asked the Minister for Communications if he has considered trade union views on the difficulty of two separate rail and bus companies in competition covering roughly the same routes in some cases and using the same facilities; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I gave most careful consideration to the views of the trade unions in regard to the future organisation of CIE and I had discussions in the matter with representatives of the National Executive of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the CIE group of unions.

The Transport (Re-Organisation of Córas Iompair Éireann) Bill, 1986, now before the Oireachtas provides for the establishment of three subsidiary companies operating within the public sector and subject to the CIE parent board.

I am satisfied that the proposed arrangements are the most appropriate means of providing efficient and economical rail and bus services and securing the future of the organisation, while safeguarding the interests of the workers.

Can the Minister assure the workers that there is not an effort in this — taking into consideration what I mentioned in my question, similar routes, same facilities being used — to downgrade one system and upgrade another with a view to eliminating some of the services available, for example, by rail?

No, absolutely not. The position is, and it is worth repeating to the House, that for 15 years CIE's deficit escalated by a multiple of a very high inflation rate. For example, it went up from £3 million in 1969 to £109 million in 1982. That was more than seven times the rate of inflation in that period, a period of very high inflation. Since 1982, because of the policies we have pursued the deficit has fallen in real terms each year, in 1983, 1984 and 1985, and when the accounts for last year are published in the very near future, we will see a further very substantial improvement, indeed the best year that CIE have had for many years past. This has been brought about by new financial policies and the strengthening of the board of management.

The reorganisation of CIE is the final step in this reorganisation, to break down CIE into more manageable units, with more vibrant management closer to the scene of operation. That is the idea, to create a new environment and a better service to the public at a cheaper price and is the direction in which we are moving. I want to say again how much I appreciate the efforts made by all in CIE, particularly those in the Dublin bus services in respect of which 1985 was the first year ever that not one manday was lost due to a strike, with the consequences that passenger numbers are beginning to increase.

The Minister did not answer the question I asked about rail and bus companies. Is he stating to the House that no sector of the rail system is in danger as a result of separate bus and rail companies operating and competing on roughly the same routes?

It is my ambition to ensure that all aspects of CIE will be the better for our policies, will be more vibrant and successful, and less a call on the Exchequer than they have been heretofore. All the signs so far have been in that direction.

I asked a question about TAT 8 and the Minister's interest in TAT 8 involving the United States, France and the United Kingdom. This question was turned down, a very important one, on the basis that the Minister had no responsibility in the matter. I want to protest that, because of the international element of the question, the Minister was bound to have responsibility for answering. It was unjust and unfair that it was disallowed. I have three or four more questions into which I will not go in detail now but I want to put my protest on the record of the House.

What was the subject?

TAT 8, which is very important from the point of view of the Minister's portfolio.

With your permission, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the recent EMS realignment, the threat to our exports of beef and dairy products and the job losses that could occur because of that realignment, which could well amount to 6,000 job losses in our dairy and beef industry.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I submitted a Private Notice Question to you today asking the Minister for Industry and Commerce, having regard to the occupation of the vacant tannery premises at Carrick-on-Suir, County Tipperary, by the former employees, designed to highlight their utter frustration at the inordinate delay in reopening the tannery, if he would avail of all steps open to him to bring about a commencement of work, in consultation with the new owner and the receiver and if he would make a statement on the matter.

I was astonished to learn that this Private Notice Question was disallowed on the grounds of lack of urgency especially having regard to the fact that the factory has been closed since July 1985, that an owner has been appointed by the receiver, and also the fact that the factory is now occupied by workers who have no intention of leaving until this tannery is reopened.

In the light of all these factors and the serious turn of events to which I have now adverted— and referred to in our daily papers — would the Chair reconsider the matter? In any event, I desire to give notice now of my intention to raise this matter, with your permission, Sir, on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I want to raise on the Adjournment, with your permission, Sir, the question of TAT 8.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of provision of compensation for victims of hit-and-run accidents in the context of the liability of the Motor Insurers' Bureau.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Since I failed to get in today on Question No. 10 in relation to Cork airport, and since I had a number of supplementary questions to ask on it, I should like to raise the question of the lengthening of the runway there on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.