Mr. Michael Taft:

Senator O'Mahony asked whether we want a substantial increase in the subvention now or whether having it phased in would be preferable. Of course, phasing it in would be preferable. Certainly Unite would not say - I do not know if anybody else would - that if we were to substantially increase a subvention up to European levels, that we would do it in the first year. That would not be economically feasible for the Government in light of the constraints on resources and in terms of capacity. When we are talking about rolling out services, there is no sense in a company getting a massive amount of money that it cannot use at present. Phasing it in over four, five or six years, with a subvention of €35 million a year, is not the issue; the issue is not the number of years over which it would be phased in but rather that it would be done, that a roadmap would be created and that the stakeholders would be involved. Once that commitment is made, we can then debate how many years it will take in terms of maximising the impact.

Deputy Troy asked a number of questions that merged into one on whether increasing capacity with services with an increased subvention would create more money and if that would mean it could be more profitable and more sustainable. He also asked if passenger numbers would increase if we cut fares and if this would result in the company making more money. He further inquired as to whether high fares are a disincentive. To disentangle some of that, the first question is whether high fares are a disincentive.

High fares are possibly a disincentive but many people do not have a choice. They may not have a car or it is not feasible to use a car, or it is too far to walk or cycle. In many senses, if fares are raised then a captive audience may be hit. In many cases, it would be low and average-income earners that would be hit by high fares. It probably does not create a disincentive in a large section of the community.

The issue is not whether a profit is made on one line or another because a profit will be made on some lines that are heavily used. Other lines are not so heavily used. Public transport, and certainly the rail and bus companies that have public service obligations, will never make a profit. I know that Mr. O'Leary has said that some of the rail companies do make a profit. However, that is not the same as what we are talking about here. They go out and buy and I do not think we should be looking at just a balance-sheet approach. Professor Reynolds-Feighan made the point that a wider economic analysis is needed of the impact of the investment and the provision for public transport. I shall give two examples. There have been a number of claims made by CIE, business groups, chambers of commerce, Deputies and Senators over the years regarding the cost to businesses of traffic congestion in Dublin. I have never been able to identify the particular study - there are a couple of studies here and there - but they generally estimate the losses to be around €500 million or €600 million. That was in 2007-2008. It is costing the economy €500 million or €600 million in Dublin. If one then increases the subsidy to actually start to tackle that along with a number of other things such as providing services, one needs to take into account the reduction in the cost to businesses of traffic congestion. That is the wider economic analysis the professor is looking for. If the fare is reduced by 25%, the money that the passenger saves does not get burned up - it is spent in other businesses. In other words, the high levels of fare are actually depressing demand and, therefore, reducing cash turnover for businesses. It is a business-friendly measure to increase subventions, reduce fares and expand service capacity.

With regard to the Chairman's question, I am sorry but I do not have experience designing surveys. I will make two points. Obviously, such a survey would have to be carried out over a period in order that it would not involve capturing a slack season, a summer season or whatever and that the data would be balanced out. There are statistical patterns that can be used. It is not just about carrying out a ridership survey to see how much CIE is owed or not owed. We should be taking regular ridership surveys in respect of all forms of public transport and other transport - covering issues such as age, gender and whether a person is travelling for school, work, shopping or recreation - and using them as statistical tools to find out what is going on with public transport. Deputy Barry spoke about London fares being substantially cut and how the system there actually made more money. In ridership surveys carried out in that city, it was discovered that the main beneficiaries of the measure in question were older people. This was before older people had travel passes. They became the main beneficiaries who were then able to visit relatives on the other side of the city. They could engage and participate in the economy. They were the major gainers and Ireland should be doing that but we should also be compiling surveys of people who do not use public transport to find out why. It should not be just a big national survey or a big Dublin survey. It should go to particular communities, such as those in Tallaght, Dún Laoghaire, Bishopstown or elsewhere. We could use these surveys, which are really important, to ask if not using public transport is a matter of cost, convenience or accessibility. We should be using these tools to inform us so we would have an evidence based approach to creating public transport policy. Do I have time to make another brief point?