Vol. 470 No. 6
4 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications if he has satisfied himself with the current direction of transport policy; the agenda he has set for CIE; and the discussions, if any, he has had recently with the management and chairman of the company. [19565/96]
Before I came into office CIE was experiencing serious difficulties. It was not facing up to the reality of competition and to the need to adopt a more commercial approach. It was poorly managed and providing an inadequate service to its customers. I took immediate action by instituting a series of top management changes which saw the appointment of a new chief executive and new function heads in the major areas of finance, programme and projects, human resources and marketing.
When I announced my proposals to restructure the top management, I clearly outlined the Government's mandate to the company, which placed the emphasis on a much more commercially-driven and customer-focused CIE, delivering quality services at competitive prices.
In the period 1994-99 an investment of over £600 million from European Union and national sources is being made by CIE in its infrastructure and services. This investment programme will significantly enhance the group's ability to offer attractive, efficient and cost-effective services. To ensure that the full benefits of these investments are realised, the group must identify and address its weaknesses and make the transition to a new culture of service delivery to survive in the more competitive environment that is already emerging. The public service contracts regime which I propose to introduce in respect of socially necessary, non-commercial services will facilitate that transition by emphasising transparency, accountability and performance.
A key requirement at this stage is the reduction of the undoubted imbalance that exists between the group's costs and revenues. As Deputies are aware, the managements of the three companies have developed cost containment plans aimed at ensuring the viability of the companies through reduced costs and increased efficiency.
I have been in constant contact with the chairman of CIE and have had several discussions with him this month to keep myself informed of developments in the group, especially those related to the implementation of the cost containment plans. I have made it clear that the cost reduction issue must be negotiated by unions and management on a basis of partnership. They have a common interest in developing realistic and workable plans to promote the competitiveness of the company to enable it survive and prosper in the new competitive operational environment.
Given that the Minister in effect ordered these cuts in CIE, will he now accede to the request from the trade unions in the company who are anxious to meet him to discuss the cuts? Will he talk to the workers in the company of which he has ownership on behalf of the State?
The Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, has given CIE a mandate to deliver the quality products the consumer is demanding. This mandate will ensure that the CIE group of companies will be fit to compete in the commercial climate that will ensue from European Union deregulation and internal competition from Irish operators. To fulfil this mandate the board of CIE has examined the cash flow requirements of each of the constituent companies and has requested the chief executives of each company to achieve the necessary savings. The management of the CIE group of companies is publicly committed to managing change in line with the ICTU policy document on that subject. The accounts of each group of companies have been opened up to the trade unions involved and discussed in detail with them at the highest level. A joint working group was established in 1995 and is currently planning change which will give staff, through their trade unions, a greater say than ever before in policy making and strategic planning.
The Minister said in a famous Business and Finance article some time ago that he would go through the semi-State companies like a dose of salts. Given that he is continuing with that process and has ordered these cuts, is the Minister satisfied that what is happening in CIE amounts to sensible negotiation? Is it the case that on his orders the workers in CIE are being trampled on and that no meaningful negotiation is taking place in the company?
The comment the Deputy attributed to me was not made by me and he is well aware of that.
The Minister knows what newspapers are like.
I want to outline some facts about CIE. I have seen the report on CIE's cost base review which was conducted by people independent of CIE. I presume the Deputy has taken the trouble of reading it although from the questions he is putting to me today it seems he has not read it because he is unaware of the gravity of the matter.
If I were as smart as the Minister I would be on that side of the House.
The report states that the age profile of both the infrastructure and the rolling stock clearly indicates the effects of insufficient investment over a decade. The effect of that on customers, about whom Deputy Brennan should be concerned——
That decision was taken by the then Minister, Deputy Jim Mitchell.
——is that the buses and trains on which they travel are old, outdated and subject to breakdown.
I did not ask the Minister that. I asked him about the negotiations. The Minister is lecturing me on public transport. He is supposed to answer questions.
I am going over the Deputy's record. Train stations have been neglected and no effort has been made to ensure CIE customers got better value for money. For more than a decade there was no leadership from successive Fianna Fáil Ministers who were the representatives of the taxpayers and shareholders.
It was Deputy Jim Mitchell when he was Minister who took that decision.
I asked the Minister about the negotiations with CIE.
The interruptions must cease.
Deputy Brennan asked me the reason it was necessary to have a programme of negotiation between the management and the unions for the cost base of the company to be renewed.
I did not ask that. I asked the Minister if he was satisfied that negotiations were taking place.
The Minister should be allowed to reply to questions in his own fashion.
Given the facts I outlined about the lack of investment in infrastructure and the fact that four successive Fianna Fáil Ministers did nothing in that regard, it is cynical, patronising and disingenuous of Deputy Brennan, as a representative of Fianna Fáil, to cry crocodile tears over the current state of the CIE group of companies. Since 1987 four Fianna Fáil Ministers have sat at the desk I now occupy.
The Minister has done more damage in his short time than anyone else.
Deputy Brennan had an indifferent record in that office.
Answer the question.
The former Ministers, John Wilson, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn and Deputy Cowen held the position but all of them let CIE fall behind.
They were excellent Ministers.
They are the people responsible for the lack of investment in CIE over those years.
Absolute rubbish.
Deputy Brennan does not like what I am saying but he should let me finish my reply.
The Minister will not answer my question. He is giving a lecture.
Last week the leader of Fianna Fáil attacked the semi-State companies. The members of the Fianna Fáil Front Bench are hypocritical mourners bringing flowers to the funeral of someone they had ignored and neglected. The people now in Opposition starved CIE of money and leadership. Through their neglect they forced CIE to remain in the slate and pencil era while in the real world new technology was becoming essential to business management and development. We have identified the problems at CIE. The management and the unions in CIE, working together in a spirit of co-operation, can overcome the difficulties they face. There is no room for an adversarial confrontational approach between the management and the unions. I want them to sit down together, address the problems and negotiate a future for the company and its employees.
The Minister should start by meeting them.
I have put that request to the management of the company and I hope there will not be any precipitant industrial action by any section of the company because industrial action can only harm it in the long-term.
A number of Deputies are offering and I want to facilitate them. May I first disabuse them of the notion that we can debate this matter now; we clearly cannot. It is Question Time and we must be brief and relevant. I call Deputy Molloy.
The Minister is reading essays.
I do not have any control over Ministers' replies but I have control over Deputy's questions.
Nobody has control over the Minister.
Has the Minister received a request from the CIE group of unions to meet them to discuss the rationalisation programme that has been put before them? If he has received that request does he intend to accede to it and, if not, will he give an explanation to the House? The Minister knows there is a strong desire for such a meeting among the union representatives and I urge him to agree to it at an early date.
I have received representations from the unions through various sources including public representatives. Their concerns have been brought to my attention. I have brought those concerns in the appropriate way to the attention of the chairman and chief executive of the company with whom I have had extensive discussions, particularly the chairman, in recent times. I have told the company there is only one way forward. It has identified the extent of the problem and realises that its cost base must be reduced if it is to compete in a competitive environment and that it must not lose more business and have its revenue base eroded further. The company must plan for the future but that plan involves rationalisation and sacrifice and it can only be concluded when all procedures have been complied with. There is a raft of procedures and support systems available to both the management and the unions which will act as a basis for the negotiations to commence and conclude successfully. As I stated clearly on a number of occasions, and I am happy the management agrees with my view, this process can only be brought to a successful conclusion if it is approached in a spirit of partnership. There must be co-operation between management rather than an adversarial approach. There is no room for confrontational tactics by management or unions in concluding this issue.
Will the Minister sit down with the unions?
As the Deputy knows, it is not the job of the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications to involve himself in negotiation on this issue. That is for the management of the company.
They have sought a meeting.
I continue to monitor developments. We have a strategy in place with the company's executive. We can negotiate a conclusion——
Is the Minister refusing to meet the unions?
I am not refusing to meet anyone.
The Minister without interruption.
I am exercising my responsibilities and duties as Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications in a proper fashion. I have conveyed my views through the appropriate channels — the chairman of the company. I have also expressed my views to the company's chief executive as I want the issues in CIE resolved fairly. The issues must be faced objectively and the long-term interests of the company and its employees must be protected. That can only be done in a shared, partnership way. That is the approach I expect in the discussions I will start when we have received the judgment from the High Court.
The Minister will not meet the workers.
It is extraordinary that the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Stagg, should issue a statement stating that neither he nor the Minister was consulted on the CIE cuts. The Minister told us he has put in a new management structure and that a particular base for cost containment was put together also. Given that, is it not extraordinary that the Minister should say that this must be negotiated on a partnership basis?
The Deputy should ask a brief, relevant question.
It is an important point. Management has said to the workers that cuts are coming in and there is a timescale that they must operate from a certain date. Then the Minister talks about a partnership that is not adversarial.
Deputy Molloy asked a question that needs to be answered because people have had to go to court. It is adversarial. Will the Minister meet the workers as they are requesting in order to start reasonable negotiations in the best interests of the company and industrial relations? The Minister knows it is necessary.
We are clearly having repetition.
For the umpteenth time, I have clearly communicated my views to the management of the company, which is the appropriate body for me to communicate my views to.
It took long enough.
I have told them clearly that there is no room for a confrontational process or adversarial tactics. We must identify what needs to be done and how fast that can be done. Then we must bring forward a plan and implement it over an agreed timescale.
The Minister waited until they reacted.
I did not. The Deputy should remember that jobs will be protected and sustained and the number of new jobs will grow only if the company is modern, adaptable, economically sound and delivering a good service. That is what the negotiations are about
The workers accept that.
Unlike the Deputy, I am looking to the future of the company in its interests and in the interests of its employees.
The Minister cannot say that.
Fianna Fáil has ignored the future because it is too anxious to forget the past criminal neglect of the company under four successive Ministers, including Deputy Brennan.
The Minister has made a mess of CIE.
I want to facilitate Members. Could we please have brevity?
The Minister spoke about customer service and focus. Does he believe that the closing of the western freight corridor from Ballina to Limerick is delivering customer service and focus to the west of Ireland?
When the Minister appointed the chairman of the board of CIE, what instructions were given to him, what was in his letter of appointment, what instructions were given to Mr. Joyce on two successive days in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications before he took up the position and what directions have been given by management in the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications to the chief executive and the executive directors of CIE?
These questions cover a lot of affairs.
There is no chance of an answer.
I compliment the Deputy as these are all relevant questions. I will answer them comprehensively when the Deputy goes through the normal procedure and puts down the questions.
This is an evasion by the Minister of his responsibilities. He appointed the chairman and the board and now he is denying the House information on the instructions he gave them. Is there any role for us as representatives? Is there any point in putting questions? He met people before appointing them and will not tell us the instructions he gave them. There is no point in Parliament if the Minister can get away with this.
Those are specialised questions that are worthy of being separate questions.
They directly impinge on the Minister and his personal directives.
I would welcome a debate on this matter. Perhaps this is a sign that one is needed. Does the Minister agree with the view of some in CIE management that previous cuts have been painfully made through the years to allow for capital investment, particularly in Iarnróid Éireann, and that the benefits of those savings have been offset by reduced Government subventions year by year?
In this light, will he accept the arguments made and meet not just the unions but those with constructive views and submissions? Those people include customers, the people who will make CIE viable if the Minister will co-operate.
This is going on too long.
I remind the Deputy that between 1994 and 1999, contrary to his claims, we will have the biggest investment ever in public transport in the history of the State — £600 million.
EU money.
The subvention to CIE has remained at approximately £100 million.
What about inflation?
Last year it was £99.76 million. The company had operating losses of £30 million. The Deputy and Opposition are saying that as Minister with responsibility for CIE I should ignore this and allow the company to continue to decline without taking the necessary actions. My first interest is to protect the company and put it in a position where it can compete in a new operational environment where it must face increased competition from private operators. Second, I must also protect the employment, as far as possible, of the staff who have given tremendous service to CIE. Third, I want CIE to be efficient. The public paying for public transport are entitled to have trains and buses running on time.
Mussolini has arrived.
They are entitled to clean public transport facilities at the least possible cost. That is my objective as Minister, and I do not apologise for confronting those issues.
It is the Minister's responsibility.
I am satisfied that the vast majority of employees of that company recognise they must plan for the future and that in doing so tough decisions have to be taken. I look forward to the management of the company giving the necessary leadership so that, through a spirit of co-operation and partnership, we can reach solutions to the many problems that face CIE going into the next century.
They are entitled to a meeting.
The Minister will not meet them.
The new management team are very much the Minister's people. I accept that in recent days the Minister has told them they should do their business by way of talks and consultation. I cannot understand they did not know that in advance. Where did the Minister get them?
He cannot fire anybody else.
It is significant that two of them came from the rarefied atmosphere of the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. Any manager ought to know that under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work we are operating a system of social consensus. It baffles me that they played hardball, but I appreciate that the Minister has called them off. Under the policy laid down by the Minister, does the CIE management have the authority to privatise a section of the company, namely, Rail Link? Was the privatisation of that section put out to tender or, to use the Minister's own term, was it a sweetheart deal with one company?
I have every confidence in the ability and professionalism of the management of CIE. The Deputy should not cast aspersions on their ability.
The Minister cast aspersions on the old management today.
I will not allow Deputies to cast aspersions on the members of the transport section in my Department. The Deputy said they came from the rarefied atmosphere of the Department. I can assure him they are diligent, competent and professional. I take it the Deputy will withdraw any slur, intended or not, on the management of the company or on the people within the Department. Operational and day-to-day matters in running CIE are a matter for the management.
Including selling it off?
That is a matter for the management and the board.
Does the Minister of State, Deputy Stagg, know this?
I have no doubt that the due procedures were followed.
The Minister has responsibility for the appointment of the chairman of the board. What instructions did he give the chairman to convey to the board vis-á-vis the future management of CIE as and from his appointment? Also, I want a clear answer as to whether the Minister will meet the unions on this matter and prove his responsibility as a partner in our national transport services.
Will the Minister be as amenable as his junior Minister?
If the Deputy puts down a question I will answer it comprehensively.
The Minister will not answer. He is evading and dodging.
The role and function of the chairman——
It is to carry out the Minister's mandate.
Yes, and to implement Government policy in consultation with his board. The Deputy is right. He understands the responsibilities of a Minister.
I am fully aware of them.
If the Deputy is fully aware of them he should not have to ask the question.
I want to know what instructions he got.
The chairman received instructions to prepare CIE and make whatever changes were necessary to prepare the company for the inevitable liberalisation of the market, which means competition which the company has not had to confront before. That is his first and principal task. His second task is to ensure that we get value for the £100 million the taxpayers are putting into CIE. The third thing I asked him to do, something Deputy Brennan neglected to do, was to ensure that the consumers get a better deal, a quality service at the lowest possible price.
Does the Minister accept that equality prevails when consumers in the metropolis have a luxury rail service at an average cost of 82p while people in other parts of the country have no service as a result of decisions taken by this board on the Minister's instructions?
I do not know to what the Deputy is referring. If he puts down a question I will answer it.
I cannot understand how selling off a section of a company with, perhaps, 300 workers is regarded as a day-to-day matter. That is a major fundamental issue. Will the Minister tell me whether he approved it?
Matters such as that conform with the normal procedures and practices that have been cleared by the board and the company. It is probably in line with what the Leader of Fianna Fáil referred to as the necessity to democratise the semi-State companies. I am sure the term "democratise" is just a fancy name for privatisation. The Deputy should go back to the manual which is Fianna Fáil's gospel for the semi-State companies and put a meaning on "democratise". Then they will know where they are going.
My colleague asked a straight question. Could we have a "yes" or "no" answer to it? Did the Minister approve it?
I have already answered that question a number of times.
The Minister will not answer it.
