Deputy Quinn has ten minutes left but apparently he is not taking that time. Is the Minister of State anxious to get in now?
Private Members' Business. - CIE Fares: Motion (Resumed).
The following motion was moved by Deputy Enright on Tuesday, 3 July 1979:
"That Dáil Éireann deplores the recent increases in CIE fares approved by the Government."
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1.
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that CIE's application for an increase in fares has been examined by the National Prices Commission and that the Commission have found that CIE's allowable costs were greater than the revenue expected from the proposed increases and that the application fulfilled the normal criteria for price increases; and recognises that if the Government were to refuse to sanction the increase in fares the resultant Revenue loss would have to be met by the taxpayer in the form of subsidy or CIE would be obliged to withdraw services with consequential loss of jobs."
—(Minister for Tourism and Transport.)
, Dublin South-Central): Deputy Quinn must have a poor argument. I thought other Deputies would be anxious to contribute.
I support the motion criticising the recent increase in CIE fares which vary between 15 and 20 per cent. In doing so I do not wish to adopt a destructive critical attitude but I hope to bring about a note of reasonableness and initiate a constructive debate. Last week-end I read the debate which took place on Tuesday last and also the content of similar debates here when Fianna Fáil were in Opposition. In my view the contributions then were in general the most chidlish imaginable. They demanded that the increases should not be imposed and that the deficit which CIE were incurring be offset by the introduction of an additional subvention from the Exchequer. The Government argued that that would be unfair because it would impose additional taxation on the taxpayer. We had a tug-o'-war over which system to adopt, whether to charge higher fares on the buses and trains or to mulct taxpayers to a greater degree by seeking additional money from State funds. It is my view that those suggestions are not worthy of a debate here. We should be asking ourselves what we can do to make CIE a paying proposition or how can we greatly reduce the deficit that company incur annually?
According to the March report of the National Prices Commission from a deficit of £2 million in the late sixties it is estimated that the 1979 deficit will amount to about £36 million. If one is to judge by recent Government announcements it appears that the deficit, according to financial correspondents of one of the national newspapers, will be in the region of £50 million. I hope the Minister of State will tell the House if there is any substance in that statement. In my view there is some substance in it particularly when one considers the major increases that have taken place in the price of oil. That is a colossal deficit for a semi-State body. I can never understand why there are so many different ways of describing that concern. It is described as a semi-State body, a State-sponsored body and a nationalised industry. Obviously, it is a nationalised industry because CIE are no different from British Rail which is generally accepted as being a nationalised concern.
In the report I referred to, the National Prices Commission were critical of CIE management and their policies. That report expressed the view that CIE do not appear to have any policies to offer as to how the deficit can be reduced. It is obvious that there are certain sections of CIE which could be run by private enterprise on a more profitable basis. Those services could be run without any diminution in the quality of the service provided by CIE. I cannot understand why such a service is not put in the hands of private enterprise. I do not know why private enterprise is not given the opportunity of competing with CIE in providing such a service. Such competition would to a certain extent be unique in the road passenger section of the company. Some of CIE's present operations offer an outstanding opportunity for the initiation of such a programme where private enterprise would complete against the State-sponsored company. It is inconceivable, for example, that the Dublin city bus service can lose as much as £5½ million, as is estimated for 1979. In my view, a private set of operators could run that lucrative service at a good profit.
Undoubtedly, there are some contributory factors to CIE's problem with regard to the bus service in Dublin, the main one being the traffic congestion being experienced in Dublin. We should at least experiment by allowing these private operators to compete whether by tender or by merely giving them the franchise on certain routes. There is no reason why CIE should remain in the road haulage business which is very lucrative, as they appear to be able to make only a very small profit. Many road haulage operators can make an outstandingly good living from the limited runs they can make and the limited business they are allowed to carry because of the restrictions put on the various licences. It seems that private operators given the same opportunities as CIE would be able to do the business in a far more efficient manner.
I agree that the railway system presents major difficulties and is the section of CIE which incurs the greatest proportion of losses. The 1977 annual report of CIE states that 82 per cent of their losses were incurred on the railways. How can we offset the £29 million loss which is estimated for 1979? It will not be easy. Railway systems through the world are run at a loss. I do not know of any example where a railway is making a profit. We have the same problem here in this regard as do Britain and other countries in western Europe. I have no ready solution to the problem.
Railways are an emotional subject for many people. As children we were excited by trains and railways and they still exist, so we would hate to see them going. They have a tremendous attraction although it is plain that they are not a viable proposition. A previous Fianna Fáil administration felt that by doing away with a lot of the provincial lines the railways could be made profitable. Between 1958 and the late 1960s something like 700 miles of railway lines were closed down. I remember the late President Childers, who was then Minister for Transport and Power, saying that by doing this we would eliminate CIE's losses so that CIE could be run on a profitable basis. He was wide of the mark. The recent figures indicate that the very opposite is the case. Cutting off more and more sections of our railways is obviously not the answer.
The Minister in his statement last Wednesday night said that we had two options open to us, one was to increase the fares and the other to cut back on services. We are asking tonight that this idea should not be promoted any longer. The answer is not to increase the fares, or to eliminate the railways or to cut back on provincial bus services. We should expand the service and if that expansion has to include an interest from the private sector, let us have it. Let us have a transport system which the public can be proud of and which the public can utilise, which will not be a millstone around the taxpayers' necks as is the case presently.
I note a distinct lack of imagination, of new ideas and of initiative in the whole set-up of CIE as in some other State bodies, although I doubt if any of the others are as bad as CIE. It was suggested in previous debates that the involvement of the private sector should be considered. I get a feeling that Deputies are afraid to push the point to its natural conclusion or to have the matter debated openly because they are afraid of vested interests in the public sector taking offence, and they are afraid of losing popularity. It is our duty to pursue all possible avenues, in an effort to see that the taxpayers are not milked to the tune of £50 million this year and probably more next year.
Over the years new schemes were advocated and brought into operation to cure all the ills in the railway and bus services. There were new faster trains and more efficient streamlined bus services. Some of these were marginally successful but overall we still end up with a major deficit. Despite the success or partial success of some of these schemes the deficit keeps increasing. We were told three or four years ago that with the help of a new productivity scheme we could expect losses to decrease. The productivity scheme was brought in and the Minister has reported that it was a success and had helped in saving money. If it saves money we have not seen the results because the deficit is going up and up.
I would like a clear definition as to what productivity means. We seem to get lost in jargon like this all too often and the masses do not understand what it is all about. I have come to the conclusion along with many others that it is another big word used to fob people off. CIE are employing something like 3,000 fewer people now than they were in 1976 but the deficit has gone up by many millions of pounds in the interim. I fail to see the advantages of this greatly increased productivity. I do not know what proposals CIE have put to the Department regarding their intentions or efforts to cut back on losses and to bring about a smaller annual deficit. Would the Minister tell us of their proposals? I did not come in here to harangue the Minister but to make an objective and I hope a helpful contribution. I am putting forward my views and I would like an honest assessment of the whole situation from the Minister.
Earlier I spoke about the Dublin city bus services which are operating at such an enormous loss, £5,500,000. I am told by private bus operators—and there are 34 of them registered in the country—that they would be delighted to get their hands on such a service because they are convinced they could make an enormous profit. I suppose the more money anybody can make in the private sector the better, but they are not demanding that they get a free hand in this. They say—and I think it a very reasonable demand—they are willing to enter into free competition with CIE, that they would be willing to tender for some or any of the routes involved in Dublin city.
(Dublin-Central): Certainly they would not tender for the non-lucrative.
Well, what is termed as being lucrative or non-lucrative? I shall come back to the Minister on that in a few moments when I think he would be smiling on the other side of his cheek. But they are willing to tender with CIE on any of these routes in Dublin, or throughout the country, where CIE at present operate. I call that a reasonable offer and I think any citizen or taxpayer would so regard it. If their tender was accepted that would be money into the coffers of the State—obviously if they are tendering they can be charged a certain fee—and that will go towards relieving the losses in other sectors.
It is obvious from the figures published by the prices commission in their report of March this year and also in the report of 1972 — which is referred to as occasional paper No. 4: CIE rates and fares—that CIE's competitiveness is steadily decreasing. In that event private enterprise should be allowed in. What recent efforts have been made to help CIE run the Dublin buses where major traffic congestion is involved? Obviously it is a severe setback—buses which should cross the city in half an hour may take two to two and a half hours because of traffic jams and inadequate traffic arrangements. There have been proposals over the years for specific laneways to be reserved for buses and the essential services, such as police, ambulances, doctors and so on, thereby eliminating present delays which, economically, must be extremely damaging to CIE's profit-making ambitions. I should like the Minister to reply to this point: have there been any suggestions that the inner city be devoid of motor traffic, of private cars? I know these proposals are quite drastic but, unless something is done, the present situation will continue to deteriorate. There have been talks on long-term plans for new roadways, toll bridges, such as were dealt with in a recent Bill in the House, to alleviate traffic. But all of these proposals will not be implemented for many years. Having observed the build-up and congestion that has arisen in the last five or six years, knowing that it will be at least that time again before anything is done, and perhaps longer, we must implement some drastic proposals to deal with what is a drastic problem at present. For instance, I should like the Minister for Labour to tell us how many man-hours are lost in Dublin, and indeed in other major provincial towns, through people being held up in traffic jams? What does it cost the economy? What does it cost various businessess? What does it cost the nation in terms of people having to be treated for heart attacks, strokes and high blood pressure through the frustration of being delayed unnecessarily? Obviously all of these things must hold back our industrial development. Certainly they interfere with out health record and productivity because people cannot work efficiently sitting inside the cab of a lorry or a bus for hours on end when that vehicle should be in transit.
Therefore these problems are so pressing we cannot wait for long-term, grandiose plans for new bridges, new tunnels, new underground railway systems or anything else. Something must be done in the interim. I welcomed the announcement by the Minister some weeks ago that the present Government would see to it that the railway line from Bray to Howth was electrified, speeding up the rail system through the city area. That would be a tremendous boon and take quite a few commuters off the roads. This is one angle only. Obviously there are a number of other matters which need to be examined.
Earlier the Minister said of CIE that they would retain the lucrative runs but he did not think the private operators would want the non-lucrative ones. They have them; the 34 operators to whom I referred have nothing else; they have the left-overs, the runs CIE have refused to operate because, to use the Minister's own words, they are non-lucrative. CIE could not make them pay. That was the only reason those 34 operators were given licences to use those runs. That is why I maintain: what would these people not do if they had the lucrative runs? I know some of these private bus operators. They have an association called PAMBO. They have been lobbying in recent years to be given some of the business, or an opportunity to compete with or tender for some of the business at present the sole preserve of CIE. These people are making an outstanding living on the runs CIE would not operate. Therefore I ask the question: what would they do if they had the runs at present being operated by CIE? I am sure they would be making a very handsome profit. If the system was operated by way of tender the State could recoup a large proportion of the profit these operators are presently making. And it is not that they use cheap labour or underhand methods. There are some of these private bus operators in my constituency. Probably they are more efficient than CIE; they give better value for money and that is what the public wants. We should examine that aspect.
I did not come in here to harangue the Minister. Rather I came in to make constructive suggestions. I hope my statement has been wholly constructive. I should like the Minister and the Minister of State to take cognisance of the facts I have pointed out, because the taxpayer cannot be expected to continue to hand out £50 million this year, £60 million next year when the job could be done by private operators at a much lesser cost to the taxpayer. That is not an unreasonable request. State-sponsored bodies were set up to service areas where private enterprise could not be profit-making. In the present situation CIE are not profit-making. Even on an experimental basis they should hand some portion of their franchise to the private sector and ascertain whether the State can be saved substantial sums of money.
, Dublin South-Central): I appreciate Deputy Deasy's suggestion but am afraid he is suggesting simplistic solutions to a very complicated matter. If any Government could overcome our public transport problems along the lines suggested by the Deputy, I am convinced previous Governments would have adopted those solutions. However, I will make sure his suggestions are given due consideration.
Despite what Deputy Deasy said, this is an abstract motion which states: "That Dáil Éireann deplores the recent increases in CIE fares approved by the Government". It does not give any solution to the problem or state how CIE will manage their financial problems. The Minister said he would be coming into this House for an additional subvention of £10 million on top of the £35 million paid last year to CIE. In his speech the Minister explained that the purpose of the application was to secure increased revenue for CIE so as to contain, as far as practicable, the board's subvention requirements for 1979 within the subvention provision of £35 million provided in the Estimates for the Department of Tourism and Transport.
With this object in mind increases ranging on average from 15 per cent to 20 per cent were proposed in an application which was submitted by CIE to the Department in February 1979. This application was designed to meet in some way increases in costs, particularly in respect of labour and materials, which had arisen since the board last made application for increased fares in February 1978.
The application to the National Prices Commission showed additional costs totalling £16.4 million of which £10.35 million, or 63 per cent, was for wages and other labour costs and the balance for increased costs of materials and increased depreciation and financial charges. The National Prices Commission in examining the application applied to the CIE proposals their strict criteria for assessing the costs allowable for price increases. In their report they indicated that of the total costs claimed by CIE £14.76 million was allowable and could qualify to be met by increases in fares. CIE were not seeking to recover the full amount of allowable costs since the anticipated revenue yield from the fares and rates increases will amount to only about £11.6 million in a full year.
Therefore, on the basis of the costs shown in the CIE application, the increases in fares and rates are more than justified. Moreover, CIE's costs have continued to escalate and it is now apparent that CIE's original projections will be substantially exceeded in 1979 due primarily to large increases in labour and oil costs and the adverse effects on revenue of industrial disputes.
The Government, having considered carefully the observations of the National Prices Commission, the deteriorating financial position of CIE and the implications of this for the Exchequer, decided that CIE should be permitted to implement the increases in fares and rates, with however the important exceptions that there should be no increases in the fares of fare-paying school children. Even with the recent increases in fares and rates the £35 million subvention for 1979 will now be seriously inadequate.
Anybody who knows how the National Prices Commission operate would not consider them a generous body. They apply strict criteria as regards price increases and very seldom will they allow the full increases sought by the private sector. On this occasion, they closely examined the structure of CIE. As I said, £10.35 million was set aside for wages and salaries.
Deputy Enright asked the Minister to withdraw these increases. Let us follow that to its logical conclusion. Are we to single out the employees of CIE from employees in other semi-State bodies or in the private sector? Are we saying they are not entitled to the increases in salaries and wages which were negotiated with their unions or allowed by the Labour Court? I believe the employees of CIE are entitled to the same standard of salaries as those in other sectors of the community. We cannot hope to have a good and efficient company or service if we underpay staff. As this motion does not say how this additional money will be found, I take it that it is the policy of Fine Gael that those employees should not enjoy the same increases as are enjoyed by other sections of the community. On the other hand Fine Gael might suggest that this money be provided by way of subvention.
The Minister said he will be coming into this House very shortly for an additional £10 million, which will mean a total subvention for CIE of £45 million. This will not bridge the gap completely because there will still be a deficit. If the money sought by CIE is to be met by subvention, we will have to introduce additional taxation. Does this mean Opposition Deputies will agree that we increase taxation, indirect taxation, to recover the amount necessary to defray the costs incurred by CIE? When tax increases to defray the cost of social services were introduced in the last budget Opposition Deputies decried them.
These are the facts we must consider when we discuss a motion like this. Whether we like it or not the facts of economic life are that costs in every company are rising. As long as we are in this House we will have increased costs in certain services, and CIE are no exception. That does not mean that I believe CIE should not be told to carry out a thorough examination to minimise these expenses, because in my view a very big subvention could mitigate against the proper and efficient working of that company.
Other factors contributed to these increases, such as the increase in oil prices. Sundry expenses amounting to enormous sums have to be met by CIE. Nobody claims that the increased price of oil has not had a considerable effect on the financial accounts of the company over that period. This has to be met whether we like it or not. On several occasions I have heard Deputy Quinn complain here about the rolling stock of CIE. Certain depreciations and replacements have to be taken into consideration and these factors also militate against CIE being able to balance their accounts now and down through the years. These factors—wages, running costs, the price of oil, and depreciation — bring about the type of situation we see in the accounts of CIE.
We are making a practical approach to this matter. CIE are partly a commercial and partly a social service, and we must look at them in that light. There are commercial aspects of the company which it would be unfair to ask the Exchequer to carry. They have a social obligation to the country and from that aspect of the question we must consider where a subvention is appropriate. For anyone to come into this House and to say that the entire increase should be met out of the subvention is ludicrous and such a suggestion could not be sustained by any Government. If we move into that situation it would mean that every increase in the company's costs would have to be met out of the Exchequer and any Government would find themselves in an intolerable position in a short time.
CIE are operating under difficult conditions. I remember when they were making money on public transport in Dublin, but over the years there has been a considerable decline in their profitability. They moved into a loss situation and now in public transport in Dublin they are sustaining a considerable loss, a loss of practically £10 million. This has been brought about by various factors. One is the congestion in which CIE transport has to operate in Dublin today. I am speaking about Dublin, but I am convinced that the same type of congestion and losses are being suffered by CIE in large cities and towns throughout the country. A solution to this problem is not easy. Undoubtly anyone travelling through Dublin can see how the problem arises. Many buses are held up for half or three-quarters of an hour. This is a considerable expense on the company and is militating against the whole concept of public transport and against encouraging people to use public transport.
I am not saying for one moment that economies should not be effected. Of course, they should. Deputy Deasy mentioned the productivity agreements reached a few years ago and the reorganisation system introduced into CIE. He said they did not seem to be reflected in the accounts. It is true to some extent that they have not been reflected in their entirety. However, so far as CIE are concerned, when a re-organisation scheme is introduced and when the age of retirement and various such matters come into question, there is a considerable loss financially because of redundancy payments and early retirements. The full effect of this re-organisation may not be seen at this time but it should appear favourably in the accounts in the coming years. I hope that that will be so, but the redundancy payments and early retirements are substantial in the company.
Deputy Deasy said also that we should allow more and more of private enterprise to take over and move into the whole field of public transport. I am not altogether sure about this because there are various elements which need deep consideration before any Government could embark on such a decision. If CIE could get the proper climate and perhaps operate within a proper system in our cities they could do a good job. Unfortunately, many problems will have to be sorted out eventually, especially labour problems. The public have become disenchanted to some degree but we must ensure that the situation improves.
It is difficult to see how any Government could go beyond the generous subventions which the Government are making on this occasion. We will bring a Bill into the House seeking an additional £10 million. This will not cover the entire moneys which will be necessary to bridge the gap and a deficit will still be there.
When is the Bill expected?
(Dublin South-Central): I am not sure but it will not be very long. I doubt if it will come in now.
Will it come this side of the recess?
(Dublin South-Central): I doubt it very much.
Will it be in October or November?
(Dublin South-Central): It is expected within a few days but I am not sure what arrangements the Whips are making.
May I take it that it will come before the House before the recess?
(Dublin South-Central): It is a Supplementary Estimate.
Is it not an actual Bill?
(Dublin South-Central): It is a Supplementary Estimate. If we were to absorb the total costs which CIE are incurring, without any increase in fars or rates, we would be talking about something in the region of £55 million to £60 million. The Minister for Finance must look after the finances of the country and, in order to pay out a subvention like that, the only way he could possibly raise it would be at the expense of the taxpayers and the weaker sections of the community. It would have to be raised in taxes. It could well militate against making provision for the weaker sections of the community such as old age pensioners, social welfare recipients and such people.
In the broad sense the decision which the Government have taken here in asking the public to pay a reasonable amount requires the taxpayers to contribute their share towards the social aspect of CIE, something which we would be increasing this year. Last year the subvention to CIE was £35 million. This year there will be provision for an additional £10 million, an increase of practically 30 per cent. It would be too much to expect any Government to go beyond that and to come back and ask the Exchequer to increase the amount of revenue which it gets from the taxpayers in general. We must pass on the increases being sought by CIE. I believe CIE can do a reasonable job, given the conditions. We must consider how the mobility of public transport can be improved.
While it is early in the year to predict accurately the size of the final deficit on CIE's activities for 1979, the Minister will shortly seek Dáil approval for a Supplementary Estimate of £10 million for CIE. This £10 million is additional to the existing subvention provision of £35 million and even the total provision of £45 million will still leave a significant gap between revenue and expenditure which will have to be bridged.
This is a very serious situation in the light of the resources available from the Exchequer towards meeting such unforeseen demands. It is proposed to have a critical assessment of CIE's financial situation to see what remedial measures should be adopted and how savings might be achieved. There will be an examination of the whole field of expenditure of CIE. Pending this examination the provision of £10 million in the proposed Supplementary Estimate, together with the board's temporary borrowings and the yield from the increased fares and rates, will enable CIE to maintain services and meet the board's commitments. In the light of the situation depicted, increases of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent cannot be regarded as unreasonable. There have been no increases in the fares of fare-paying school children, while the increases in urban and town fares will be on a tapering scale so that the impact on higher fare values will be minimised.
It is clear, therefore, that the users of public transport are being asked to bear only part of the additional costs being incurred by CIE. In fact, the increase in fares and rates will yield less than half of the total additional costs at present estimated. It is unreasonable to argue that it would be equitable to place the total burden of the extra costs on the shoulders of the taxpayer who is already paying a very substantial amount towards the cost of CIE's services.
Deputy Quinn said last week that the Government were not making any progress towards the formulation of a proper policy. Both he and Deputy Enright mentioned the subject of energy conservation and took this as a basis for arguing against the introduction of the recent increase in CIE fares. Their suggestion seemed to be that if there were no increases in fares there would be greater use of public transport and that this would bring about a saving in oil imports.
Of course, it would be desirable if car owners could be persuaded to leave their cars at home and to use public transport. This would not only improve CIE's revenue directly by increasing passenger numbers but would also relieve traffic congestion which is responsible for many of the problems which beset public transport in urban areas. As everyone knows, traffic congestion means long delays in traffic jams, so that buses cannot keep to schedules and the overall efficiency and reliability of the services are seriously affected.
I think, however, it is true to say that the growth in the use of private cars did not come about because of increases in public transport fares. Most people now aspire to owning a car because of the great convenience and freedom of movement which private cars permit. The increase in car ownership is a sign of the greater affluence of society in general, and to the extent that a great number of people can enjoy the benefits of private motoring, this development must be welcomed. People like to be able to exercise a freedom of choice and the extent to which people still continue to bring their cars into the overcrowded city centre demonstrates how much they value this freedom. The long petrol queues which formed during the recent period of petrol shortage also illustrates the values which the motorist places on retaining the use of his private car.
In the circumstances it is unlikely that the recent increase in fares will have a significant effect on the degree of utilisation of private cars. To take an example, the regular user of CIE's Dublin city services who avails of the monthly commuter ticket will now have to pay £2 extra for his monthly ticket, an increase of 15 per cent. Having regard to the cost involved in the purchase and running of a car, it seems highly unlikely that payment of an extra £2 a month could be a significant factor in a decision to switch from public to private transport.
In theory, of course, a sharp reduction in private cars in city areas could be secured by very severe restrictions on parking or similar controls, but such measures would not be readily acceptable to the public. It may be, of course, that the energy crisis will itself bring about an involuntary restriction on private motoring. This did happen during the recent petrol shortage and public transport benefited as a result. However, with the easing of the petrol supply situation, the volume of car traffic again increased.
I am not denying that there is some resistance to increase in CIE fares and that this can bring about a reduction in the numbers which would otherwise use public transport. However, as in the case of other commodities and services, it is only logical that the charges for public transport should increase when the costs of labour and materials increase. As has already been made clear, the users of public transport are being asked to bear only part of the increased costs incurred by CIE.
We would all like to see the day when we could keep private transport out of Dublin city. This would solve many problems. I should like to see some dialogue between residents' associations throughout the country on the subject of pooling cars for travelling into city areas. This would contribute considerably to the efficiency of CIE and would be a major contribution to the conservation of energy, which is a major factor in our economic life. We must aim at reducing traffic in Dublin and other major centres. We cannot continue to allow the congestion which prevails at present and unpopular decisions will probably have to be taken by some Government in an effort to alleviate this problem. We realise the effect of traffic congestion on the operations of CIE and on their financial situation.
We have set up a Transport Consultative Commission whose terms of reference cover the whole field of public transport throughout the country. The Minister has been conscious of the difficulties encountered in the larger cities and has directed the Commission to pay immediate attention to possible solutions which would relieve the situation in Dublin. We expect the report of the Commission very shortly. They sought recommendation from the public on this matter. The setting up of the Commission, together with the decision to electrify the Howth-Bray line, shows the Government's concern about public transport. No country can survive socially or economically without a proper public transport system.
I support this motion, though my reasons for doing so are different from those of Deputy Deasy. The granting of this increase does not in any way enhance the future prospects of CIE. The contrary is the case. CIE have looked for an easy way out and there is nothing to show that CIE management have any idea of modern marketing.
I will not deny that CIE need more money and for that reason I welcome the Minister's promise of a further £10 million subvention. It is of vital importance that the State ensure that we have a first class transport system. In most countries, as Deputy Deasy has said, railway systems do not pay. They will never prove to be self-sufficient and subventions will be necessary. I do not agree that this 15 to 20 per cent increase is the right way of assisting CIE to get in revenue; on the contrary. At a time when the country is looking for a means of conserving energy, a glorious opportunity is being lost by granting this increase.
The only way for a transport system to get in revenue is to attract business, to have their trains and buses packed to capacity and their road freight service should be in a position to compete with private companies. I can assure the Minister that there is no better way to scare off people from travelling than by granting very substantial increases like the present one. Take a train from Limerick, Cork, or Waterford, with seating accommodation for 500 people; if you have a return fare of £7 and 300 people travel on that train you make £2,100. Take the same train and increase your fare to £9. Naturally you are going to have a decrease in the number of passengers; you will have 250 passengers and that will give you something in the region of £2,200. Rather than expect the taxpayer to pay, as I would not expect him to pay, there should be good management within CIE. If they have accommodation for 500 people and charge a fare around £6 and that train is filled, they get £3,000.
In effect, what the Minister is doing is giving a licence to CIE to turn people from using their services. That is exactly what has been happening. The only way CIE can get people to travel on their services is by making their fares attractive enough to get the people to leave their cars behind and to avail of their services. That is the best and the only way; by doing that, you are not expecting the taxpayer to pay—you are getting the money directly from the people who use the excellent service that CIE are providing. CIE need to attract more people on to their trains and buses by reducing their fares rather than increasing them.
We have one Minister—whether hypocritically or not, I do not know —stating that we must conserve our fuel resources. The Minister a few moments ago in his remarks said we had had a petrol crisis. I assure the Minister for Tourism and Transport that we have a petrol crisis. On my way from Limerick there were two garages open the whole way up; the cars were in a three-mile-long queue at each. That is what is happening. The Minister has a glorious opportunity of trying in some way to answer that appeal of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy to conserve fuel resources. By not allowing that increase to CIE, he had a glorious opportunity to tell CIE to utilise their services to the maximum thereby helping both CIE and the Minister, who is shedding crocodile tears, as far as I can see, for the conservation of fuel resources.
The Minister is correct in saying that CIE must pay good wages. They must give a decent standard of living to their employees. That is only to be expected. They must meet the increased labour costs. The workers of CIE, you can take it from me, are very demoralised and frustrated when they see their company's management taking the easy way out—instead of trying to attract people and traffic to their services—by just looking for a substantial increase. By doing so, they scare off those who might keep these people in employment. That is what the workers are concerned about—the mismanagement that can take place inside this company. There is no doubt that CIE, like all transport systems throughout the world, must get subventions. This is a social as well as a commercial service and because of that there must be continued subventions. Nevertheless, there is something seriously wrong at the top, as far as CIE are concerned. Of course, like all organisations, there are many good people and there is good management, but not at top level.
If you had a public sworn inquiry into the operations of CIE, the first people to welcome that would be the operators of CIE. I have seen the railway system being sabotaged by the current management. They deliberately and wilfully ran services at a time completely unsuitable to the people who would be travelling. They expended thousands of pounds on renovating stations. They installed cranes at enormous expense. At the end of the year they showed a colossal expense in the running of that line. Consequently, nobody could justify the keeping open of the line. No deputation could go to the Minister or to CIE and say: "That could be a viable service; keep it open; we need it." Figures were put before the Minister, these resulted, because of deliberate sabotage by the management, in closing down lines. They were not concerned about the worker who was displaced because of the closure. That did not worry them. This is the same management.
I attended a meeting at which £600 million of merchandise was purchased by CIE and I heard the assistant general manager at the time state that if we did not operate that merchandise "Let it go up the sidings to rust". That is the type of management we have. Of course, there are some good people in that concern and they are very worried themselves as management but they are not given the money; their expertise or qualifications are not allowed to enter into it. There are those who are anxious to take the easy way out. The people who use the trains and buses and the workers are the sufferers, the workers who are being put on the road, who are being displaced and transferred around the country because of the sabotage that took place within CIE.
With proper management the position could be otherwise. We could not expect CIE would ever pay, because no national rail or transport system has ever paid, but there is need for first class management. I sincerely suggest that if the Minister wants expertise, people to run CIE, he should go to the workforce and allow them the promotion which can only be gained by an exclusive section of CIE. A worker may be promoted only as far as inspector; he ends there. All the good things that have happened in CIE, things represented to the Minister as modernisation, productivity and so on, have come from suggestions of the workers and nobody else. I can assure the Minister of that; I know. I am saddened that the Minister should fall into the trap of allowing this increase when all that is needed, as I have suggested, was the promotion of more business. In a transport business the best way to make it pay is to have maximum utilisation of resources.
The Deputy should conclude now.
I shall conclude now. I only want to say that if the Minister had refused to sanction that increase and had, as I said, encouraged people to use trains and buses, it would have been a better policy. There should also be greater co-operation between semi-State bodies. I am sorry my time is so short because I could go on much longer. The Minister should encourage the ESB, the Post Office and other such bodies to transport their goods by rail rather than use the roads themselves. This would greatly help CIE by providing traffic for them. I ask the Minister to consider what I have suggested.
I have listened with interest to this debate. I am glad to have had the opportunity of moving the motion on 3 July and of replying to the debate on it today. I listened to and I have read the speech of the Minister for Tourism and Transport and I also listened to the Minister of State, Deputy Fitzpatrick, and it occurred to me, and I believe that I am correct in stating that at this point of time the Government have absolutely no policy in regard to transport. That is most regrettable. We have all listened with tremendous interest to the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy speaking about conserving energy on numerous occasions and we are all endeavouring to heed and act on his advice. Without question, the country is at present having an energy crisis. We are not unique because this is not confined to European countries; America and all countries are suffering an energy crisis. The energy situation is getting worse rather than better. The situation regarding oil and petrol supplies is likely to become worse rather than better. Oil and petrol are scarce resources and all the statistical information with which we are furnished indicates that they are becoming scarce. Therefore, the duty devolves on the Minister of State at the Department to try to ensure that as many people as possible are encouraged to use public transport. That is also the duty of the Minister for Transport and Tourism—to ensure that maximum use is made of buses and trains.
I am sure the Minister read with interest the CIE statement following the recent petrol crisis that there had been a 25 per cent increase in the use of public transport. This was a major improvement. I might add that this increase came after the National Prices Commission had recommended an increase in fares: the matter was before the Government. The business began to improve and there was this 25 per cent increase. Unfortunately then, the Government decided to increase fares by 15 to 20 per cent. That was a retrograde step, a disasterous step. To have such an increase in the use of public transport was of major significance. The CIE spokesman also stated that as far as he could ascertain there was a 25 per cent reduction in private transport. In a situation when people are moving to public transport it is absolutely essential to try to encourage them. Instead, the Government decided to increase fares by 15 to 20 per cent.
We have to encourage people to move away from using private cars and to use public transport. How do we get people to move towards public transport? We have to provide an efficient, comfortable and economic service. The efficiency at times leaves a lot to be desired. I use public transport quite a lot in travelling around the country and I find that the national train service runs very late at times. Many of the trains are five, 10, 20 minutes and half an hour late. This is a very serious matter and helps people to move away from using trains and buses. I can excuse buses travelling late and arriving late in Dublin but there is no excuse for trains on the main railway lines arriving late. CIE will have to make certain that their trains run on time and if they are not on time the reason must be given.
We must ensure that a comfortable service is provided. Our trains and buses are not comfortable. The trains in the winter are either too hot or too cold. The heating system in even the largest of our trains appears to be inefficient and not working properly. We must ensure that a sufficient amount of heating is provided in our trains. Our trains must be properly cleaned. CIE fall down in this respect. We must ensure that the meals provided are reasonably priced and of good quality. The standard of meals provided on our mainline trains is of reasonably good quality. The people on those trains providing the meals work under difficult circumstances. The services provided by CIE must be reasonably priced.
I believe people were satisfied with the price charged by CIE but this latest increase of 15 to 20 per cent is enormous. If the fares had gone up by 3 per cent or 5 per cent there would have been a reaction from people who are regularly using public transport but it would not have been as bad as in the case of the present increases. Many working men coming into Dublin every day and going around the country use buses or trains. An increase of 5 per cent or 7 per cent would be in line with the proposed increase they are likely to get under the National Wage Agreement. The present increase in CIE fares is far in excess of anything that they are likely to get under the National Wage Agreement. People using public transport to get to and from work, those on small wages, those who will not be greatly affected by income tax allowances or by the abolition of car tax, will have to pay an increase of 15 per cent to 20 per cent in their fares. They will suffer a drop of approximately 10 per cent in their standard of living in regard to this item of expenditure.
The people who are badly affected by the increase in CIE fares will probably decide they will not pay those increased fares and will decide to buy a car. A large number of our cars are imported. The parts for them are also imported and every gallon of petrol those people use in their cars is imported. All this affects our balance of payments. The Government had a unique opportunity to encourage people to use public transport.
We have a serious oil crisis and we must deplore the recent increases in CIE fares approved by the Government. We call on the Government to provide the additional revenue so that people will not have to meet those increased fares. The oil crisis will become worse if people move away from the use of public transport and use private transport.
The Minister said that the aim of the Government was to reduce traffic congestion in Dublin city. The Government, by allowing those further increases in public transport, will increase traffic congestion in Dublin city, Cork city, Limerick city and every reasonably sized town in the country. People will depend less and less on public transport because if traffic congestion becomes any worse than it is the services will be running late and they will become less efficient.
The Minister would be wise to withdraw the increases which have been granted to CIE. He is hitting CIE too hard at the moment. Mistakes were made in the past with regard to CIE. Some railway services coming into Dublin were closed down as well as many others throughout the country. If those services were retained this would have helped. I believe it is wrong to grant those huge increases to CIE and the House should deplore those increases.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 65; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Loughnane, William.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walshe, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Conlan, John F.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lipper, Mick.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Mannion, John M.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Ryan, John J.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Woods and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.