Vol. 396 No. 7
4 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport if he will consider taking the cost of maintaining the permanent way out of CIE's overheads and funding this cost directly from the Exchequer in the same way as roads are funded.
At the December 1989 Council meeting of the Ministers of Transport, the EC Commission tabled proposals relating to future policy development for the railways. These proposals, which cover a range of railway activities, envisage the separation of responsibility for providing rail infrastructure, including the permanent way, from other rail activities. A more enhanced role is envisaged in these proposals for member state Governments in relation to responsibility for provision of the appropriate infrastructure. These proposals would have important budgetary implications for the Exchequer and are being studied carefully by my Department.
I will be considering the Commission's proposals over the coming months in conjunction with my European colleagues.
Can the Minister tell the House what it costs CIE to maintain the permanent way for the most recent years for which he has figures?
The best I can do is give the Deputy the Exchequer support for the railway company. The Exchequer support for CIE overall was £111.255 million in 1988, of which £90.143 million went to the railways. The Deputy may assume that a good portion of that is also involved in the maintenance side.
Will the Minister agree that the manner in which the permanent way is included in the costs of CIE as an overhead distorts their accounts and puts them at a disadvantage in relation to other transport companies who use the public roadways? Will he agree that the removal of the permanent way costs from the accounts of CIE would give a fairer view of the trading position of that company?
I know what the Deputy is getting at but, with respect, it is something of an accountancy exercise in the sense that whether we show the costs of maintaining the permanent way on the CIE accounts or include them in the costs of the Department of Tourism and Transport is academic to an extent unless of course — as happens in some countries — the permanent way is directly maintained by the State and the railways are leased out or used by different operators. In that kind of scenario it makes sense for the State to directly deal with the permanent way but when there is only one operator it is academic and an accountancy exercise.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
We are dealing with Priority Questions and the Deputy will appreciate that a very strict time limit applies as laid down in Standing Orders. I am anxious for co-operation so that the four questions will be disposed of today.
