I should like to thank the Deputies for their contributions. The necessity for increasing the subvention to CIE is regrettable. Because of the Government's tactics designed to reduce the CPI and get a consequential winding down in the spiral of inflation there is another element of subsidy for CIE in that. The removal of VAT from fuel, except road fuels, will also have an effect.
The bulk of my opening speech was devoted to CIE. As I said, because of inflation and the slowing down of economic activity, CIE are facing very severe problems. It is worth bearing in mind that the subvention to CIE in 1969-1970 was only one-eight of what we are being asked to provide this year. That was five years ago and in that five year period, the subvention necessary to keep CIE in operation has multiplied by eight. It is a very serious situation.
CIE is a very complex organisation covering virtually the whole country in some form or another, covering sparsely populated areas where there are problems because the number of people to be carried and the quantity of goods to be transported do not make for economic rates. In Dublin congestion has made their activities uneconomic in the bus sector. I was interested in what Deputy Barrett said. It is a point I made myself when introducing the Supplementary Estimate last December. I am glad he agrees with it and sees some merit in following it up. I am referring to the effect of this bulk subvention every year on the morale of CIE, with no conditions attached, beyond saying: "You are a millstone around the necks of the taxpayers and we wish you would dry up and go away." Of course, that is not a true picture at all.
A national transport system is essential. CIE provide jobs for 20,000 people which makes it one of the biggest single employers. It would be a mammoth task to examine into every activity and say to them that we want them to provide services, as they provide school transport services, and the State will pay them so much to provide them. That is what is done with free travel for certain categories. The Department of Social Welfare go to CIE and tell them they are issuing so many free passes and that they will pay them for carrying these people free. If CIE could be broken down into different locations and paid in this way that would be much healthier for me, as Minister, and for the House because people would see precisely what CIE were getting from fare paying passengers and precisely what was being paid by the State to maintain routes which were not economic, or to carry people the State did not want to see paying fares. This is a mammoth task. It can be done reasonably easily for broad categories like old age pensioners and school transport for children because the numbers are known, the distances are known, and you can identify the categories.
When you come down to individual bus or train routes the costing of what the State should pay for them becomes a detailed exercise which involves long negotiations. I should like to see the State moving in that direction in its relationship with CIE. This would not be treated as a subvention. It would be treated as income. People would pay bus fares at a level which would have to be determined by the National Prices Commission. If the State wishes to maintain bus fares at a certain level, as we are doing in this case by subsidising fares, the State would tell CIE they were being given money to maintain fares at a certain level for a certain period of time. The sum total of what CIE would get from fares and from the State would be identified by the board as part of their fare structure rather than as a subvention. This would have a very good effect on the morale of CIE employees They would feel they were being paid to do a job rather than being treated, as they are at the moment by many people, as parasites on the community. That is totally untrue.
I understand Deputy Tunney's irritation and the irritation of his constituents when they stand at a bus stop and the bus does not come, or when it comes, there are two more behind it all only one-third full. CIE operate completely in the open and every little fault they have is obvious to everyone. The blame for these delays cannot be laid entirely at the door of the management or the personnel of CIE. Recently the board told me that, during the petrol companies' lorry drivers' strike when cars were off the road, buses in Dublin were running ahead of time. They had to slow them down so that if they were due to reach a bus stop at 7.17 p.m. they would not arrive at 7.13 p.m. or 7.14 p.m. This would disrupt the whole run.
At that time the buses in Dublin city were running at a profit. First, they could maintain their schedules. Secondly, there was a disinclination to use private transport because of a fear of not being able to get petrol. Thirdly, that disinclination to use private transport put more people on the buses. When the buses ran efficiently and on time more people were inclined to use them. This was a Catch 22 situation. The worse the traffic gets in Dublin the less the ability of CIE to maintain timetables. If there were less traffic, CIE would be more efficient and more people would be inclined to use them. Because they are inefficient more people are inclined to use their own private transport, thereby making CIE lose time on routes.
Deputy Tunney raised a number of points of interest. He talked about what could be described as U routing for buses rather than straight routing. Deputy Murphy also made a number of suggestions about how CIE could operate more efficiently. I have taken a note of all these suggestions and I will discuss them with CIE. Deputy Murphy was also concerned about the one man buses in Dublin. Negotiations with the unions have been going on for a number of years but a solution to this problem seems to draw nearer and then recede into the distance. I have no doubt it will be solved. It should be solved in consultation with the unions rather than that CIE should attempt to impose it. The only way it can be introduced is in co-operation with the unions because, if CIE decided to impose it on the personnel it would not be operated.
The railways are a particular problem. Deputy Barrett said they should be able to stand in their own right. I do not think we will ever see that day. The State will have to resign itself to subsidising the railways. The runs are too short and the capital investment is too high. There is a level of acceptability of the rate the public will pay for transportation by railway. The number of personnel needed to operate a train is far greater than to operate a bus. The buses also use facilities paid for by the ratepayers. They use the streets and the pavements. The buses drive on public roads maintained by the local authority. Railways have to provide and man their own stocking points. They have to provide and maintain their own iron roads out of revenue. This adds considerably to the expense of operating railways. Of the subvention we are voting today, £19½ million is going to the railways. Obviously there is room for improvement.
Deputy Murphy asked was the CIE rail plan going ahead or had it been shelved. It has not been shelved. It is going ahead. This plan involves a considerable capital injection into the railway operations of CIE, for the modernisation of rolling stock, the mechanisation of handling equipment, automatic signalling, and so on, which will make the operations of the freight side of the railways much more efficient and will, we hope, attract traffic back to the railways which has been lost because of efficient competition from hauliers. Down through the years a lot of traffic has tended to go off the railways and on to the private hauliers. If the railways can be run more efficiently we might win back that traffic.
We have all seen sundries being loaded in single items into an open railway carriage. This is very slow and involves a number of men. The rate at which goods trains travel between two points is very much slower than passenger trains. If we can group sundries in an area and put them in a container on a fork-lift truck, and stop the train for ten minutes and load 20 containers, obviously that is a much more economic and profitable operation than what has been happening up to now where the train has to stop for two or three hours while items are loaded on individually.
Without having scientific knowledge to back it, I would be willing to say that customers would pay a premium for service. People who want goods transported would prefer to pay a little more and get the goods quickly and on time rather than having to wait an extra two days for a slightly smaller price. When CIE have this fully in operation it will make a dramatic and beneficial difference to the operation of the CIE freight section. If it attracts the carriage of more goods off the road it will mean a saving of the roadways. If it does that it will be of benefit to the country and CIE. Our primary concern is CIE at present.
Deputy Barrett referred to the fact that there was no subsidy for long distance fares but there is a subsidy for long distance bus fares. There is no subsidy for long distance rail fares. Except in special circumstances, I do not agree with subsidisation at all but these are special circumstances and special remedies had to be proposed. The object of introducing the subsidies on the wide range of goods was because of the effect it would have on the CPI. Long distance rail travel is not weighted in the CPI but bus travel is. That is the reason why the differential is there between the two.
Deputy Barrett also referred to the recent injunction taken out against me in the High Court by the operator of a plane at Shannon. I will not comment on that because the injunction is temporary and the matter is sub judice at present. The injunction will last until 28th July when the matter will come up again. I am willing to tell Deputy Barrett privately about the matter if he wishes.
Deputy Barrett welcomed the subsidy on gas and another Deputy made the point about the more efficient use of gas as a method of cooking. This is true and it will boost the sales of gas. Deputy Barrett was under the impression that only Dublin and Cork would be getting this but nine different places will get it: Waterford, Dundalk, Kilkenny, Enniscorthy, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Wexford and Clonmel. There are town gas companies in these areas and they will be receiving the subsidy. The subsidy is not being extended to bottled gas because there are so many different outlets for bottled gas that we found it impossible to see them all and to ensure that the subsidy was being passed back to the consumer, which was the object of the whole exercise. There has been a subsidy inasmuch as VAT has been removed from bottled gas, town gas and electricity, and this will be of some benefit to those who live in areas where they cannot get town gas and are dependant on bottled gas.
Deputy Tunney made a number of good points about CIE and their operation in Dublin City. I am not sure how practical some of his points are but some of them seemed so obvious that CIE must have thought of them. However, I will take up all the points made by Deputies Tunney and Murphy with CIE and I will make CIE's comments on them known to the Deputies.
Deputy Tunney referred to the under-utilisation of land at Dublin Airport. This is primarily a matter for Aer Rianta and I will take it up with them. However, I can see some difficulty from the point of view of safety for the flying of aircraft. In the interests of security it is a necessity not to have people at an airport misrepresenting themselves as workers for a person to whom the land is leased to grow potatoes. These matters may influence Aer Rianta in that regard.
I will take up the points about individual items with CIE. I should like to thank the House for the great interest taken in CIE. On any occasion I came to the House in the last twoand-a-half years I was encouraged by the enthusiasm for CIE shown by Deputies. I can understand the frustration of Deputies at having to vote fairly regularly considerable sums of money for CIE but I am always encouraged by the understanding they all showed for the real problems CIE have. I am also encouraged by the appreciation of Members of the necessary, significant and worthwhile part CIE play in our economy.
