asked the Minister for Transport and Power if he will consider the establishment of a transport authority for the Dublin area which would advise on the transport system now operating with a view to finding ways and means of reducing the present prohibitive fares being charged on CIE trains and buses.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Transport Authority.
5.
Cavan): I do not consider that the establishment of a transport authority for the Dublin area would be of any help in securing a reduction in CIE fares.
Because of the labour intensive nature of the board's activities, CIE have been particularly vulnerable to the effects of escalating labour costs which, with other cost increases, have contributed to the substantial increase in the board's losses in recent years. As I have already made clear in this House during the recent debate on a motion concerning the proposed increases in CIE rates and fares, increases in CIE costs, to the extent that they cannot be offset by increased productivity, must be met either by an increase in the board's subvention from the Exchequer, by increases in rates and fares or by a reduction in CIE services.
The board's subvention from the Exchequer in respect of the Dublin city bus services alone has increased from £360,000 in the year 1972-73 to £6 million in 1976. This substantial burden is borne by the general taxpayer and represents a very considerable relief to the users of the board's services.
CIE have been making every effort to secure economies by productivity and other cost reduction schemes. I have no doubt that the board will continue with such efforts and I am hopeful that with the co-operation of the unions further progress can be made in improving productivity and curtailing costs. Improvements in this area could make a significant contribution towards achieving some degree of stability in real terms in the level of fares and subvention, without involving lowering of standards.
I asked the Minister if he had seen the latest reports of the National Prices Commission in which they suggest the provision of some kind of consumer body? They think this would have a beneficial effect on CIE and on our national transport policy. In view of the fact that a further increase in CIE fares cannot be ruled out this year, the Minister might have a fresh look at this matter. In the report the commission suggest that the consumer council or a government transport policy might help.
(Cavan): I have seen the report the Deputy mentioned. I believe the most effective consumer protection organisation in the country is the National Prices Commission but I do not accept for one moment that there is not a transport policy, as has been suggested. There is such a policy, which of necessity must be flexible. CIE are required to provide a reasonable, efficient and economic rail and road passenger service which also of necessity must contain a certain social input. The social input and the social contribution made by the Exchequer are very generous and are as much as I would be prepared to ask the taxpayers to bear.
Would the Minister like to comment on the reason the CIE subsidy increased from under £6 million in 1972 to £32½ million last year?
(Cavan): As the man said, that is elementary. CIE are a labour intensive organisation. Everybody knows wages have increased substantially. CIE are a heavy consumer of oil and I do not have to tell the Deputy that the cost of oil has at least quadrupled since the date in question. Those are mainly the reasons which led to the increase in this subvention.
Would the Minister not agree that an increase from under £6 million to £32½ million far outstrips the increases in the cost of oil and labour?
(Cavan): Speaking from memory, the Deputy will agree that the cost of 300 gallons of fuel oil has increased in that period from £18 or £19 to £20. If he compares those figures he will see that the subvention has not outstripped the increases.