Vol. 398 No. 3
6 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Tourism and Transport the level of financial subsidy from the Exchequer for the Dublin city bus service; the proportion of revenue for the Dublin city bus service which is provided from (a) fares and (b) Government subsidy; the way in which this subsidy compares with subsidies provided for public transport systems in other major European cities; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Annual subvention for Bus Átha Cliath is allocated by the board of CIE out of the total Exchequer allocation to that body in accordance with EC Regulation 1107/70, which specifies that State aid may be paid in respect of losses on road passenger services which cannot be recouped by fare increases or eliminated by economies in operations. The allocation of State subvention for Bus Átha Cliath for essential public transport services in Dublin city in 1989 was £14.8 million or 16.5 per cent of total revenue received by the company. Revenue received by the company from fares amounted to £74 million or 82.5 per cent of total revenue. The balance of 1 per cent is accounted for by miscellaneous receipts.
Figures available for international comparisons have to be treated with caution, because the definitions of "revenue" and "costs" differ considerably from one country to the next. In addition, in the case of the most recent comparison available the figures compared do not in many cases relate to the same year. Subject to these qualifications, however, bus transport in Dublin city emerges as requiring a considerably lower level of subsidy by comparison with other major European cities.
Once again, The Workers' Party have extracted information from the Minister which indicates that Dublin Bus is hardly subsidised. When compared to our European partners, the subsidy at 16.5 per cent of total revenue is insignificant. For example, the public transport company in Rome receives a subsidy amounting to 80 per cent of total revenue. In the light of his decision not to grant any further fare increases and the annual 3.5 per cent reduction in the rate of subvention, is the Minister happy that Bus Átha Cliath will able to continue providing a service? What the Minister should do is increase the subvention so that a proper transportation system can be developed.
I appeal for brief, relevant and succinct questions.
Would the Minister agree that the policy should now be to increase the subvention so that a proper transportation system can be developed?
I think the Deputy has made his point.
First, I do not agree the subsidy, at £15 million, on top of £74 million, is insignificant; in fact, it is a substantial figure. Second, the Deputy referred to Rome and if I was on the far side of the House I too would have selected Rome as it is at the bottom of the league, with its own particular difficulties. The Deputy could have chosen Dusseldorf which is at the top of the league but then, as I say, if I was on the far side of the House I too would have chosen Rome as my example. I am not disposed at present to granting any further fare increases to Dublin Bus. I should point out that the subsidy in question works out at about 9p per passenger journey while the figure for DART is £1.17p per passenger journey. Dublin Bus has a very good future but it will have to try to increase the number of passengers it can attract.
Would the Minister not agree that there is traffic chaos in Dublin, that it is doubtful if there is any other city which has to endure such congestion, and that the only solution is for the Minister to encourage and aid financially the development of public transport? Would the Minister outline what steps he has taken to improve the present position where traffic in the city is at a standstill each morning and evening?
I have no doubt that the Deputy is aware that we already subsidise public transport in the city. The subsidy being paid to CIE is over £2 million a week.
Would the Minister agree that one of the problems we face is that Dublin Bus has been losing passengers consistently despite the growth in population and all other changes resulting in buses making journeys only a quarter full on average? Would he outline his strategy, if he is not prepared to provide a subvention, to increase the number of passengers in Dublin city and reduce conjestion?
All this can be a circle which has stopped spinning as far as I am concerned. The management of Dublin Bus have commenced a major marketing drive to attract people to use their service. Dublin Bus is a business and it has to try to increase its market share. I want the company to attract more business; I want it to be increasingly marketing orientated and it does offer a good service and it can attract more passengers if it markets its services in an even more determined manner.
In relation to traffic congestion in Dublin, I note questions on that topic have been tabled.
Would the Minister agree that if a fraction of the money being spent on road widening schemes in the city with the aim of facilitating private motor cars was allocated by way of subsidy to CIE we would find ourselves in a far better position?
I am not in favour of making a further subsidy available to CIE. It is obvious that we must develop our roads network as well as our transport network. In that regard I am working very closely with the Minister for the Environment to ensure we have an integrated system and not two separate systems. I am trying to achieve a balance with both being fully integrated. As the House is aware, the Minister for the Environment made an announcement yesterday about the position in Dublin.
Question No. 7. Progress is slow, only six questions have been dealt with in 40 minutes.
