asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will ensure that the bus users in the northern half of County Donegal will benefit from the June, 1975, budget subsidy for transport; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Transport Subsidy.
44.
The budgetary measures announced by the Minister for Finance on 26th June, 1975, included provision for subsidy for CIE to enable the reduction of the board's fares on Dublin city bus services, road passenger provincial services and Dublin and Cork commuter rail services to the levels which obtained before 12th May, 1975. These reductions were implemented by CIE with effect from 28th July, 1975.
The budgetary measures did not extend to mainline rail passenger services or to services provided by private road passenger transport operators. Consequently, no money is available to provide the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company with a subsidy to enable the company to reduce its fares in the northern part of County Donegal.
I presume the Minister would agree that the object of the subsidy is to reduce the cost of living for the persons using public transport. That being so, would the Minister explain the reasoning which excludes public transport operated by private operators from the benefit of the subsidy; and will he further indicate whether in the assessment of the consumer price index account will be taken of the incidence of transport charges to consumers who use privately operated transport companies?
The budgetary measures announced by the Minister for Finance on the 26th June, 1975, included a provision for subsidy for CIE (1) to avoid the necessity for further increase in the board's charges of 1975, and (2) to enable the board to reduce their fares on Dublin city bus services, road passenger provincial services and Dublin and Cork commuter rail services to the levels which obtained before 12th May, 1975. The reductions in fares referred to above were implemented by CIE on 28th July, 1975. The effect was to reduce the fares in question, on average, by 25 per cent. The fare reductions were not extended to main line rail fares which have a relatively small weighting in the consumer price index. Neither was any provision made for a reduction in fares on bus services provided by private road passenger transport operators licensed under the Road Transport Acts. There are 31 such operators, including the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company operating stage services mostly in rural areas. The charges by these operators are not reflected in the consumer price index. Moreover it has never been conceded that road passenger transport operators in the private sector should be subsidised. Extension to private operators of the subsidy given to CIE in the June budget would create a precedent for the payment of further subsidies.
Am I to take it from what the Minister said that the object of the exercise was to reduce the consumer price index irrespective of whether the cost of transport to the public was reduced or not?
The subsidies did involve a reduction in the cost of transport to the public in the areas specified, and did have the desired effect on the consumer price index which was in the national interest generally, as I think the Deputy will agree, as in fact I think he has agreed in another context.
That is true but did the Minister not say that one of the reasons for not including privately operated transport companies in this was that their charges did not figure in the consumer price index?
Yes.
Does that not mean that the Minister is saying that the concern was with reducing the consumer price index not reducing the cost of transport to the public?
The concern was clearly with both reducing the cost of transport to the public, where this could be done, and in holding back the consumer price index in the national interest for reasons which the Deputy understands more profoundly than I.
The remaining questions will appear on the Order Paper for the next sitting day of the Dáil.