Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We also have commitments to the IMF, and mention was made of the rail review and not to further distort competition. It is concerned about this area but I will not press the amendment because I am having a dialogue with the Minister, and not in a confrontational way. It is documented in the strategic rail review that the independent bus companies have provided a service without subsidy or investment grants. Bus Éireann gets ¤300,000 to compete with those companies.

I always hear the Department saying the position is different in Sweden and in the United Kingdom. These are independent Irish companies. They do not get any subsidy yet they have gone on to dominate most of the routes in terms of frequency. Presumably, the Minister, Deputy Bruton, would welcome people like that in terms of innovation and entrepreneurship. That is what the Irish economy needs. I want the maximum pressure put on CIE not to go to the Department, run out of money half way through the year or try to achieve regulatory capture over the Department, which it has, but to develop much stricter investment appraisals than it has had previously. The Minister referred to some of those in his contribution on the previous occasion. The more competitive pressure it is put under, the better.

Senator Quinn mentioned Aer Lingus, which was always seeking free capital when it was a monopoly. Under the current management and board it has responded better than any other State airline to the Ryanair challenge. In our circumstances feather-bedding by any company, including CIE, is not a good idea.

The National Transport Authority, which got off to a bad footing in this House by awarding all the routes through direct award contract without competitive tendering, must act on behalf of the taxpayer. What is the point in subsidising one person with a free bus and an operating subsidy when we have not even asked any other operator? It must step up to the plate on that.

I may have misinterpreted but I understand "among themselves" to mean between CIE and its lenders rather than the CIE board. I appreciate what the Minister said about controls. Section 1, which amends section 28(1) of the principal Act, states that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and this Minister will be involved because this is not the first time this company has been in crisis. It has a record of seeking supplementary Estimates. The Minister published the supplementary Estimate for ¤36 million but that money was taken out of other areas in his Department including road safety, public transport agencies, the smarter travel and carbon reduction programme, the public transport investment programme, the maritime administration and coastguard programme, the sports grants, the national sports campus, and tourism product development. As the Minister stated, that is a lot of money and we must make the company aware that this Parliament, which would be reluctant to take money from all the other areas he mentioned, does not want this to recur. We need an institutional structure that ensures that if it cannot operate a route we immediately have some other operator come in and do so. Perhaps we should take the Minister's idea on the school bus service in that we will be able to accomplish more for less, which is one of the goals of all of us. I thank the Minister for his response. I will not press amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 4.