Mr. Dermot O'Leary:

To respond to Deputy Troy because he must leave, with regard to proof of cross-subsidisation, the annual accounts of Bus Éireann, which are available through a Google search, will evidence this and support our view quite clearly. When there was no motorway network, which I will discuss in response to other questions, Bus Éireann serviced all of the small towns and communities to which the Deputy referred and to which we referred in our presentation. We found accounts for almost 11 years, and we found that old funds were used to subsidise PSO services. New entrants to the transport arena, such as the National Transport Authority, of which I am very critical for obvious reasons from our perspective, choose to forget the past. While we can leave the past behind us, the information it provides for us should never be forgotten. We have evidence to support the view.

I will briefly run through some of Deputy Troy's questions. With regard to a reduction in fares, fares have increased on average 8.2% in the past ten years, at least since 2010. We have said very publicly that this fare increase, with the reduction in terms and conditions for our members and members of other trade unions across the three CIE companies, have plugged a gap effectively. I will come back to Senator O'Mahony's questions on subvention. Of course, without having empirical evidence in front of me, it is anecdotally well known that the more fares are reduced the more people will travel on public transport. Listening to the questions and contributions from committee members, the problem in the Dublin area is completely opposite to that in rural areas. There is congestion in Dublin and a lack of services in some parts of rural Ireland, but there is a connection, pardon the pun, between these two debates.

With regard to initiatives to get people away from the car and onto public transport, the very simple one is park and ride. We know what London does with regard to congestion but London is a far different city of course. The only initiative we have heard of in recent times is to stop buses travelling around College Green, which is lunacy in the extreme. If we are going to discourage people from using their cars the last thing that should be done is to stop buses going to where the people want to go. It is madness. This morning, when I came across from my office, I saw the gardaí pull in two private cars on College Green. There would be no buses on College Green, never mind private cars, which would be lunacy in the extreme.

To answer Deputy Troy's question on the Expressway service, I have a lot to say about it. Deputy Troy touched on some of it, as did other contributors. The Expressway service is disappearing before our eyes. Someone called it our national carrier. This is what it is and what it always was. The red setter was an iconic brand, but it is disappearing before our eyes. While welcoming the opportunity the committee has given us to voice our concerns on behalf of our members and the communities they serve, we are very frustrated with regard to the Minister, and I am hopping over to Senator O'Mahony's questions. The Minister was before the committee several weeks ago, and he mentioned stakeholders three or four times during his contribution. Not once did he mention some the most vital of stakeholders, which are trade unions. Perhaps some people in this room think trade unions are only about strikes and disputes. This is not our remit. A strike and dispute is a last resort. Of course our interests start with the workers, because if there are no workers there is no industry and vice versabecause they go hand in hand, but in terms of expertise in transport, there is none better than that of the people who work in the system. It is not about them being paid exorbitant rates of pay, which they are not, by the way.

I am not sure about the other trade unions, but the Minister of the day has not met this trade union. I have written to him on three occasions. I gave him a brief in June, which forewarned him of the Bus Éireann situation. He came here and spoke about meeting Bus Éireann on 12 September. We briefed him on 10 June about the problems in Bus Éireann, but he chose to ignore it. I know he was busy off in Brazil doing other things and talking to stakeholders in other organisations, but he has not engaged with us. This is important from my point of view.

If I have left out anything from Deputy Troy's questions I ask him to remind me. I missed out the question on the NTA issuing licences and inhibiting Bus Éireann.

That goes to the heart of the problem regarding Bus Éireann. If I am repeating myself, I apologise.

The motorway network is a recent phenomenon and I believe it was Professor Reynolds-Feighan who said that 2011 was the starting point of Bus Éireann's problems. Its accounts show that to be the case. The degree of competition on routes from Dublin-Cork, Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Galway and Dublin-Waterford, which are all on motorways, is oppressive. I mentioned in my presentation the issue of seat capacity as opposed to market demand. There is an excess of capacity on those routes. That is a fact. Deputy Troy gave the example of the Dublin-Maynooth route. What has happened in the UK is similar to what will happen here. I predict, without the benefit of a crystal ball but with the benefit of evidence in the UK, that what will happen here will be similar to what happened UK in areas outside London. There will be a plethora - this is already the case - of private operators competing with the national State carrier, as we call Bus Éireann. We will end up with Bus Éireann talking about not providing services on those routes, other operators no longer providing services on them and a monopoly, not a Bus Éireann monopoly, or at best duopoly, and fares that are cheap now on a route from A to B, will go through the roof. That has been the UK experience.

To answer Senator O'Mahony's questions, we would love to have level of a subvention of €170 million for Dublin Bus, as mentioned by Professor Reynolds-Feighan. All we want on the trade union side, and I presume Dublin Bus would want the same, is a return to levels approaching 2008, albeit on an incremental basis. That would be very beneficial in the context of providing the services. I am not here to speak on behalf of Dublin Bus but, for obvious reasons, we have a strong relationship with it because the members of our union work there. It has an excellent service and in respect of the benchmarks and the quality performance Professor Reynolds-Feighan mentioned, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are hitting figures of 98% or 99% all the time. The Senator also mentioned about the stakeholder. If I am not covering all the Senator's questions, he can come back to me on them.

I thank Deputy Munster for her comments on the successful resolution of the unfortunate dispute at Dublin Bus. As she is aware, all the trade unions were involved. We hope to replicate the solidarity that was shown by the trade unions in Dublin Bus across the CIE group without the necessity, as I said earlier, of having a dispute.

Regarding a legislative measure introduced last year which the Deputy asked about, we had a joint trade union initiative on foot of a concern that the Irish legislation - not the European legislation - is flawed in that it would, if not changed, compel the NTA to award contracts to private companies or any entities that could adequately provide services, regardless of whether it was Dublin Bus. The adequacy of the service was the only benchmark and the NTA could have been compelled, under pressure from a private company for example, by threat of court action or whatever may happen, to let Dublin Bus services out to those private operators. That was a concern. The settlement proposals from last year, which are mentioned in our submission, indicated that Government would examine the legislation. The previous Minister, Deputy Donohoe, wrote to us and to all the unions last year and said that Fine Gael was in process of making changes if it got back into government. I note from a newspaper article some weeks ago and from having had the benefit of talking to him that the current Minister, Deputy Ross, is supporting changes to that legislation. As to whether that will be satisfactory to the trade unions, I suspect it will not but at least it will be better than what is in place now.

In our presentation we covered much of the NTA's spend in recent years. While this debate is helpful, it would be far more prudent if all the stakeholders, including the Minister, could gather in a room like this and engage in an honest and open debate on the various issues affecting all of the people in the context of transport. Those stakeholders would include the workers we represent, commuters, Members of the Legislature and other interested parties. That is the type of debate that should be taking place. However, the NTA had absorbed a great deal of money that would be better spent on front-line transport services.

The Deputy mentioned some of the consultancy fees. We state that these relate to vanity projects. We contend that the NTA replicates and duplicates much of the work CIE does. The latter begs the question as to whether this a way of getting rid of CIE inch by inch or bit by bit? That is a concern for us. This year, a consultancy firm - I am not allowed to name it or I do not believe I am, but if I am, please allow me to do so-----