When speaking on this Bill last week I asked what was wrong with CIE. Each year we come here to vote bigger and bigger subsidies for them. Four years ago the loss was £3 million and now we are voting £11 million in order to keep this concern going. It looks as if we will have to do this every year if we want to keep CIE in being. I do not accept that the management or staff of CIE are any less competent than other semi-State companies. One must examine the question of whether the country is too small for CIE or whether CIE are too big for the country. A rail system in any country consists of thousands of miles of track but we have not got a densely populated country such as they have in the United Kingdom and on the Continent and there is less potential passenger traffic for CIE. However, they must maintain tracks, the mainline tracks, stations and staff.
CIE must be looked at within the context of the European Economic Community and in order to keep viable they have to look for an expansion of their services outside the country. They are doing it at the moment with their tours and ferries but they have got to look east and see how they can expand their services there in order to collect sufficient revenue to subsidise the whole concern. They cannot remain financially static. They will have to have an ever-expanding outlook unless the Oireachtas is prepared to go ahead every year voting bigger and bigger sums to them. That is not an attractive proposition. I am sure the management of CIE would not accept this and I believe the Dáil would have to ask some very critical questions about what we would do with this concern.
The Minister in an interjection said that 66 per cent of CIE's revenue went on wages. I do not doubt what the Minister says but it seems an amazingly high percentage. I intend to quote figures later which will not cast doubt on the Minister's statement but which will bring us down to earth when we realise the smallness of some of the salaries and wages paid and also the frightful pension position.
I think this could all be ungraded. This being a particularly sensitive semi-State concern we should have, naturally, a management of professional people; but we should also enlarge the board to include representatives of the trade unions and the travelling public by having somebody from, say, the Consumers' Association. In that way we would get a broader look at the problems, the professional people on the board would be made more aware of the feelings of the public regarding the services and the trade unions would become more aware of the problems facing any concern involving so many trade unions.
If the Minister appointed such a board he would find many people willing and competent to serve on it. We should try anything rather than go on paying ever-mounting subsidies, which is not a healthy sign in any concern. We demand a service from CIE and in many cases we are not getting it. Therefore, we have a duty in this House to try to say where we see the faults and how these might be corrected.
We had a very prolonged strike this year in CIE which caused grave loss of revenue to the management and resulted in grave losses in wages and salaries, particularly wages, to those involved. The public took a very serious view of the whole matter and the Minister for Labour has set up an inquiry into this strike. Strikes do not happen; they are caused by something and there must be some reason why CIE seems so prone to strikes. There are rumours of another strike threat in a section of the bus service at present. We might therefore consider why there is so much unrest among the personnel, particularly in the bus section, and why this city particularly can have its bus services disrupted so frequently.
I have been speaking to some of those who man the buses and work in different capacities for CIE. They have listed certain grievances which I accept as being genuine complaints because, for a man to drive a bus through the traffic of any city, and particularly Dublin, is a very onerous and tiring task. I have not seen figures regarding drivers' health but I imagine that the incidence of illness is very high. If, in these days of higher employment rates, CIE finds it difficult to recruit bus drivers this must bring home to the management that there is something wrong in that section. I am also told that the condition of the vehicles leaves much to be desired and that is something that must be corrected right away.
When a person has worked for many years he should be able to look forward to having a decent pension but this is not so in CIE. The top pension I see on a list I have been given appears to be £7.50 a week for life; or, if a man wants to cut that short, he could have an increased sum for a small number of years and his widow would also get a gratuity provided he dies within five years of retirement. That seems to be a sort of penal clause because naturally a man wants to live but in this case he must die within five years of retiring or else there will be no lump sum. These are annoying things.
The pension for women is far worse. For instance, a woman who has worked all her life in CIE would, on retirement, get a weekly pension of £2.75 for life or she could opt for a ten year payment of £2.90 and afterwards get £2.53. Can one imagine what a person could do with a pension of £2.53 a week today? I presume she would have a State pension but she would have paid for that. If there is something wrong with the industrial relations in CIE, and there is, I suggest that the personnel department examine the possibility of introducing an improved pension scheme, which I am sure could be negotiated with the unions. If, instead of talking of industrial relations we spoke of human relations we might have a happier set of workers in CIE with a much better service generally being given to the public.
I hope that when the Minister for Labour, when he is inquiring into the recent CIE bus strike, will probe the pension scheme there. CIE have 20,000 employees among whom are many women who do manual work. Of the company's entire revenue, 66 per cent goes to wages and salaries and I note from the 1972 report that the maximum wage paid to a woman is £11.75 per week. That is not a wage that will attract the best employees and I am sure that although they have got the benefits of interim national wage agreements, because of inflation the value of their wages is still far below standard. This is something the management will have to remedy quickly if there is to be a satisfied staff and consequently an efficient service.
On the Dublin scene, I suggest CIE's activities should not be left entirely to the Department of Transport and Power. Other Departments, such as Local Government and Finance, are indirectly or directly involved. CIE have been examining the situation vis-á-vis planned new motorways in the Dublin area and there has been talk about the laying down of underground railways to ease city traffic. I doubt if the latter proposition will ever come to anything, whether the population growth would justify it or the massive capital input would be worthwhile.
In any case, traffic patterns in Dublin will change enormously in the near future and it is vital that CIE should not be inhibited through the interests of the two local authorities —the corporation and county council —and by the requirements of the Garda Commissioner. It will become more and more necessary that there be co-ordination between all these bodies so that CIE will be enabled to give a good city public transport system in the new road pattern. This co-ordination between the authorities concerned and CIE will also be necessary in cities like Cork, Limerick and Galway.
This reminds me of the position in regard to the old Harcourt Street railway line. Parts of it have now been sold; otherwise it could have been the site for a motorway or a busway. In any case, it should be possible to provide some sort of CIE terminus at Harcourt Street from and to which suburban bus services could operate, thus easing the volume of traffic on the city perimeter.
All of these things, I suggest, render it desirable that there should be an expanded CIE board of management. Ordinary people may think managing a body like CIE is a simple matter. That is far from being the case. There are many complex aspects to be considered, one of them being whether the public will accept the continuing necessity to subsidise CIE from taxation and at the same time have fares increased from year to year. In four years CIE's losses have risen from £3 million to £14 million. We will find, following that pattern, that in six months the £11 million we are now voting to the company will have to be augmented by a considerable further sum.
People may ask why there cannot be economies. Economies generally mean a poorer service and this is not acceptable to the public who through taxation and higher fares have already been paying far too much for public transport. We must remember that the vast majority of the public do not own motor cars and have to rely on CIE services, and one of these days increased subventions by the public by way of taxation and fares will cause them to cry "halt".
One of the strange contradictions of modern times is that as the country gets more prosperous the burden of travel increases. In Dublin in the past few years we have found that some of the biggest industries have moved to the suburbs, to places like Tallaght on the south-west and Kilbarrack and Coolock on the north side. Unfortunately, we have not got such a perfect society that one can offer a man a house near his job. So, he has to pay increased bus fares in order to get to his employment. On my route the fare is 9p for a very short run into the city. A man may have to travel from the south side to the centre and then to the north-side or to Tallaght. The bus fares come out of the man's wages and that may represent a real problem for a family man. Unfortunately, employment is not so plentiful that a man can choose a job. If his firm decide in the interest of efficiency to move out from a traffic choked city the man may be asked to pay CIE twice, namely, in taxation to provide a subsidy and through increased bus fares.
I would ask the Minister to assure the House that an increase in bus fares will not be allowed. This may not come under the Minister's direct responsibility. It is the responsibility of his colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce. A decision must be made that CIE are to be subsidised, as they are, and that lower paid workers will not be asked to pay twice, will not be penalised by having to pay increased bus fares.
There is sufficient expertise in the Department to devise a system whereby persons who travel over certain distances to work will pay what used be called the workman's fare. This system is in existence in Britain and other countries but not here. The losses in the British transport system are not less than ours in proportion to size. If we are to have a reasonable transport system and equitable distribution of paying the cost we must stop assuming that either all our people have cars—they have not—or that they are well able to pay the higher fares. It may well be that a man will decide that it is not worthwhile to keep a job in the outer suburbs of the city if he has to pay ever-rising prices for inadequate bus services. In principle I support national pay agreements. They are the best thing for people. We have to ensure that they are not eroded by increasing bus fares which penalise the energetic man who wants to rear his family by his own effort and who takes a job in the outer suburbs of a city and is then compelled to pay high bus fares.
It may be suggested that the subsidy helps to keep bus fares down. I suspect that there has been some little collusion between the Government and CIE in the matter of the subsidy. We know that CIE could do with a much larger subsidy but has there been any promise given that when we vote this money to CIE, which will fall short of their needs, increased bus fares will make up the deficit or will there be a curtailment of services which would not be acceptable? It is an easy way out to curtail services. We are asking for a national transport system which will meet our needs. We are a reasonable people. We do not always protest when there are delays in transport services but the time has come when big decisions on this matter must be made.
I have already suggested that the day may come when bus services like water supplies will be free inasmuch as they will be paid for by taxation. The city streets are choked every morning and evening with motorcars carrying one or two passengers and the unfortunate bus driver has to take his juggernaut of a bus through the streets. The bus may hold 70 persons who want to get home or to get to work. Some inducement must be held out to the motorist not to bring his car into the city. I am against any compulsion in this matter but I would suggest that the bus service should be made so attractive that the motorist would prefer to use it. It is a chicken and egg situation. People buy cars in order to get to their business because the bus service is so bad. Every car on the street helps to create traffic chaos.
The Government and CIE should consider how CIE should be financed. There should be an end to this stop-go business of filling a gap in CIE revenue by an annual subsidy. It makes one rather cynical as to our ability to see ahead when one remembers the days when legislation was passed by this House which implied that CIE must pay their own way "or else". We never asked what the "or else" meant because we dared not. We realise that CIE must be maintained.
There are many ways by which CIE could increase their revenue. They could expand outside the country, which is not unusual. In fact, they have started already and I commend them for their efforts in this respect but they could go much further.
When peace returns to the north-eastern part of the country and when we have an upsurge in the tourist industry CIE will be much better off. We should turn the present situation to some good. Now that tourists are not very plentiful the CIE management should plan how they might be attracted here in more normal times.
Perhaps CIE are indulging in too many activities. It may be said that their job is only one dealing with transport but I do not agree. They have made commendable attempts to enlarge the scope of the organisation and in some cases it has paid dividends. However, they are not rethinking their policies sufficiently to ensure that this will be the last time the Dáil will have to spend time and money in subsidising them. The pattern in the last few years has been that it is nearly automatic that CIE will ask for more money each year.
It has been suggested that private enterprise should be given a chance of providing a public service but such firms would not attempt to run an organisation like CIE. Naturally private enterprise will only consider a venture that gives promise of a profit. I do not see anything wrong in that but we must accept the fact that CIE in running the bus, train and haulage services must pay the drivers, conductors and other workers the full trade union rates. While it is possible that in some sectors private enterprise could do some of the work of CIE at a cheaper rate, the employees would suffer because they would not get the same rates or have the same conditions that obtain in CIE. I have mentioned that the conditions of some of the personnel serving on the buses in Dublin are not what might be called a bed of roses but how much worse would it be if private enterprise were given the chance of running the bus services? Some of us recall when there were about ten different companies running a bus service in the city. I do not know if we had an efficient service then but the Government of the day decided to amalgamate all the services. At least we have a more stable system but we are paying dearly for it.
During the years CIE have brought in many consultants to advise on what should be done but nobody has come up with a solution to the problems and nobody ever will. The whole pattern of public transport throughout the world is one of constant problems. Some countries have succeeded better than we have but, at the same time, I do not think there is any transport authority in the world paying its way without State subvention. We must face the fact that CIE will never become a profitable concern but we object to being asked to pay through taxation for the very existence of the company.
There has been much criticism of CIE management. However, it is very easy to criticise management, just as it is easy to criticise politicians. Probably there is a grain of truth in the criticism but the full picture showing the shortcomings and the virtues of CIE and politicians is never given. I should like the Minister to tell us his views on the future of CIE and to let us know if the Government have any proposals on the matter. In this Estimate we are giving CIE more that £11 million and it would be nice to hear from the Minister that next year things will be better. However, I do not think he will be able to give us that assurance and I am sure that next year the House will have to deal with this matter once again.
The time has come to look at CIE in a new light. We must start first with the management which must be enlarged to take in other interests besides professional men. I appreciate the Government have appointed outsiders to the board but today we cannot ignore the voice of the people who use CIE services. Let us try to make it a national body; in this context I mean a representative body where matters ranging from pension schemes to industrial relations may be discussed. We had a nine-weeks' strike not long ago; it was not a case of who does what but rather it was a struggle with the unions. In my view, and this is shared by many others, there are too many unions in CIE. At the moment the House is in the process of considering legislation regarding trade union amalgamation and I hope this will offer some hope to the unions to try to have one big union and thus realise the aim of one of the founders of the movement. If we had such a situation the men and women trade unionists would be in a far stronger position and the management would be in a better position when negotiating. In addition, passengers would not have been deprived of a bus service for nine weeks and the men involved in the strike would not have had to exist on a starvation income while they fought a battle in which they believed.
With the new board there could be a much fairer deal given to the general public and to the staff of CIE. Perhaps the personnel department would examine many of the minor details. Transport employees in Ireland and Britain are given what are called "privilege tickets" for free travel on holidays. In Ireland certain categories are given free or partly free travel in the EEC. It is a great attraction but certain people like busmen are denied this. Those are small things perhaps but they are the sort of irritants that build up and result in strikes which cause hardship to the people involved and to the general public and a loss of revenue to the company.
If I were asked to state priorities I would say a beginning should be made in the personnel department to probe the question of what causes strikes. I would then suggest that CIE should see how they can expand their business. They have certain monopolies. They claim they have not got enough and this may be true but they have an opportunity, under the new management, of coming straight to the public and telling them what they want and telling the Government what they want. Let us have a straightforward deal on the future of CIE.
With 20,000 employees it is a very important factor in our economy. We cannot afford to have an inefficient transport service. Competition is increasing every day from EEC countries. Our system must at least match theirs. We must encourage CIE to expand rather than cut their services. It is only in expansion that there will be any hope for CIE. If they cut back on their services they are not doing the job for which they were put there.
I hope some of the things I have said will bear fruit. Certainly CIE must change their tactics and the Government should prepare a proper transport plan embracing CIE, the Department of Local Government in so far as roads are concerned, the Department of Finance and even the Department of Justice which controls the Garda—the Garda being the traffic authority. We should get all those together plus representatives of the travelling public. They have as much right to be on the board as any other person there. No man would speak as plainly as the Dublin bus traveller, who spends half an hour waiting at a bus stop on a wet winter evening, if somebody asked him what is wrong with CIE.
The Government, of course, have greater power than any of the other bodies to bring about a change. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government intend to do. I hope he will tell us too that having voted this money as a subsidy to CIE we will not be asked by his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to sanction another increase in bus fares this year. However, reading the background to the subsidy and bearing in mind the growing rate of inflation I fear CIE's next subsidy may come from the travelling public.
