asked the Minister for Finance if the transport subsidy granted in the June Budget, 1975, for the purpose of reducing the cost of living is available to all public transport users.

In association with my financial statement of 26th June, 1975, a document was circulated to Deputies setting out the principal features of the budgetary measures announced in the statement. This document made clear the extent of the new transport subsidy. It indicated that the subsidy was being provided to enable CIE to reduce the fares they charge on Dublin city bus service, road passenger provincial services and Dublin and Cork commuter rail services to the levels which obtained before 12th May, 1975.

The reduction was implemented by CIE on 28th July and fares charged to the public on these services were reduced, on average, by 25 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that as this subsidy is now being operated workers and travellers by bus and rail throughout the twenty-five-and-a-half counties have the benefit of the budgetary subsidy of 25 per cent on their fares? Is he also aware that the northern half of Donegal, just because it happens to be serviced by a private company, does not benefit from the 25 per cent budgetary subsidy, to which of course they contribute? Will the Minister ensure that, if a further regulation needs to be made, all the travelling citizens who use public transport will get the benefit of this budgetary measure?

It would not be feasible to do so.

In other words, the Minister provides in the budget for subsidies for users of road transport——

Of a certain classification, and I pointed out to the Deputy that the classification is based upon those areas where people tend to spend a higher proportion of their disposable income on transport than in other areas. But once again I would say that if the Opposition would make up their minds it would help the country generally, because this is another case where we have been pressed to increase public expenditure while again and again the complaint opposite is that we are borrowing too much or taxing too much to meet expenditure which they say is not sufficient.

Could I ask the Minister if he is aware that he is taxing the travelling public in one half of the county where people are also contributing——

The Deputy has already made that point.

——through the budgetary measure the Minister introduced? This is blatantly unfair.

I am aware, as the Deputy is aware, that the taxation code, the code of payments and allowances paid by the State invariably involves anomalies and that completely even distribution of benefits and of burdens is not administratively possible. The Deputy is well aware of that, he having held public office.

Is the Minister aware——

I called Deputy Colley earlier.

Is the Minister aware that in what might be called commuter areas where the subsidy is operating with CIE, there are some private operators providing public transport in the same areas who do not and whose customers do not get the benefit of the subsidy? If the Minister is so aware, will he explain to the House why this should be so?

Because it is important that all State schemes be operated with as little administrative complexity and cost as possible, and that is the scheme which has been chosen.

Is that sufficient justification?

Could I ask——

I have given Deputy Cunningham a lot of latitude and I hope he appreciates it.

May I ask one final question? Is the Minister aware that in his budgetary statement he indicated the travelling public would get this 25 per cent subsidy in order to prevent further increases of wages and salaries, that this reduction in the cost of living index was being provided in order to prevent the third and fourth wage round increases?

I gave an explanation in my original reply.

Are the people in the northern half of Donegal to go ahead with their third and fourth wage round demands?

34.

asked the Minister for Finance if he will extend the transport subsidy granted in the June, 1975 budget to cover commuters from Drogheda and Dundalk and intermediate stations to Dublin, in view of the anomaly of the present position.

The new transport subsidy announced in my financial statement of 26th June was provided to enable CIE to reduce the fares they charge on Dublin city bus services, road passenger provincial services and Dublin and Cork commuter rail services to the levels which obtained before 12th May, 1975.

Having regard to the limited amount of public money that was available for the purpose the services chosen to receive the benefit of the new transport subsidy were the widest-ranging possible in the circumstances, and it is not intended to extend the scope of the subsidy.

I know of at least one case in which CIE buses running on part of exactly the same route as privately operated public transport are getting the benefit of the subsidy whereas the privately operated transport is not. Therefore, the customers of the privately operated transport are not getting it on the same routes. Does the Minister really think that this can be justified on grounds of alleged easier administration? Surely this is not an insuperable problem of administration?

There are considerable problems of administration and of increasing the measure. We chose the method which gave the widest possible benefit with the least possible administrative costs and complexity.

People are travelling side by side on different fares because of this.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply to Question No. 33 I wish, with your permission, to have the matter raised on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy on the matter.