Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have read the reports but found them scary. However, I have seen evidence that the companies have turned a corner. It is difficult to reduce costs by €26 million per annum while continuing to provide a service, but the adjustment is being made. Payroll is 55% of the cost base. How does that compare with similar operations in other jurisdictions? Fuel costs have increased by €14 million. I read in one of the reports that there are revenue protection officers. It would make more sense to negotiate as a group rather than as individual companies when purchasing in high volumes, particularly with regard to fuel, because there would be efficiencies of scale.

I do not understand one paragraph of one of Mr. Nolan's presentation, which was not a lovely piece of English. I understand it from Bus Éireann's point of view but not from the Government's or the taxpayer's point of view. It states:

When making these changes, we are conscious of the impact they might have on some customers. As such, we have been working with the National Transport Authority to see if Public Service Obligation (PSO) services could be operated to by-passed locations within the limited State funding available for such services.

I think that means towns and villages which are bypassed by motorways. Is it being suggested that there should be an alternative means of servicing those transport needs?

That might look attractive from the company's point of view, but from the taxpayer's point of view it will ultimately cost more if the company is providing a separate service. I do not understand what "greater commercial freedom to make the necessary changes on our inter-city services" means.

The following is a fascinating piece of English. The presentation by Mr. Doherty, the chief executive of Dublin Bus, mentions "[i]mproved service simplicity for customers through a 36% reduction in route numbers." That is a good one.