is the city of Hong Kong where there are more people per square metre than in almost any other part of the world. The traffic flows freely there and one of the reasons is that they employ minibuses on a very large scale and also trams on a significant scale. We do not employ either system although we had trams but did away with them years ago. These minibuses are run by private companies on routes which are predetermined and from which they must not deviate, in accordance with conditions by which they must abide. They work very efficiently and are nearly always full; they are there when they are wanted; they are small enough to be frequent enough to meet the demand, whereas in the case of CIE's large buses they must, in order to be economic, be filled, and make infrequent journeys so that there are enough people waiting for them when they do eventually arrive. Perhaps if they were smaller they could be run more frequently with less cost. If our buses were run in the same way as in the city I have mentioned, the result would be considerable. The Minister should consider, without reference to McKinsey or anyone else, inquiring from the Hong Kong Government how this system has worked there and see whether it would be worthwhile recommending that it be introduced here. That useful information would be readily provided by the Hong Kong authorities on request.

It is worthwhile remembering that CIE are costing the taxpayer an unacceptably large amount of money, we are told £56 million this year. That large sum may not mean much to most people but quite apart from any fares to be paid by people availing of the service CIE are costing this Government approximately £18 per year for every single inhabitant of the State. If you take an average family, man, wife and three children, CIE each year cost that family £98, or practically £100 per year in the taxes that they are claiming. If one gets a bill for income tax of £100 in any year that £100 is for CIE. Anything after that is for other Government services. This is not acceptable, in my opinion, and something must be done.

I know that the big move forward in giving increased subsidies to CIE was initially made during the tenure of office of the Government of which I was a member. This trend has been continued and accelerated by the present Minister. Since 1974 or 1975 the rate of increase in subsidy to CIE has been faster not only than the cost of living but also than the index of industrial earnings. It is one of the fastest rising and most dynamic fiscal factors in the entire budget. That subsidy is increasing faster than almost any other aspect of Government spending in recent years. Do the people dispensing that money realise how much the cost of CIE has increased in recent years and if it can be justified? Consider the many things that could be done with this money by way of industrial growth, new houses and jobs.

In the "Late Late Show" last Saturday the subject of the deplorable lack of housing was brought up. How many houses could be provided with some of the £56 million going every year to CIE? A tremendous number of houses and jobs could be provided for the £56 million going to a company which are supposed to be a commercial undertaking, entitled to charge fares for their services and which ran for a large number of years as a company able to meet their costs without any significant subsidy from the State. This company were set up specifically to be independent so that they could run on commercial lines and not have to look for subsidies. We have reached the stage where CIE are costing so much that they are no longer a commercial enterprise at all. I do not see any reason why they should not be directly run by the Department. If the Department have to pay so much, they should have direct control of the running of the company. One of the reasons why CIE were made independent in the seventies was because they were supposed to be capable of running without subvention on a regular basis, on a profit-making basis. They are independent in their operation, but not independent financially. The Government cannot control CIE because, under statute, they have been given independence in most matters; yet the taxpayers still have to pay the full cost. That is not right.

It is worth recollecting also that CIE were founded in the 1940s on the basis of a takeover of companies which were running on a commercial basis. The Great Southern and the Great Northern Railways had received some subsidies, but they were basically commercial companies set up as a profit-making enterprise. Now CIE have become almost entirely transmogrified into a body which is costing as much as many of the Departments of State. Indeed, there are probably three or four Departments of State whose cost could be added together, three or four Ministers whose budget could be added together and would still not amount to what is given annually to CIE.

The Minister refuses to let anyone else take on the job that CIE are costing so much to do. He has complete discretion under the Transport Act, I think of 1955. I was unable, due to lack of notice, to get my material together. Under a section of this Act, if I want to run a bus service, I must apply to the Minister for Transport and Tourism. He has complete discretion to refuse me the opportunity of running that service. Even if I can prove that I could do it far more economically, with far more frequent buses, with a much lower fare, and in every way more satisfactorily than CIE, the Minister can just say, "No, I am not giving you a licence and I am not giving you a reason why you are not getting permission". That is it. End of story. Consistently over the years, Ministers—and this does not only apply to the Minister, Deputy Faulkner—have been refusing to consider applications with monotonous regularity, as a result of which people are no longer applying.

I would like to see a bloc of bus routes being sold off to private enterprises to run on the basis of a licence granted by the Minister. I would like to see him reverse his policy over recent years of refusing applications from people interested in running bus services. The argument put forward against this would be that they would be applying for the profit-making routes and that CIE would be left with the non-profit making ones and that CIE's last situation would be even worse and the cost to the taxpayer would be increased. My answer to this would be that the Minister could take a bloc of routes, let us say the Dalkey route losing money, the Ballyfermot route making money, and the Kimmage route breaking even. The Minister should put together three routes, some losing money, some making money, and offer the licence to operate them for sale for a period to whoever would be the most attractive tenderer for the job. The people buying it would have no option but to accept all of the routes, including the loss-making ones. They would have no option but to run the services according to a frequency which would be specified in the licence and they would lose their licence straight away without any further investigation if it was proved that over a certain period they had not been abiding by the full terms of the licence. That would get over the difficulty made by the opponents of involvement of private enterprise in the provision of public transport in the past that private enterprise would be interested only in the profit-making routes. If a bloc of routes, including possibly more loss-making routes than profit-making routes, were sold to private enterprise, I am convinced that the service would be run more efficiently because there would be more incentive and more drive on the part of everybody involved. Such people would know that they were on trial and that the better the route did the more money they would get out of it. This would apply to the employees also.

Another possibility would be the involvement of employees of CIE themselves in the formation of a co-operative to run some of the routes. There is no reason why a group of bus drivers and conductors should not be assisted to set up a co-operative to run transport themselves on a given set of routes. I see no reason why they should not be given preferential treatment regarding the purchase of a bloc of routes such as I have mentioned. People who are already involved directly in the operation of CIE, such as bus drivers and conductors who know the service intimately, would be qualified ideally, with the assistance of accountants to keep their books in order, to run a transport service. Therefore, they should be given the opportunity of being facilitated in setting up a co-operative and the buses necessary should be sold or rented to them at a preferential rate, and then these people should be allowed to go ahead and run a service themselves. Whatever profit would be made from that service would go straight into the pockets of those drivers and conductors and they would have an immediate incentive to run an efficient service, which they do not have at the moment. If a bus conductor does a good job and is friendly and pleasant and thus is encouraging more people to go on his bus rather than on to other means of transport, the only encouragement he gets from that is more work. He gets no financial reward for it. If my proposal were implemented, bus conductors and drivers would have an immediate incentive to make the service they are operating as efficient and successful as possible. The two suggestions I have put forward would work if the Minister were to take them up.

For many years we have been looking in this country for what has been described as a national transport policy. When I was doing national economics lectures in UCD an increasingly long time ago we were talking even then about the need for a national transport policy. We do not seem to have one even yet. The NPC have published very many reports. Whenever they considered the applications of CIE for increased fares they said "We will grant it this time, but it is deplorable to grant these increases because CIE are simply living from one day to the next and there is no transport policy under which they can be said to be operating". The only way to get a national transport policy is to integrate the operations of the Department of Tourism and Transport with the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment and the various corporations and local authorities under them are going in one direction with their traffic regulations, road building programmes and so forth, while CIE and the Department of Tourism and Transport are going in another direction, and there is no machinery for coordinating the two. We will never have a national transport policy because the basic institutional arrangements to bring that policy into being and to formulate and implement it do not exist. The Minister has shown considerable imagination so far in many aspects of his responsibility. The best job that he could do would be to get those two Departments together and form some sort of agency to devise a transport policy which would be operated on an integrated basis.

I object very strongly to the form in which the subsidy of £56 million is given to CIE. As far as I can see, they are given £56 million more or less across the board and it is broken down to only a very small extent. It is not enough to be told simply that £56 million is going to CIE without knowing which aspects of the service are making money and require no subsidy and which aspects require immense subsidies. This should be broken down in detail so that we would know exactly where the subsidy is going to enable us to make a proper assessment of the value, if any, that we are getting from CIE's operations.

Traffic on the railways is on the increase nothwithstanding the massive decrease in traffic on buses. The Minister should go a little beyond merely recording that fact. He should assess why it is happening and what the implications of this are for policy. For instance, does it indicate that we must move much more towards rail transport and away from road transport as in the past? Does it indicate that the railway section of CIE is run more efficiently than the road transport section? What are the reasons why railway is going up and road is going down? Is this trend mirrored in every other country in Europe? If not, what are the implications of that for us?

Regarding tourism I will make a few brief points. I would like to see a requirement by law on all hotels and restaurants to display their menus or price lists, or at least basic menus and prices, outside their premises. If people have to go into a restaurant and sit down before they get even a look at the menu they can very often feel themselves under a moral obligation not to get up and leave even though they may not find what they want and the price is far too high. Many hotels and restaurants do display their menus and prices, but there should be a requirement on all of them to do so. As far as I know, in France the menu is almost universally displayed outside the premises. This may well be in accordance with law, but I am not sure about that. There should be a definite requirement that the menu with the prices should be displayed outside restaurants so that people can know before going in what the meal is going to cost. This would improve goodwill considerably.

A recommendation was made by the Restrictive Practices Commission in a study of the licensing laws some time ago in relation to a more favourable basis for granting to restaurants licences for the sale of liquor. What decisions have been taken on this proposal, which I am sure were circulated to the Minister's Department by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Energy? What is the Minister's attitude in relation to this?

It is essential that we have in every part of the country many useful and interesting activities for people to engage in. Almost any part of rural Ireland can be made extremely interesting for tourists if its tourist resources are presented imaginatively. One does not have to go to Kerry, Connemara, Donegal or other parts of the country which are associated with tourism to find something interesting to, in the words of the guide book, detain the tourist. A lot, however, depends on presentation. It is very important that all items of local interest be effectively signposted. Our signposting is not as good as it should be. All the ancient earthworks and ancient monuments are signposted, but there are probably items of a more modern character than those which should be signposted as well. If there is a particular type of farm house in existence in a particular area, where the owner might be prepared to allow people to inspect the exterior if not the interior of the house, that should be signposted because it is of interest to tourists.

There are many different types of farmyards throughout the country illustrating different types of agriculture and different types of life which existed in the last century or the century previous to that. Every year those are being bulldozed to make way for new silage pits and new developments of every sort. This is progress and it must continue. It would be a pity if at least one specimen of each type of farmyard was not preserved in every two or three counties. This would give an illustration of the type of farming which existed in different parts of the country. Obviously no farmer would be prepared to involve himself in the sacrifice which is involved without any reward. Some financial assistance, possibly the derating of the buildings and assistance in doing the buildings up, should be provided. People travelling in agricultural parts of the country would then be able to see specimens of the type of farm buildings which existed in the past.

I would like to see the Minister, in conjunction with the Board of Works and Bord Fáilte, evolving some scheme for the preservation of specimens of those more modern buildings. Archaeology does not stop at 1,800 AD. The buildings we are working in today will be of archaeological importance in 500 years' time. We have as much a responsibility to preserve specimens of buildings which represent our relatively recent past as we have to preserve specimens which represent our more distant past.

I would now like to refer to the efficiency of our ports. I was shocked to learn from a Cork co-op involved in the sale of animal feeds who are importing them through the city of Cork that a very large part of the price charged to farmers for animal feeds is represented by delays in Cork port in getting this off the sea and on to lorries for delivery to the plant, where they are mixed with other feeds and distributed to the farming community. They told me that if there were facilities in Youghal to handle the feed it would take a large amount off the price at which they are selling animal feed to farmers.

I would like to see the Minister making a very careful investigation of the cost involved in getting goods through our ports and how much delays in our ports have contributed to increases in the cost of living. I have never seen this analysed in a systematic fashion. I believe that one of the major factors at our ports is delays caused when the ships have to stand out in the bay waiting to get berths before they can start unloading. We either need to open up many more ports which are not at present opened up to shipping, or we need to expand our existing ports very considerably. I would not rule out the possibility of doing it cheaper by modernising existing smaller ports rather than simply putting huge amounts of money into one or two big ports. I would like the Minister to give us an assessment of the approximate cost of the ports system.

My major concern in taking part in this debate was to express my great concern at the spiralling cost of CIE and the fact that it is now costing every family of five almost £100 a year. The first £100 in income tax that family pay is devoted solely to support CIE. I regret that the Minister has chosen to set up yet another consultancy study by McKinsey. They seem to be carrying on the policy making role of Government here for the last ten years. Every time any Government seem to have a problem, instead of solving it themselves and trying to make a decision they kick the ball off to McKinsey or some other consultants, who are supposed to bear all the burden. In two or three years' time they make some recommendations which are then politely ignored for another few years on the grounds that they are being considered. The situation is that McKinsey are commissioned to do a study, they investigate the matter, consult with all the various interests, the unions, management and so forth. They prepare a report, which is presented to the particular Minister and published. The Minister then announces "We cannot take any decision on this report yet because it has only just been published".

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, Deputy Bruton, without interruption.

Mr. Bruton

We are told that the matter cannot be considered further until we have had the opinions of the various interests concerned. On receipt of that information the Government presumably will proceed to consult with all those people with whom McKinsey have consulted and will get the same opinions as those expressed to McKinsey. The result of all this will be that five years later the whole process will be continuing.

Mr. Leyden

What about the Deputy's report?

Mr. Bruton

We can assume reasonably that after all that procedure the Government will announce that they are unable to reach a decision because of various overriding difficulties. The Minister would be better employed in going ahead and making a decision now. He is capable of doing this. The only difference is that if the Minister decides on any course of action, the decision would be put into effect within about six months whereas if we wait until the McKinsey report has been considered by all the various interests, it will be at least five years before identical decisions will be made. In the meantime increasing sums of taxpayers' money will be doled out to CIE because of the company's loss-making operation. Therefore, it would be best that the Minister forget McKinsey and make the decisions for himself. In that way we should make progress.

Mr. Leyden

I do not wish to begin on an acrimonious note but since Deputy Bruton talked about a report that has been commissioned by the Minister, I should like to remind the Deputy of a report which he commissioned during his time as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, a report that we have not accepted but which Deputy Bruton and the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Ryan, would probably have accepted had they remained in Government. The consequences of their acceptance of that report would have been a charge on all those children who are availing of free school transport. This Government are committed to the idea of free school transport. Deputy Bruton criticises the Minister for not finding time to prepare a report in respect of our transport system but Deputy Bruton, when faced with the task of dealing primarily with one subject, did not consider it worthwhile to examine all the implications involved in that regard. Instead, he commissioned outside consultants to prepare a report, the findings of which I reject and which the Government have rejected also.

The local authorities could play a part in providing some assistance, however small, to CIE to help maintain the so-called uneconomic routes. These so-called uneconomic routes are providing a tremendous social service for many people who have no transport to get to the major towns. Among these are oldage pensioners who-have free travel vouchers. There would be no point in having free travel vouchers if there was no transport. These social services must be maintained. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we are provided with the service which we have today and to ensure that there will be no cutting down or reduction in that service. This Oireachtas should support in every way the subvention to CIE to ensure maintenance of these services in rural areas because these services are the life-blood of young and old to enable them to get to their employment and so on. This must be regarded as policy. The Government have consistently supported the rural areas and the rural infrastructures which are part and parcel of ensuring liveable conditions in rural areas. It is regrettable that whenever there is a reduction in rail services these occur in rural areas. I recall under the Coalition Government there was a reduction in services in my area outside Roscommon and I could not convince that administration of the worthiness of retaining this so-called uneconomic route. That route should have been maintained. I request the Minister to restore that route. I will submit details of it to him in due course.

One other aspect which is very topical at the moment is the transportation of toxic goods. We are all aware of the near tragedy in Canada where chlorine gas was being transported by rail. Due to a derailment over a quarter of a million people had to be drafted out of the area to ensure their safety. On 26 March 1979 outside Roscommon there was a derailment of a number of goods wagons. I was deeply concerned at that stage about the possible effects if that train had been carrying acrylic nitrate for the Asahi plant in Killala, County Mayo. This product is being transported across the country by CIE. I came across this major derailment by accident on coming around a bend. It was on a stretch of rural line and instantly it occurred to me that the train could have been carrying acrylic nitrate. If that had been so we would have had to evacuate an area as large and with as many people in it as the area in Canada. Fortunately that train was not carrying acrylic nitrate. I immediately contacted the Minister and requested that an inquiry to be made into this derailment outside Roscommon. This was well in advance of the near tragedy in Canada but I was deeply concerned about the effects of a derailment of acrylic nitrate although I do not want to cause any panic. I received a reply from the Minister for Tourism and Transport dated 14 May 1979 which I will read for the record:

I wish to refer to your representations concerning the derailment of the Claremorris/North Wall empty oil train near Roscommon on 26 March, 1979.

I have had enquiries made of CIE in this matter and have been informed that a comprehensive investigation into the cause of the derailment is in progress. CIE have also stated that, pending the outcome of this investigation and as a precautionary measure, a maximum speed limit of 35 mph has been introduced for all freight traffic on the line west of Athlone to Westport and the section from Claremorris to Ballina. This speed limit would, of course, apply to the Asahi traffic. Furthermore the results of the CIE investigation will be submitted to the Railway Inspecting Officer in my Department for his consideration.

I am hopeful that this report will be issued in due course and that all necessary and even new precautions will be taken in the light of the near tragedy in Canada. It is vitally important and it is no reflection on the management or staff of CIE. These things happen. Derailments can occur seemingly without reason. I appeal to the Minister and to the management of CIE, when these investigations have been carried out, to double up their precautions in relation to the transportation of acrylic nitrate and other products being transported on the railways which would be 100 per cent more dangerous if they were transported by road all the way to Mayo. The transportation of such products by rail helps to ensure the safety of the public and I would be more concerned if such products were brought by road because it would be difficult to maintain security.

The opportunity is now there to review all security and other precautions on that route. As a Deputy representing the constituency that this train travels through practically every night, I am deeply concerned about the possible effects of any accident. I am aware that all the fire brigade services touching on the route are equipped to deal with any possible disaster, but they should be acquainted with the efforts made in Canada to ensure the safety of the public. I also suggest that provision be made for a helicopter-type fire brigade operation to ensure that if there was a derailment in a rural area which was not accessible by road there would be some way to ensure the immediate transportation of personnel to the source of any possible danger to ensure the safety of the public.

In regard to other aspects of transportation CIE have provided a tremendous service to industry and industry should avail much more of the transportation services being provided by them. The IDA could assist by giving grants to firms who avail of the public transport system. By availing of this service they take heavy traffic from the roads that are costing millions of pounds to repair. It is very dangerous, particularly in the west, to pass the heavy juggernauts that use our roads. Industry should use the railways more for the transportation of goods and they should be given every assistance from the State to do so.

In the local railway station in Roscommon it is interesting to note that traffic has increased by 30 per cent on the 1978 figure. This is an unprecedented increase in the use of the railways by the public. Now is the time to enable CIE to provide new carriages to ensure that we will have a service equal to that provided on the route to Cork. The same attention is not given to the western routes as is given to the route to Cork and to the south generally. I travelled to Cork recently on this service and it was extremely good. In my opinion it is extremely foolish for anyone to travel by car to Cork when there is available this excellent CIE service. It is a frequent service and it offers a saving both in time and in money to the passenger. The cost for a return ticket from Dublin to Cork is £15 and I am sure it would cost that amount in petrol alone if one were to travel by car. One can travel by CIE in safety and comfort and more use should be made of this service by the people in the area.

In relation to rolling stock for the passenger services to the west, I appeal to the Minister to provide whatever extra funds are necessary in this connection. It is time to replace the present rolling stock on the Westport-Dublin route. It is up to the Government and the Minister to do this. I am not satisfied with the quality of the present service to the west and I ask the Minister also to consider improving the frequency of the service from the west. As I pointed out, there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of passengers from that part of the country and they should be given a service equal to that in any other part of Ireland. I know that if the services were improved more people would avail of them. This would take more cars off the road and it would assist CIE.

The services provided at the moment do not work in with our times here in the Dáil. Most Deputies would travel by CIE if there was an improvement in the frequency of the service. At present it is practically impossible to get a train from Heuston Station after 6 p.m. Some consideration should be given to the possibility of bringing trains into the centre of the city, either to Pearse Station or to Connolly Station. In former years Pearse Station was used by trains from the west. It takes approximately 45 minues to get from Kildare Street to Heuston Station and that is quite unacceptable. Some effort should be made to improve the service from the railhead to the centre of the city.

When the rolling stock for the western route is improved extra facilities could be made available. For instance, arrangements could be made to have piped radio or television and this would be particularly appreciated by people travelling late in the evening. It would be extremely comfortable for passengers to travel on a 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. train from Dublin to the west while being able to watch or listen to our national broadcasting services. This possibility could be at least considered. This Cinderella service—CIE—should be updated and provided with the necessary facilities to give passengers a good return.

CIE employ a considerable number of workers. They provide a good transport service and they are a very good company. They have an efficient staff throughout the country. I am fortunate in my constituency to have courteous efficient public servants who run the railway and bus services. In Roscommon and Leitrim they are doing a good job. We should encourage CIE staff in every way. We should not knock them repeatedly and talk continuously about the great losses incurred by CIE. They are making a major contribution to the running of the State. We should encourage them in every possible way. We should encourage the management and staff.

The CIE industrial relations record is second to none in the public service. On the railways there has not been a strike since 1950 or 1951 according to Mr. Michael Cox, General Secretary of the National Association of Transport Employees giving evidence before the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies on 20 June 1979. That is a tremendous record, a record to be proud of. Other State agencies should take a look at it. If we had the same record in the ESB we would have a far more prosperous country. The unions, the employees, the trade union officials in CIE are playing a very positive role in the development of this service. They have a great responsibility and they are taking their responsibility very seriously. They are ensuring that there are harmonious industrial relations in a very important area.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Tuesday, 13 Nov 1979