I wish to correct the statement I made last night when I said that the 1977 CIE annual report was not available. The report to which I was referring was the 1978 report which is published but which apparently is not available generally. At least, I do not think that Deputies have received copies of it. It was only today that I was able to get a copy in the Library.
I think everybody here will agree that the railways should continue in operation. From the public also I have had a unanimous feedback in that regard. Despite the losses sustained on this operation in recent years, losses that have been accelerating rapidly since 1970, the public consider the railways to be an essential part of our transport network. That is not to say that we should retain the railways at a prohibitive cost, but it is time that the Department of Transport defined the role of CIE in such a way as to let us know what is in store for the future and what financial outlay is anticipated for them in the years ahead so that economies can be effected and that there is a reasonable return to the taxpayer for the money involved. In this context the feeling generally is that the financial affairs of CIE in terms of expenditure have got out of control and that, consequently, we must examine specific policies of the company.
Last evening I was questioning the wisdom of the electrification of the suburban rail system in the Dublin area. Already, the Government have allocated £46 million for the electrification of the Howth-Bray line, but if the whole rapid rail transit system in the Dublin area is to be electrified I understand that the figure involved will be in excess of £200 million. It would be necessary to have a fair amount of public debate on this issue with a view to ascertaining whether the expenditure would be justified and whether the increase in the number of passengers using such a system would justify expenditure of that extent. In that regard, the figures are a little off putting. For instance, the latest figures at my disposal—these are for 1977—indicate that in Dublin 200 million people used the bus services whereas a mere seven million people used the Dublin suburban railways. I understand that the latter figure has increased by about two million in the intervening years but it is still a minute portion of the total traffic. Economists tell me that in their opinion the increase in traffic using the rail system after it had been electrified completely would not justify the extra expenditure involved and that expenditure would be in the region of £120 million but in terms of present-day costs the amount involved in the electrification of the whole system would be in the region of £200 million, whereas the use of buses run on diesel by way of augmenting the system would cost merely something in the region of £80 million. Therefore, there are major financial considerations involved.
Obviously, if the whole system is to be electrified the taxpayer will be sub-venting CIE to a far greater extent than is the case now. In 1979 the company's losses were estimated at £57 million though the initial estimate was of the order of £36 million. In these circumstances one must question the way in which the Department allocate money to CIE. It is evident from reading the report on CIE of the Joint Committee of the Oireachtas on State Sponsored Bodies and from what the chairman of the company says that he is not the one who decides on what moneys are to be made available. Perhaps that is as it should be, but the accounting system is particularly false and should be remedied. As the chairman of the company pointed out to the committee, both he and his officials are aware that the estimate given at the beginning of a year in terms of the needs of CIE will not meet the needs of the company for that year. Obviously, then, what is needed is a more realistic accounting system. I understand that the loss of £57 million to which I referred could be broken down as follows: £39 million on the rail service, £12 million on the Dublin suburban buses and £3 million on rural bus services. If we add to this loss the payments to CIE as a result of the social welfare scheme of free travel for pensioners and also the amount involved in respect of the school transport scheme as well as the capital allocations to the company, the cost to the taxpayer would be much closer to the staggering figure of £100 million.
However, there is one bright spot in this area of the operations of CIE and that is the road freight system which in 1975 was inclined to show a less than break-even situation. But it was pointed out to CIE then that this section would have to pull its weight. Strangely enough, the road freight section has not been losing money since then. I am convinced that management in that area is largely responsible for this improvement. It shows what can be done with the right effort and if there is present the organisation and the will to improve a situation.
Last evening I criticised the lack of planning in CIE and I referred to their omission in terms of projecting what they are capable of doing in future and of what the cost would be. The figures I quoted are justified and I should like the Minister to ensure that there is planning in CIE on a much more rational basis. What can be expected from planning that is undertaken on the basis of a survey which, for instance, in the case of road freight, was conducted in 1964? Such a situation is totally unrealistic in the business world.
Something I object to in relation to transport is the restriction on private enterprise in regard to their entering into the field of bus operations and of the haulage business. Restrictions and the licensing of private hauliers should be eliminated and free enterprise given a fair crack of the whip. I have seen private bus operators down the country operating on what could be regarded as the very poorest runs, runs in which CIE would not be involved but which proved to be quite profitable for the private operators concerned. I am confident that if the £3 million which was lost on the rural bus services last year were to be put into the hands of private operators these services would be run at a hefty profit. According to the NPC, the prices being charged by private operators are less than those being charged by CIE in almost every case. Why should we tolerate a situation in which private operators are prohibited from engaging either in the haulage or the bus services business?
It is time that we had a specific Department for Transport, that we had a Minister for Transport to co-ordinate all road and rail services and not have the divisions we have at present which represent part of the reason for the chaos in our transport system. I should like to see some of the recommendations, especially that for a transport system for Dublin itself, as recommended by Professor Foster, implemented. I should like to see more co-ordination. Above all, I should like to see the eventual foundation of such a Department to co-ordinate all of the services which are in quite a mess at present due to lack of proper consultation and co-operation.
