asked the Minister for Communications if he will give a breakdown of the £115 million above the line payment to CIE in 1985 giving the specific allocations and subheads.

The £115 million paid to CIE in 1985 is broken down in subhead D.1 of the Vote for my Department as follows:

The reply which the Minister gave is what I would call a lumpen reply and I want a detailed breakdown of what are talked of as the social costings of CIE. The "in" word is transparency. There is no transparency attaching to the words "rail £80 million". What I should like to know and what the House would expect to know, is how that £80 million is allocated in circumstances in which there is a claim that CIE are making a profit. I agree totally with the above the line payments but should like to have a breakdown of the above the line payments. For example, how much of that is a social service payment? To which area is it ascribed in each case?

That is not what the question asks. It would be helpful if Deputy Wilson would table a question which asks what he intended to ask.

A breakdown.

Nonetheless, it would be very difficult to answer that question. When we came to review the financial situation of CIE in early 1983, we considered in great detail how to approach the quantification of the social dimension of CIE's role. There was talk about getting a few hundred statisticians and others who would look at every bus route and train route throughout the country and say that is 50 per cent social and the other is 30 per cent social. I thought that was not the way to do it, that that would prove impossible. Having considered everything, a general assessment was made and the Government decided they would consider one-third of every CIE service as social and, therefore, that they would be responsible for one-third of CIE's expenditure. That is the general quantification of the social role of CIE.

Will the Minister not agree that if the accounts of CIE are to have any credibility in this House, the House would have to be informed of what it is paying for individual services, old people travelling on their tickets, etc., and not to get a statement here that of the £115 million, £80 million will be given to the railways, without having any view of where in the railways that money is being spent. It is current cost, not capital — that is a separate bill. In view of the Minister's appeal to us to try to buttress the morale of CIE, to make a different company out of it from what we have had. I ask the Minister that the accounts be transparent. In other words, if an annual account says that CIE made a profit of £4 million or £5 million in 1985, but the social payments amounted to £115 million, this House should know specifically — there is no use in talking about one-third — what each amount of money is used to pay for. It would be the same as with the Minister for Social Welfare for subheads for unemployment assistance, unemployment benefit and so forth.

Next week we shall be having a major debate and discussing the CIE reorganisation Bill and I shall certainly make every endeavour to provide in my speech as much breakdown of the subsidy as possible. The subsidy on DART system, for instance, for every passenger is £1.92

Inclusive of capital charges, in the Minister's estimation?

Yes, inclusive of all charges. In relation to Dublin city bus service, the subsidy is only 10p, that is one-nineteenth of the subsidy on DART. I shall try to get similar figures for the railway. That is before any social welfare payments are considered. The Department of Social Welfare pay for the free travel of old age pensioners and holders of invalidity pensions, etc., but that is quite separate.

Is that not separate from the £115 million?

Yes. There is a subhead in the Vote for the Minister for Social Welfare. That is quite separate. I am saying all this because it is right that the matter should be debated in great detail in the House from time to time. The important thing is that since 1982 the overall cost, the overall deficit of CIE, has been reducing in real terms every single year.

I shall be talking about that myself next week.

The running costs have declined in real terms in each of the past four years. CIE have exceeded their target in respect of last year and are on target for this year. That follows 13 or 14 years of escalating deficits by a multiple of the rate of inflation. There is a very considerable turn-around in the affairs of CIE but that company are still, of course, costing us a considerable amount of money.