Vol. 220 No. 9
asked the Minister for Transport and Power what plans the Government have in mind in regard to the future of CIE (a) in view of the fact that the General Manager of the national transport system was recently reported as stating that the company is, in effect, broke, and (b) bearing in mind, as well, Government statements that no subsidy would be paid to CIE to help meet its liabilities.
2.
asked the Minister for Transport and Power if it is proposed to introduce legislation to enable reorganisation of the Dublin city and county bus services in such a manner as will secure reduced fares for the bus users by an equitable allocation of portion of the considerable profits currently raised by services in this area.
I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply to Deputy Corish's question given on 25th January, 1966, which indicated the Government's intentions on future policy in relation to public transport and CIE.
I would also remind the Deputy that under the Transport Act, 1964, CIE are in receipt of an annual grant of £2 million to enable the Board to discharge its duty under the Act of conducting its undertaking so that after allowing for the grant, its operating expenditure shall not be greater, taking one year with another, than its revenue. In so far as the Board's expenditure may exceed its revenue plus the grant it is incumbent on the Board to effect economies by reducing unremunerative services or by other means.
Is the Minister aware of a report in the newspapers— and if I am not mistaken, it was in the Evening Press, the Minister's Party organ—of an alleged statement by the Chairman of CIE to the effect that CIE was broke? Does he agree with this?
When the General Manager of CIE used the word "broke", what he really meant was that the revenue and expenditure of CIE in the present year are such that it would be impossible for CIE, without raising fares and rates, to incur any further liabilities. It was perhaps a wrong word to use in the circumstances but that is what he meant.
He used the wrong words before.
The Minister has indicated now and previously that the Government propose to restrict the subsidy to CIE to £2 million. In the light of the just demands made by the unions representing the workers which CIE will have to meet in part, if not in entirety, does he seriously consider that that figure is adequate to meet the situation in which CIE will shortly find itself? If he does not consider that it is adequate, can he indicate what is the future of CIE to be? Is he further aware that there is considerable discussion in the country as to the mention which has been frequently made of the possibility of CIE reverting to private ownership for road haulage and that there is considerable interest in the city of Dublin in the suggestion made by CIE spokesmen— and if I do not make a mistake, by the Minister himself—of the possibility of the municipalisation of the Dublin bus services, with a consequent reduction in fares for Dublin workers which is badly needed.
The Deputy evidently forgets that in relation to Dublin city transport, while there is a profit, the profit amounts to some one-seventh of a penny per passenger journey. I informed the Deputy, when he asked a previous question, that the loss on the Dublin city suburban services run by CIE is greater than the profit made on the Dublin city bus services, so that the question of there being a large profit available to CIE as a whole on the Dublin city services does not arise. In regard to the second question asked by the Deputy, I made a very detailed statement in regard to the whole position of CIE, and I do not think it necessary for me to enlarge upon that now. I did not say that any services of CIE would be municipalised. I spoke of what could happen if CIE got itself into an extremely serious financial position arising from a considerable disruption of the service. That situation has not arisen. Therefore, I do not propose to speak about it now. What I was speaking about was a very remote possibility.
Is it not a fact that in a press release of 6th January last the Minister indicated that if Dublin city services were to be operated as a unit without the need of cross-subsidisation, as he put it—in other words, without Dublin bus users being required to subsidise the rest of the country—there could be a reduction of city fares? Did the Minister not state that in a press release of 6th January last?
Yes, but if the Deputy reads the statement as a whole, he will find that that related to a complete examination of the system in which all factors would be taken into account, not only the bus services but the railways.
Did he say fares would be reduced if Dublin city services were operated as a unit?
If those services were entirely separated. The fact that CIE suburban services are losing money at a rate greater than the profit cleared by the Dublin city services would also have to be taken into account in any decision the Government might have to make if that very serious and, I hope, unlikely eventuality should arise.
Would the Minister say if it is because of the statement referred to in Question No. 1 here that changes have been made in the road freight system of CIE resulting in the closing of provincial town depots in many places, particularly in County Cork? If so, will any compensation be forthcoming to workers who undoubtedly will become redundant because of such a change?
That is a separate matter.
It arises from the question here in relation to the disruption of the system as a result of the statement made by Dr. Andrews and Mr. Lemass.
Question No. 3.
Will you give the Minister a chance to answer, Sir?
