Again we are faced with the problem of CIE and the huge subsidies which have to be made available to this State body. It is a recurring problem and we do not seem to be able to do anything about it. The sum of £26½ million for the current year is a frightening sum to be faced with at this time. Having already made available £70 million, we now find ourselves facing a further bill for £9½ million.
The increase in their losses serves to highlight the necessity for a rethink and a complete re-examination of our national transport policy, and a clearer definition of the role CIE play and will continue to play within that policy. Fortunately, there is general acceptance of the social service provided by CIE. CIE's activities in this area must be directed by sources which can establish and measure the needs and decide the nature of our transport resources public or private which can be most suitably used for meeting those needs.
CIE are organised and managed to operate a transport system on road and rail. They regulate their activities on the basis of economic demand. Circumstances placed the management in a situation in which they are required to interpret and exercise their discretion in the matter of satisfying requirements which are purely social with repercussions on community welfare and living conditions. A transport management team should not be forced into this type of situation. That is happening. CIE management have sufficient problems operating our transport services without being burdened with social services such as these that would be more appropriate to local or national political decision level. There already exists a guideline for this concept with CIE's relationships with the Department of Education. For the school transport service CIE operate as contractors to the Department of Education. This eliminates headaches for CIE when they are acting in this role. We should examine this role for CIE further.
The municipal transport services operated by CIE in Dublin and Cork are instances where some similar type of arrangement with local authorities on regional transport could be introduced or examined carefully. The public, through a suitably constituted national or local committee would directly influence and control the levels and types of service for which they have to pay. A national transport board might co-ordinate the provision of a public transport service and decide the role of road and rail transport. This is not uncommon in other countries. At present this role is the responsibility of CIE and it forces them to rely on fares policies. This can result, as we know, in a lot of cross-subsidisation between road and rail users. There are many examples of this throughout the system. It also involves subsidisation between urban and rural communities and does not reflect the individual characteristics of the separate services which are being provided.
If we are serious in wanting our railway system to stand on its own right its performance cannot be measured in terms of financial losses because of the varied roles it finds itself having to adopt within our community, economic and social, and the many demands that have been considered. It is necessary to identify the specific social costs of this service and of its uneconomic service areas before a financial measurement of its performance can be achieved. A board of control should be set up to look closely into the whole service to see what can be done in every field with regard to reducing the huge bills we are forced to meet yearly and sometimes twice a year. This board could consider the future of the company.
The Minister emphasised the heavy wage bill. Undoubtedly, it is a heavy wage bill which eats up most of the resources of CIE but we must also consider the 20,000 employees and their future. They are an important factor in this. The whole management structure of CIE needs further examination in view of recent happenings which must have resulted from some disagreement at top management level. It is not usual to see a man leaving such an attractive post at £15,000 per year without a solid reason or definite disagreement. We will have to do a lot of re-examining if we are to succeed in avoiding these annual bills we are faced with.
With regard to the subsidisation of fares it appears that there is no subsidy envisaged by the Minister for fares on long journeys. This is discriminatory against the people who travel long distances by CIE. There seems to be grave dissatisfaction with the Dublin bus service at present. The public are not getting the service they are entitled to and it seems that this is because drivers do not want to work overtime. The drivers are entitled to this point of view but it has resulted in a total ban by CIE on employing people during the summer as they used. It is a social necessity that CIE provide a proper service during the day and the Dublin people are entitled to this service. The Minister should ensure that the public are provided with a proper service even if it means further recruitment of staff.
The money provided for the air services and Aer Rianta is necessary. A serious flaw came to light recently in the legislation governing air services in and out of this country. We all read about a High Court injunction granted to what could only be described as a pirate operator who flew in and out of Shannon Airport, without any airport clearance, carrying a load of calves. This flaw must be worrying for Aer Lingus and private operators who provide a good service. In order not to allow this to develop further the Minister should look at the existing legislation to see if it needs to be changed. This could develop into a serious matter for our national airline.