Why muted response to CIÉ attack?

It is interesting to note the muted response to Transport Minister Leo Varadkar’s “withdrawal” of the additional €36m subvention to CIÉ. Still less his stated reasons for doing so.

While Mr Varadkar did inform the trade unions at their meeting (Sep 19, 2012) that he hoped to see a speedy conclusion to the cost-cutting plans, he did not make it a pre-condition for the then expected €36m. So, why did he change his mind? What has made the minister suddenly accept the original preferred option of his officials at the Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport, ie for CIÉ to obtain a loan from the National Reserve Pension Fund? An option which will place additional liabilities on the fragile financial position of CIÉ.

The minister also implied that CIÉ was dragging its feet in selling off some of its assets in order to fund the Irish Rail Voluntary Severance package (€20m). This is not true. There is a tendering process which cannot be fast tracked.

The other implication is that CIÉ is responsible for its financial woes. Again this is not true. Passenger revenue has gone through the floor due to the economic down turn. In addition, the subvention is down 21% since 2008; fuel costs have increased, the abolition of excise duty has cost the company €22m; there has been Vat increases for buses of 23% (non recoverable); and the imposition of Carbon Tax (a policy not helping modal shift).

In his recent pronouncements, Mr Varadkar has chosen to ignore these matters and has decided to “home in” on the cost-cutting negotiations in the CIÉ bus companies. In doing so, he failed to mention the previous successful negotiations which shed large numbers of jobs and reduced payroll costs.

If there is a “slowness” in the present “talks”, Mr Varadkar can accept some blame for this as his unhelpful comments about the future of the bus companies stalled negotiations for a time. They resumed after the minister agreed to meet the trade unions.

At that meeting the minister appeared to recognise his media commentary was affecting sensitive negotiations when he made a commitment to desist. In not keeping to that commitment, in my opinion he has made those negotiations all the more difficult. One must ask if he was deliberately being mischievous.

Finally, while CIÉ has yet again been made a political football, it appears strange to me that the CIÉ chairman, Vivienne Jupp, has not publicly defended the company. This is in contrast to the robust defence the previous chairman, John Lynch (and, indeed, before him again Michael McDonnell) “fielded” when CIÉ was attacked. It would seem Mr Varadkar’s preference for a part-time chairman has worked to his advantage when it comes to media coverage of CIÉ.

Bill McCamley

Siptu Worker Director

CIÉ Board