In making a contribution on this motion and amendment one has to ask how the cost increases incurred by CIE can be offset. Productivity is one area within the existing operation, or a further Government subsidy, or an increase in fares. We could indulge in the exercise of reducing these services but we would all agree that would not be a very desirable policy to adopt. The public must get a service. The point is, who pays?
Last evening the Minister mentioned a subsidy of £30 million. In actual fact, the total subsidy to CIE is possibly of the order of £46 million when you take into account the school transport service subsidy and other subsidies which are available to CIE. In my view £46 million from the Exchequer is a very high subsidy. We must ask: do we want to increase that subsidy? If we do, that means further taxation. Are the Opposition prepared to say that is the way to do it, that we should give further subsidies and increase taxation? I do not think that is the best way to do it.
We have to look at the whole aspect of transportation in a very positive way. With the congestion in the city area it is nearly impossible to run any type of transport service. If we had been alive to this problem over the years CIE would not be accruing vast arrears year after year. The lack of a policy in the past is very evident today. One sees lines of buses in a state of disorder because of tremendous traffic bottlenecks because the private commuters have a big impact on traffic. What has been done about providing proper bus lanes and what are the policies for the future in this respect? We must apply our minds to this. It is easy to come in with motions deploring this or that, but we must attempt to find solutions. Nobody wants increases but when costs are rising, where do we levy the debt? That is what we must ask. While it is not easy, I think it is better to pass on the deficit and formulate a proper transport policy. If any subsidy must be paid in future I think it should be paid for the development of bus lanes.
We also had neglect of the rail service in the past by the former Government. We have seen them clipping off hundreds of miles of track hoping that would solve the problem. As we see, that solved nothing; in Dublin city it has created major problems. The Harcourt Street line was closed and vandalised very quickly. I never understood why, but the stations were closed and sold and bridges taken down and now we are reaping the ill results. The Opposition should take cognisance of this when replying.
CIE have endeavoured to increase productivity in the past number of years. Between 1974 and 1976 they reduced the wage bill by about £6 million. In other words, they saved £6 million. This was done without forcing any redundancy. Obviously, there was a slowing-up in recruitment and there was encouragement of retirement and other methods were used. CIE have endeavoured to meet the situation but the chaotic situation allowed to develop in the past is basically responsible for the very high cost of the service for which we now have to pay in Dublin. Dublin should be a profitable area but it is no longer so.
We must consider the whole question of people commuting to work and the staggering of hours of employment. The Government have a say in the Public Service and might decide that staff would start work 30 minutes or 15 minutes earlier in the morning and finish earlier in the afternoon. This would make it easier for the bus company to plan some sort of rational service. They should give the facilities to which people are entitled considering the kind of subsidy they as taxpayers are paying towards the transport system.
The quality of service provided by CIE must be considered as well as the fares charged. It is easy to "knock" CIE but not so easy to suggest workable improvements. Public transport cannot be considered in isolation from transport generally. The whole transport system will have to be examined. I believe that the Committee of this House which will be looking into the operation of State bodies can play a very effective and meaningful role in this area. When the House votes large sums of money to any company it behoves Deputies to have some say in the affairs of these companies. In fairness to CIE in the last number of years they have made serious efforts to improve the standard of service. They have engaged in comprehensive advertising; they have gone in for package tours and holiday tours and have tried to encourage the commuters to travel in off-peak periods. That highlights their concern with the situation. When one examines the position in England or on the Continent where there are vast populations and what we might describe as a very large reservoir of customers we find their railway systems are losing money. Therefore, it is easy to understand why CIE should be in a major loss situation. We have not the same size of population or the same commuting public.
One sometimes sees large buses moving through the country with two, three or four people on board. I have always thought that CIE should have many types of buses to cater for different needs. Obviously, they could plan a programme knowing exactly when larger or small buses are required. Even in summer, which is the high tourist season, one can see buses coming half empty to the country. I believe CIE should examine this situation where they could make substantial savings both in capital investment and in the running of their buses.
I also regard it as important that CIE should diversify. It has been suggested that they should develop their railway terminal lines for commercial purposes. This is a first-class idea, although this might not be the time because of the office glut. They have the space and capacity to develop commercially. It is a failing of semi-State bodies that they do not seem to see themselves in the real commercial world. They should go out to meet the challenge in an effective way. If they went into the property business this would offset some of their losses.
The future of CIE will not be easy, particularly when motions are put down in a simplistic way and without any real concern for a solution. If this debate does anything, it will give us an opportunity to put forward our own views because it is the concern of everybody that we should have an efficient and effective transport system. Some people say the transport system should be handed back to private enterprise, others say it should be handed to the local authorities. I do not subscribe to either view. CIE have the machinery and the expertise. What they require now is liaison with Dublin Corporation and other county councils to treat our roads as a matter of priority. I am thinking particularly of the bus-ways from our new towns around Dublin—Tallaght, Blanchardstown and Clondalkin, which are very large satellite towns. Now is the time to plan for commuting between the city and these towns. This must be done in conjunction with the local authorities.
If an organisation is to be successful they must plan well ahead and put these plans into action. Even at this late stage I would like to see a review of the Harcourt Street rail line to see how it can be adapted, even as a busway, to meet an area of expanding population—through Dundrum, Foxrock and even further into Tallaght— to meet the needs of the people in these areas. There is a ready-made line in Clondalkin. It is just a matter of adapting it to meet the growing population.
The overall question of losses on railways is a big problem with which we shall have to live because there is great competition between road hauliers and railways. The international mode of transport is the containerised traffic, a drive-on drive-off situation. This is a pity because it is putting a lot of heavy traffic on the roads. If we had depots where these containers could be loaded or unloaded—this could be done on the docks because the railways run to our docks—this could help win back business which had been lost.
What is required now from all sides is proper planning of a future transport system. People talk about rapid rail systems, bus-ways, improved railway systems, better types of stations and increased productivity which will help to reduce the deficit. We all have our role to play in central government. Our commitment of £46 million gives us a stake to ensure that we have this streamlining and development.
We have to live with loss situations on the railways particularly. Bus services in the urban areas should pay their way. We have the population to ensure that these services will pay but because of strangulation in our city centre and because of the lack of foresight in the past to develop our roads and railways we are now paying the supreme penalty of stagnation in the city. In future CIE must come up with positive plans which the Government must support. It is advisable to give a subsidy to develop our roads and a rapid rail system because ultimately we will be saving money. Let us adopt a positive role for the future.
The future development of any country must depend on the type of communication it provides. When I hear of closures it is a sign we are not progressing. If we are to progress where possible we must keep all lines of communication open. There have been too many closures. We could have streamlined and used a type of productivity that would have ensured savings without the harsh reality of closures affecting many towns and the employment of many people.
It gives us no pleasure to stand up here and deplore price increases. We should institute and initiate comprehensive transport policies and developments in our rail system and examine all aspects of this. Can we do it another way? Can we do it through another agency? Are CIE doing it the right way? Have they got the right commercial approach? We should ask ourselves those questions and we should look for answers to them. If we do that we will give the public what they want and what they are entitled to, that is a fast and efficient bus service and train service. We will then take the cars off the road because people will find it easier and more comfortable to travel by CIE bus or train. If we can bring that about the capital cost will be far lower. If we had a fast bus system CIE could operate with half the buses they are using at the moment because the turnaround would be very fast.
There is an effort in Dublin to try to cut costs by the introduction of one-man buses. CIE are trying to iron out the difficulties with their staff. The trade unions are there to protect their members and to see that they get them the best deal and that their members will not suffer. I believe the introduction of one-man buses will bring about some savings. I wonder, now that there is so much vandalism, if the passengers will have the same protection in one-man buses as they have in the present situation? This is a social rather than a financial problem.
When the committee on semi-state bodies is set up Members of the House can play an effective role having a look at the operations of CIE and bringing back to the House the suggestions which are offered. CIE should liaise with local authorities to try to have better roads provided. I shall listen for words of wisdom in the contributions from the Opposition to see how they will solve this problem of developing an effective transport system.
