The Minister is concluding the Second Stage debate.
Transport Bill, 1987: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When the debate adjourned I was replying to points made by Deputy Deasy. I shall strive to move as quickly as I can through this phase as Deputy McCartan requested. I have already had some fruitful discussions with regard to amendments with Deputy McCartan and I appreciate the urgency of the matter.
Deputy Deasy raised a number of issues which I would like to address. The Deputy said he was interested in seeing the railways maintained notwithstanding the very high costs to the Exchequer and I have taken note of what he said. The Dublin Transport Authority are not the subject of this Bill and I will be introducing a Bill on that subject shortly. This will give the House an opportunity to debate it. I want to say one thing in as low a key as possible. I take issue with Deputy Deasy in regard to his claim that the abolition of the Dublin Transport Authority was based on vindictiveness. I can assure the Deputy that the only reason for the termination of the Dublin Transport Authority is the scarcity of financial resources. We will have an opportunity to discuss this matter in detail shortly.
A number of Deputies expressed support for the liberalisation of transport in the bus policy area. The relevant legislation and policy in that area have been under review in my Department. I hope to come to conclusions in this area shortly. In that connection, I will take account of the views expressed here on CIE.
Deputy Deasy asked me to explain the significance of the change proposed in relation to the communication cords. The specific reference in the legislation is to an efficient means of communication between the passengers and the servants of the company in charge of the train. These means of communication generally relate to communication cords and, in this instance, this is what the amendment refers to. Under the 1868 Act passenger trains which travel more than 20 miles without stopping are required to provide the communication cords. The amendment extends the requirement to provide a means of communication to all passenger trains.
As regards the amendment to provide for the disposal of land linked to abandoned railway lines by tender, I would like to explain that this does not in any way interfere with the arrangements for selling such land to adjoining landowners or by auction.
The next contribution came from Deputy Cullen. I understand he is indisposed at the moment and I wish to send him best wishes for a speedy recovery and to comment on his contribution which was astounding in many ways. I would ask him if he wishes to close down CIE tomorrow without taking any account of the travelling needs of the public. He sees no social role for CIE.
I am sorry Deputies, but I wonder if the other meetings being held in the House would close.
This is a completely irresponsible attitude. We are all concerned with costs and the need to reduce them but the consequences of Deputy Cullen's approach to the financing of CIE could only lead to many of those dependent on public transport being immobilised. I do not accept that approach. That is not to say that CIE services are without fault and it is the responsibility of all of us to point out the shortcomings and to seek change. We need a rational approach in order to improve things rather than demolish them.
Deputy Cullen also mentioned that this Bill would authorise CIE to engage in additional borrowing. I would like to explain that, in the main, additional borrowing is not involved. There will be a substitution of longer term borrowing for temporary borrowing to the extent of £45 million.
The Deputy also said that CIE are being allowed to walk away from £45 million they owe the Exchequer. I would like to explain that the Bill discharges CIE's liability to repay State advances of that amount as an offset against arrears in the same amount due by the Exchequer to CIE. These arrears relate to 1985, 1986 and 1987.
A basic and to me fundamental flow in Deputy Cullen's contribution was that, while his remarks were based on the ideal of financial responsibility and curbing the costs of the transport system, they did not refer at all to the railway system which, as the House knows, takes up about 80 per cent of the subsidy we vote for CIE.
Deputy Kavanagh would like to see greater investment in CIE. While it is clear that CIE could benefit from increased investment, the resources available determine what the Exchequer can afford. On the question of CIE leasing land and buildings, I would like to advise the Deputy that the board are very active in making the greatest possible use of all their land and building resources. The board's strategy is to use these resources for transport purposes in the first instance and, failing that, to use them in the best interest of the board. This can be by developing or leasing the properties or else selling them to best advantage. This approach is not confined to physical resources but the board has also been active in providing consultancy services abroad using their staff resources. I am satisfied that CIE has a very dynamic approach in this whole area.
Deputy Briscoe suggested that the maximum penalties should be increased to £800 and-or one year in prison. Deputies Taylor and Dennehy also thought that the penalties were not being pitched at a sufficiently high level. Since the debate on 26 November, I have re-examined the levels of penalties proposed in the Bill in the light of the comments of Members of the House on the adequacy of the proposals. On reflection, I decided that perhaps my original proposals would not have quite the impact on offenders that I and the Members who contributed intended. In the circumstances, on Committee Stage of the Bill I shall move amendments increasing the penalties for each of the classes of offences covered by the Bill. All classes of offences dealt with in the Bill will no longer attract the same level of maximum penalty but all penalties are being increased on the basis of the relative seriousness of the offences.
Deputy McCartan spoke of a number of important issues and his speech reflected his deeply felt concerns for public transport. As he is aware, in a number of instances our concerns are common. I cannot, however, agree that Exchequer support for CIE can be based on an indifference to profit and loss accounts. Our attitude must be conditioned by what the Exchequer can afford having regard to the many important demands on it. The social role of CIE is clearly recognised in the annual level of subvention made available to the board. This represents what the country can afford. As a corollary, it is necessary for CIE to live within the resources available to them.
Deputy McCartan advocated the extension of the DART system to other Dublin areas. This is a matter which has been under consideration by various interests for a number of years. It is recognised — and I referred to this at Question Time — that such a development would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and, to be realistic, that type of financing will not be available from the Exchequer in the foreseeable future. In the circumstances the chairman of CIE has been instructed to base plans for development in the Dublin area on bus solutions and diesel rail on existing lines. I was questioned at length about this during Question Time.
I can assure the Deputy that the current competitive efforts of the CIE services are a reflection of the freedom of CIE to compete as provided for in the transport legislation.
I now come to Deputy Jim Mitchell's contribution. He and other Deputies referred to the industrial relations situation in Bus Átha Cliath. Their criticisms reflect the general public's response to being deprived unreasonably of the services they need for ordinary living. There is a clear, direct message for those concerned to the effect that the public's patience is nearing exhaustion, if not already exhausted. A number of Deputies were critical of a particular union. Deputy Jim Mitchell saw the lack of trust between management and workers as the main cause for the industrial relations problems. The problem of interruptions to service is very serious and will clearly have to be resolved as a matter of urgency in the interests of Bus Átha Cliath, their employees and the travelling public.
Deputy Mitchell laid some emphasis on rail safety. The Deputy can rest assured that safety is still a major priority and Iarnród Éireann and their staff continue to maintain vigilance in regard to safety measures.
As regards the change of route via Portarlington for the trains travelling with chemicals between Dublin and Ballina' this alteration was made after the company had given full consideration to all relevant factors. The change improves the safety factor, because by operating via Portarlington it is possible for the train to remain in radio contact with Connolly Station for the greater part of the route. These trains continue to be operated according to detailed operational instructions in compliance with safety standards. All the local authorities on the route were notified of the change of route and the scheme of co-ordination of emergency services in the event of an incident is in place. It will interest Members of the House to learn that mock exercises were held earlier this year to test the operation of the scheme and, in the light of these, certain improvements were made to it. The safety aspects continue to be kept under review.
Deputy Jim Mitchell referred to many issues in relation to detailed activities of the CIE organisation. No doubt, the board and their subsidiaries will take cognisance of what he said. Nevertheless, there are some points to which I wish to reply. The board of CIE are actively working — and with some success — to exploit to CIE's advantage their physical and human resources. The board have no particular wish to create redundancies among their workforce. That is a procedure which is resorted to only where there is no alternative viable course of action.
Deputy Mitchell expressed some concern about the replacement of CIE locomotives and other rail equipment. I wish to remind the Deputy that the last Government, of which he was a member, decided that a package of retrenchment measures would be implemented on the passenger rail side. They explained that these measures would not affect the existing carriage replacement programme but would mean that there would be no new substantial investment in railways and that there would be strict cash limits on other expenditures. I assure the Deputy that any proposals for capital investment put forward by CIE will be examined on their merits in the usual way and taking account of the limits of available resources.
I wish to thank the Members of the House who made contributions on Second Stage. It reflects their interest in the important question of the country's needs and the way they are met. I welcome the support for the Bill from Members of the House and the support expressed for the chairman of CIE, his board, the boards of the subsidiary companies and the whole CIE organisation. Some Members of the House recognise the progress made in CIE over recent years. As regards the criticisms of strikes in Bus Átha Cliath and some CIE services, I cannot but agree that there is scope for improvement in these areas. The CIE organisation are working on the problems and deserve every encouragement in expanding the use of the board's extensive resources.
There were many points raised of a detailed operational or local nature which it is not possible to deal with in the course of my reply. I confined myself to responding to queries and criticisms of the proposals before the House and general CIE issues. I will bring the report of this debate to the notice of the chairman of CIE so that he can take account of the many points made on detailed CIE matters.
Táim buíoch den Teach mar gheall ar an díospoireacht, mar gheall ar an spéis a cuireadh i gcúrsaí Chóras Iompair Éireann, agus mar gheall ar na moltaí a chuir na Comhaltaí roimh an Teach.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 90; Níl, 10.
Tá
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Bell, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- McCartan, Pat.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Power, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Sherlock. Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stafford, John.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Swift, Brian.
- Taylor, Mervyn.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Níl
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Colley, Anne.
- Gibbons, Martin Patrick.
- Harney, Mary.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kennedy, Geraldine.
- McCoy, John S.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- O'Malley, Pat.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Harney and Kennedy.
Question declared carried.