asked the Minister for Transport and Power whether CIE have notified him of their intention to increase fares; if so, the extent of, and the reasons advanced for, the increases proposed; and if, having regard to the need to keep down the direct cost of transport he will have steps taken to increase the subsidy paid to CIE.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - CIE Fares Increase.
1.
CIE notified me of their intention to increase rates of fares because of increased costs arising from increases in salaries and wages and other improvements in conditions of service granted to the Board's employees and also in the costs of materials.
Details of the increases and the reasons therefor have been given in a comprehensive statement issued by the General Manager of CIE on Thursday, 7th December, 1967.
Under section 6 of the Transport Act, 1964, CIE's annual subvention of £2 million cannot be varied before 1st April, 1969. The amount of the subvention will be reviewed after that date.
I should point out to the Deputy that the taxpayer would have to bear the cost of any increase in CIE's annual subvention. An increase in the CIE subvention of the order of £2 million per annum, which is the estimated yield of the proposed increase in rates and fares, would be the equivalent of an addition of almost 4d per gallon to the tax on petrol. I see no merit in transferring the burden of the increased charges from the users of CIE services to the taxpayer.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say when he received notice from CIE of their intention to increase the fares? That is No. 1 No. 2 is: having regard to the fact that CIE are now, for the third time since 1964, increasing fares and also to the fact that costs have gone up by over 25 per cent in the intervening period, would the Government now increase by at least £500,000 the subsidy to CIE so as to restore the position which existed when we were discussing the 1964 Transport Act?
By way of answer to the first part of the question, CIE had been contemplating this increase for some time. In regard to the second part of the question, I do not think, in view of what I have said in the reply, that an increased subvention of £500,000 would go anywhere in solving the problem, in view of the fact that it would take £2 million to do so and this, as I have said, would be equivalent in tax to an increase of 4d per gallon on petrol. This is what is required to meet the increased subvention which CIE would need in order to bridge the gap.
Having regard to the fact that the Government will collect from £3 million to £4 million additional income as a consequence of devaluation and the increased yield in turnover tax and wholesale tax, would the Government not allocate half of that £4 million to CIE to help to relieve the shockingly grave burden which will now be imposed on families in this city and elsewhere throughout the land in meeting this frightful increase in one "go"?
I cannot possibly accept the suggestion that the Government can expect to have an increase to their coffers of £4 million, as I think the Deputy said. I cannot see how his mathematics work out in that regard. It is a question of whether the users of CIE or the taxpayers as a whole meet this increase of £2 million, and it is the decision that it be left to the users of CIE to pay the increase and to bridge the gap that has been brought about mainly by way of increases in the wages and salaries of CIE personnel.
Having regard to the unsatisfactory reply, I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.