JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT, CULTURE AND THE GAELTACHT debate -
Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Rural Transport Services: Discussion

Chairman

We will consider the value for money and policy review of the rural transport programme and the external review of the local integrated transport services pilot project. I welcome Ms Doreen Keaney, principal officer, public transport investment and rural transport division, Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport; Ms Anne Graham, director of public transport services, National Transport Authority; Mr. Denis Leamy, chief executive of Pobal, and Mr. Padraig O'Rourke, its rural transport programme co-ordinator. Also in attendance from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport are Ms Eilis O'Connor, assistant principal officer, and Ms Margaret Malone, higher executive officer, public transport investment and rural transport division, and from Pobal Ms Rachel Cusack, finance division. I thank everyone for his or her attendance.

Before we commence proceedings, I draw attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise our guests that their opening statements which they have submitted will be published on the committee’s website after the meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Ms Keaney to address the committee. I will leave it to her to decide whether she wants to take the two reviews separately or together.

Ms Doreen Keaney

I welcome the opportunity to update the joint committee on recent developments in rural transport, in addition to reviewing the two reports it is examining, the report on the value for money and policy review of rural transport and the report on the external review of the local integrated transport services pilot project. The Chairman has introduced my colleagues from the National Transport Authority and Pobal.

The rural transport programme, RTP, developed from the rural transport initiative of 2002, a pilot project established to address issues of unmet transport needs from a social inclusion and community based perspective. The rural transport programme was launched in 2007 to build on the success of that initiative, with a specific focus on responding to rural isolation and enhancing the mobility, accessibility and community participation of local people, particularly those at risk of social exclusion. While services are open to the general public, older people and people with disabilities have, to date, formed the core customer base of the programme which is administered by Pobal. A total of 35 groups, managed, in the main, by voluntary management committees, are being funded under the programme, for which a budget of €9.77 million has been provided this year.

The committee will be aware that on 28 February the Minister of State, Deputy Alan Kelly, announced new plans to integrate rural transport services. The new plans which were approved by the Government stemmed from a review of RTP developments in recent years and consideration of the reports being examined. There are two key changes. First, the National Transport Authority has been allocated national responsibility for implementation of the integrated local and rural transport programme, including the rural transport programme. This has the effect of placing all State funded local and rural public transport services in a broader transport context. This new role for the authority, coupled with its existing national remit for securing the provision of public passenger transport services, will enable the development of better links between local and rural transport services and scheduled bus and rail services, which is fundamental to a fully integrated transport network. The authority assumed its new role from 1 April. This role also includes managing the rural transport budget provided by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and administered by Pobal.

The second key change is the establishment of a new national integrated rural transport committee chaired by the National Transport Authority which will oversee the future integration of local and rural transport services. The membership of the committee is drawn from organisations representing key stakeholders, including rural transport groups, Bus Éireann, the Health Service Executive, Pobal and local authorities, as well as policymakers from the relevant Departments. The role of the committee is to oversee and manage a partnership approach to implementing integrated local and rural transport services to achieve greater synergies, better meet identified transport needs and deliver increased value for money for the Exchequer. The committee has had two meetings to date, the latest last Friday. These developments, including the role of the authority and the new committee, are broadly in line with the recommendations made in the value for money and local integrated transport services, LITS, reports.

One of the key initiatives arising from the Government's decision and which will be overseen by the new committee is the identification and selection of a number of model areas where a partnership approach to integrated transport will be implemented at local level. Targeting carefully selected model areas will allow incremental provision of tested delivery structures for integrated local and rural transport services across the country. It will also facilitate an evidence-based approach, whereby data collection and analysis for the selected model areas can be carried out. The pilot projects will test the way integrated local and rural transport services can best operate and how savings can be achieved across the various transport services. The outcome of the pilot projects will inform the wider national roll-out of integrated rural transport services. The National Transport Authroity is developing proposals for these areas in conjunction with the committee. These proposals will be submitted to the Minister of State for approval shortly.

At its meeting last Friday the committee decided, in advance of the setting up of these model areas, to have four subgroups to examine key issues relating to school transport, health services, logistics and overall administration of the group. The groups will report quickly and feed into the model areas. The overall objective of the new proposals and model projects is to eliminate crossover and the duplication of services and create a better service for the public.

Over €200 million a year is spent across various State bodies on transport services in rural areas between the rural transport programme, school transport and HSE non-acute transport services, with little or no official co-ordination among them. It is, therefore, essential that policy areas relating to school and health services and transport services integration are dealt with as part of the work of the committee. While there are challenges and complexities, the National Transport Authority and the new committee are, essentially, tasked with identifying the optimum way to deliver a strong, co-ordinated service that provides good value for money for the taxpayer. It is hoped significant progress can be made in this work by year end.

I will now refer specifically to the two reports. Members will have received some briefing material which includes background information on the reports and summarises the recommendations made.

The value for money report was carried out in the context of the Government-wide framework for evaluation of public expenditure programmes as part of the value for money and public review initiative. The key findings are: there are concerns about the value for money delivered by the programme in the context of the rate of increased funding without an accompanying equivalent increase in passenger numbers or services in the period between 2004 and 2009; the current organisational structure for the programme which covers 35 groups is a key factor in the lack of cost efficiencies being achieved in terms of both administration and operations; the cost of administration of the groups is very high as a proportion of total group expenditure, with wide variance in administration costs across the groups; there were substantial increases in operating costs, with wages and salaries of RTP groups doubling as a consequence of increased staff numbers and salary levels between 2007 and 2009; there is no formal reporting of the different forms of income the groups received from various sources, including State funding, fare income from individuals or contracted activities; there is a lack of data available to measure the benefits of the programme in addressing social exclusion objectives and there are data gaps in the programme's framework for performance monitoring and evaluation; and the number of journeys provided for under the discretionary free travel scheme increased on an annual basis between 2004 and 2009.

The value for money report makes a broad recommendation in favour of the continuation of the programme, subject to a number of issues being addressed. Its recommendations to address these issues include measures to provide clear evidence of programme effectiveness; achievement of efficiencies and reductions in programme costs; restructuring of RTP groups, with greater use of shared services and standardisation of practices and fare policy; implementation of a programme monitoring framework; and a record and reporting framework to be established that will provide an up-to-date measure of transport provision and unmet transport needs in rural areas.

As well as having responsibility for management of the rural transport programme, the National Transport Authority has also been tasked with overseeing implementation of the recommendations made in the value for money, VFM, report. The authority is best positioned to address the report's recommendations in the wider transport context, addressing such issues as enhanced co-ordination of transport services, elimination of services duplication and better targeting of those with greatest need.

While the recommendations made in the VFM report were only agreed as part of the Government's decision in January and the report was published in March, a number of the recommendations are being progressed, while a plan for prioritising the implementation of other recommendations is being put in place by the National Transport Authority and supported, where required, by Pobal and the Department. The main recommendations progressed are set out in the background material provided for the committee. In summary, progress is being made in reducing administration costs. Furthermore, the practice of providing discretionary free travel has been discontinued, which is a substantial saving to the programme.

The local integrated transport services, LITS, report is an evaluation by outside consultants of a number of pilot projects undertaken in the north east and north west to explore the potential for improved synergies between existing transport providers with a view to realising better value for money. The pilot projects evaluated included collect and connect services, hospital feeder services, co-ordination of disability services, ticketing and integration, co-ordinated information provision and journey planning, and increased synchronisation of partner systems and processes. The primary recommendation of the report is that the LITS approach should continue and be developed nationally, subject to the further recommendations included in the report. These additional recommendations refer primarily to the need for a central steering committee and a central role for the National Transport Authority. These are reflected in the proposals approved by the Government in January. The work of the national integrated rural transport committee will bring a more coherent national focus to the integration process which commenced under the local integrated transport services initiative.

I emphasise that the Minister and the Department are highly conscious of the good work undertaken to date by many groups and the progress made. It is intended to ensure this work is built on and that the experience gained to date guides the work of the new committee. The National Transport Authority and Pobal will play a key role in linking with all groups to advance the outcome of the pilot schemes and ensure local groups continue to drive efficiencies and integration to neutralise the impact of reduced funding on direct service delivery. It is the aim that under the umbrella of the new national committee, a more complete and cost effective public transport service offering can be achieved in local and rural areas which will better meet the transport demands of all users.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome Ms Keaney's presentation. I am sure we will receive further information from Pobal and other participants in the rural transport programme. I pay tribute, as Ms Keaney did, to the good work done by the various voluntary and community groups which have come together to provide the backbone of the rural transport service. I will be parochial in noting that one of the most far-sighted of such groups happens to be located in my constituency. Some would argue that this has occurred in spite of me rather than on account of me. The group in question which was initially known as East Clare Accessible Transport has expanded to become Clare Accessible Transport or CAT, an exceptional organisation which is widely recognised for the way in which it does its business.

It was during the term of office of the previous Government that the idea was first mooted of harnessing available resources, plugging them into the national transport network and ensuring seamless delivery, if one likes, of a transport network across the country. While this is a vision we should all strive to realise, I have some concerns about seeking to co-ordinate the activities of groups which come from different backgrounds and have a different ethos. There are inherent dangers involved in trying to plug into a national transport organisation a voluntary organisation which is largely voluntary and has all the flexibilities associated with being operated on a voluntary basis.

Ms Keaney set out the reasons for moving to a national framework, namely, securing value for money and achieving a capacity to deliver a wider service with reduced revenues. The nub of the issue is that when one starts to place a stranglehold on voluntary organisations, one often loses something that does not show up in a value for money exercise. My greatest concern is that the effort to streamline the delivery of transport programmes may result in the loss of much of what has been achieved by the voluntary activity of groups working on the ground. While I accept that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport may understand this issue, I suspect Pobal has much greater experience of it, given the work it does with many community groups. I suggest, therefore, that Pobal's model for understanding or analysing a value for money report will be different from the model used by Departments because the former sees the inputs involved.

I buy into the idea of reviewing the funding provided for school transport and non-acute hospital transfers. A pilot study carried out in County Meath some years ago when Tim Hayes was chief executive of Bus Éireann provided a good understanding of what was needed if we were to achieve a more joined-up approach and save money. Nevertheless, I urge the Department to reflect on the rate of integration and caution against the possibility that voluntary activity will be lost.

Ms Doreen Keaney

The Department, Pobal and the National Transport Authority are very conscious of the voluntary effort that goes into the various groups. We want to build on the best aspects of such groups in further developing integration. As Deputy Timmy Dooley noted, it is necessary to cut costs and try to increase the efficiency of rural transport services. The value for money report points to some options for achieving these objectives. The Minister of State and the Department are anxious to ensure we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps the representatives of the National Transport Authority or Pobal wish to add to that point. The new committee will certainly seek to retain what is best of the current system and build on it.

Mr. Denis Leamy

The volunteer aspect and the infrastructure of the rural transport service have evolved over the past ten years. They are also connected with many organisations engaged in other areas. Some 1,200 volunteers are involved in rural transport and it is, as Deputy Timmy Dooley noted, extremely important to hold on to their voluntary spirit. Pobal works with more than 4,000 community and voluntary groups and our perspective is based on accountable autonomy. This means that while one respects the autonomy of groups at local level, there also needs to be a level of accountability for taxpayers' funds in respect of the efforts of such groups. In developing rural transport Pobal is mindful of the economic environment and conscious that supports must be provided to ensure the volunteer aspect of the current groups and their knowledge and quality of delivery are maintained. They are the ones who are best placed to identify the needs of their localities. While achieving this goal will be a challenge, Pobal has introduced a number of supports and will continue to provide such supports to ensure these elements are retained.

Mr. Padraig O’Rourke

Mr. Leamy has covered the issue, which is one of harnessing and obtaining the maximum from the voluntarism associated with the programme. This means empowering volunteers and removing the fear generated in terms of voluntarism. There is no doubt that the rural transport programme is rooted in the communities in which it operates. It is the communities that decide where the voluntary committees are needed.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

Many of the groups raise funds in the community, which is very important, especially in terms of funding infrastructure such as the purchase of buses. When one allows the State to take control in areas such as this, people at local level frequently decide they no longer need to put their hands in their pockets because the State will provide the service. I have some concerns about the capacity of current groups to continue to raise funds effectively and provide additional services or infrastructure.

Keeping volunteers on board is another concern. I have experience of similar problems arising with search and rescue volunteers when the Irish Coast Guard assumes responsibility for providing a search and rescue service. While the Irish Coast Guard provides a fantastic service, when the State provides the service, the voluntary activity and fundraising attached to voluntary search and rescue efforts are lost. I accept that our guests are all eminently qualified to address this issue, but it is something of which they should be mindful as they proceed.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank Ms Keaney for her presentation. I share the concerns expressed about the voluntary aspect of this issue, but I do not propose to labour the point.

Will Ms Keaney explain the rationale for removing discretionary free travel? I am led to believe the number of people using the rural transport service has increased. Is that the case and, if so, why are services being cut back? Perhaps the witnesses can fill us in on that. What is the difference between this year's budget and the previous budget? I am constantly getting complaints that when school numbers are down, school transport services have decreased. Have the witnesses encountered the same problems? That is a big worry for rural communities.

When we get down to value for money, we tend to forget about the ordinary people who are left behind. I am worried that everything is driven by the cost rather than by the people on the ground, such as those with disabilities or those with children who have to travel distances. In some cases they might have to travel a couple of miles down the road. Previously they had bus services, but now they do not. I would like the witnesses to comment on some of that.

Ms Doreen Keaney

The budget is down from €10.62 million last year to €9.77 million this year, representing a cut of about 8%. That is in line with cuts on our current budget in the Department for public transport generally. All public transport funding was cut by that amount. The recommendation on discretionary free travel is in the value for money report and is also in line with policy on all public transport, where there is no discretionary free travel. My colleagues may want to add something else to that.

Mr. Denis Leamy

Services have substantially increased over the years, following an increase in budgets for the rural transport programme. We want to focus the reduction on the administrative elements and try to retain the services as much as possible. Every rural transport group reviews its services from year to year. They look at demand and new needs that are emerging in the rural community. They might change the services to take up those needs, with the result they might end up with services being reduced in some areas but increasing in other areas. There is definitely a focus from our perspective and from the Department's perspective to ensure where the cuts come, they are in the administrative end. That includes Pobal, the groups themselves and everything else across the board. It is a significant challenge. I will ask Mr. O'Rourke to cover the discretionary free pass issue.

Mr. Padraig O’Rourke

This was a recommendation of the value for money report. It would be a significant loss for the rural transport programme groups and their freedom to make decisions at local level. It is what it is. That is the decision and we are implementing it at the moment. We hope the groups would find other ways at local level to address any needs that are not met following this decision. It was also phased in over a period of a few months in order that it did not have an immediate impact on people. It is a recommendation of the value for money report and we have implemented it accordingly.

Deputy Gerald Nash

I thank the Chairman for giving me the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am very familiar with the rural transport programme in Louth and have used the service many times to get a flavour of its importance for those who depend on it. I can certainly testify that from the point of view of social inclusion, it has provided wonderful opportunities for people who require it in rural County Louth. I can also testify to the fantastic work done by the organisation in County Louth to drive down administration costs, by using more cost-effective data collection models and so on. The Minister is interested in looking at this in the next few weeks. I know he intends to visit the area to examine that for himself.

I know that Pobal has played a very important role on the administration of the service over recent years. Pobal has a range of different responsibilities on the spending and administration of funds. How many staff are employed at Pobal at the moment? How many are dedicated to the rural transport programme? How much of the €9.77 million allocated last year to the rural transport programme was taken by Pobal for the administration of that programme? What kind of hands-on role does Pobal play with transport co-ordinators around the country? Is there a series of visits? Does Pobal have a practical function, as opposed to just administering the costs and effectively looking at the bottom line? Does Pobal get a practical sense of what is happening on the ground?

I understand from experience throughout the country that there has been a growth in what are known as fleet owning groups in recent years. These are schemes that have built up ownership of a number of vehicles. Anecdotally, some private operators have been identifying to me a problem with a distortion of the market. In other words, a rural transport programme is benefitting from a State subsidy and is competing against those who do not. This view has been espoused by some private operators and I would appreciate it if the witnesses could give their opinion on that.

Significant integration will take place over the next few years in a bid to find efficiencies and to better co-ordinate the service in difficult economic times. It concerns some people to see very large school transport vehicles traversing the country roads while there is also a rural transport scheme operating and a HSE supported scheme as well. There is great potential for closer co-operation with the HSE and with the Department of Education and Skills. Perhaps the witnesses might give me their views on how that can roll out in future.

There have been reviews of the rural transport scheme. What lessons have the various organisations learned from previous initiatives and the initiatives we are working on at the moment? The Minister of State, Deputy Kelly, has said that six new pilot schemes will be organised, and that has been reiterated today by the witnesses. On what basis will those pilots be selected and when are they supposed to begin?

Ms Doreen Keaney

A number of questions were directly for Pobal. It is hoped the pilot programmes, or model areas as we are calling them this time, will be chosen very quickly. As we said last week at the meeting, the national committee set up four subgroups to look at school transport, health issues, transport issues, logistics and the overall structure and administration of groups. They have been asked to come back within a number of weeks with key issues relating to the four areas and make some recommendations. Once we get some feedback from the subgroups, the criteria for the groups will be worked out by the national committee and they will be established by the Minister of State very quickly. They will be based on the themes that come from the subgroups.

School transport is a very serious issue and the scope for using school buses later in the day when they are free is the challenge we have to address. There are issues relating to child protection and so on. We hope the subgroups will come up with some scope for moving forward on the issue, but I would not want to pre-empt what will come out of the reviews and the discussions over the next few weeks.

Mr. Denis Leamy

Pobal has been working with rural transport since its inception in 2002 as the rural transport initiative. We are involved with 16 other programmes which were also within the local development and equality area. There is a synergy of expertise that goes across those various programmes that would feed into the rural transport programme. We have also built up a knowledge base of deprivation indices through the Pobal index. Our rural expertise means we also manage a range of programmes with a rural perspective. The support we give must be seen in that context. We have expertise in transport planning, finance and ongoing programme management. Each of the groups submits a three year strategic plan, we assess and appraise those plans and work regularly with the groups on the assessments of those plans and where their budgets meet different performance indicators.

We have a number of staff who are fully dedicated to rural transport and a number across the organisation who have part-time dedication to it. In total, we have 11 full-time equivalent staff. Pobal's administration budget this year is €840,000, which is 8.6% of the full amount. Other funding streams go into rural transport through the rural social scheme, the community services programme and other fare income collected by the rural transport programme.

Our practical measures on the ground have gone through substantial changes within Pobal over recent years. We have had to restructure our own services. Our budget has been reduced by 35% over the past four years. We have had to reduce our staff by 100. We have reorganised, on a regional basis, the supports we provide to the rural transport programme and to many of our programmes. In each region there is a regional development officer who supports local development companies, rural social schemes, the rural transport programme and community services programmes. We tend to allocate them on a county basis so that they have a good knowledge of the county. That brings with it its own local expertise. That change to the rural transport groups happened in recent months. They have been brought into that way of giving support to the various groups.

I will ask my colleague to deal with the questions on fleet ownership.

Mr. Padraig O’Rourke

Several groups are fleet owning. A fleet can be defined as anything from one to 20 buses. The recent trend is for groups with smaller bus numbers to reconsider ownership, and some have begun to exit from fleet ownership.

The groups and we are aware of the risks of displacement, as we call it, of the private sector. Our guideline to groups is that it should not happen. Even though our own services are subsidised, if a service were to become commercially viable, it is our policy that the group should pull back and allow a commercial entity to come in and run it, if that is possible. It is unlikely in most cases.

We receive about five or six complaints per year against our services and they vary in complexity. They tend to be addressed fairly quickly. We talk to the operators and the groups and we get them to talk together. Usually solutions are found. In many cases, those solutions include us feeding into a commercial service. It gets a little more complex when we get into vehicle ownership because of the risk that a subsidised service would compete with a private sector service. Again, our advice to groups is that they must compete on an equal footing. That is not always possible but it is the policy from our perspective and it has always been the policy.

Some of the groups became involved in fleet ownership for particular reasons, especially accessibility. For some groups, the primary purpose of owning vehicles is that they would be fully accessible. They are usually supplying what is not available in the market. We say to them that once there is that availability, the fleet owner should start to step back. In fact, our policy is to encourage private operators to become more accessible. In most cases they are supplying what is not available in the market. In 2010, we had 410 private operators working with us, with more than 806 drivers employed to provide the service. While there is a risk, the amount of work with private operators is far more significant than the work we do through our own fleet. Our policy is, and has always been, that we are not there to displace. We always challenge groups in that regard.

In most cases, complaints received, either to ourselves directly or from the Department, are addressed at local level. That may mean shifting a service or adopting a service time schedule. Usually we are able to address those problems at local level.

Deputy Marcella Corcoran Kennedy

I thank the witnesses for coming today and making their presentation. Like some previous speakers, I have a particular interest in this area, having been involved with the rural transport programme from the very early days of the rural transport initiative pilot programme.

In 2004, there were 514,000 passenger journeys and in five years that number increased to just short of 1.3 million. That is a clear indicator of the need for rural transport. The fact there are so many different types of projects, where people own buses or work with local operators, is a challenge. Where local operators have been involved there has been an impact that none of us foresaw. First, the drivers are all much better trained now. They are key to the success of the programme in that they have a local knowledge and a caring attitude to the passengers, many of whom are elderly. One cannot quantify that. Local involvement on rural transport committees has meant committee members know who might need the service. Those of us who have been involved in the programme would not like to lose the services we are providing. The other impact of using local providers is the standards of vehicles have improved, without exception, over the years.

The value for money report made a number of recommendations. How is it envisaged the National Transport Authority, NTA, will address and manage them? What type of monitoring will be put in place? I understand there are data gaps, although I suppose much of what I hear is anecdotal. How will this information be collated? I know, anecdotally, that the majority of passengers are older women. I would hate to see a diminution of the social inclusion provided by the service for those people, with its knock-on impact. It is difficult to measure quality of life, but that is the impact the rural transport programme is having on people. It has improved their quality of life. I can see the physical improvement in people I know. They have changed and look perkier. Older men, in particular, smarten up when they are travelling on buses with ladies, young and old. The impact it is having is incredible. I do not know how one can put a price on that. It will be very interesting.

I am concerned by the proposal to remove the free travel pass. People living in rural areas are disadvantaged in many ways and often to not have choices. Is the removal of the travel pass on urban transport services also being considered? I would resist such a move very firmly. While many of the users of rural transport are happy to pay for it, because it is still cheaper than local taxis, it is not fair to ask rural people to pay for something their urban counterparts get free.

I would welcome integrated ticketing. I would be interested in hearing how it might pan out. I would appreciate hearing the witnesses' comments on what I have said.

Ms Doreen Keaney

Our colleague from the NTA will lead on the value for money report.

Ms Anne Graham

It is a big challenge to work on the recommendations in the value for money report. We are looking forward to working with Pobal on delivering on the report. The framework for reporting the impact of the value for money report is a key area. We have to agree a number of performance indicators with Pobal, and how we are going to measure the social exclusion impact in particular of rural transport provision. That is work we must begin now. It is one of the first tasks we will undertake with Pobal.

There is probably a bit of confusion in terms of the discretionary free travel that has been removed. It does not affect those who can currently avail of free travel through the free travel pass. That is still being retained under rural transport. It relates more to those who do not have a free travel pass but who are getting free travel on the services.

Key work will focus on data gathering. Pobal has made proposals and we will work with it on the systems that need to be put in place to gather the data. Integrated ticketing is another key area. Given our experience of integrated ticketing in the greater Dublin area, we can see the benefits that could be gained from extending it to other parts of the country.

Mr. Denis Leamy

In terms of data, it is difficult to measure social inclusion. We are aware of that in terms of a wide range of programmes on which we are working. On the types of data we are collecting and plan to collect in the future in terms of expanding the service, we look at the number of passenger journeys, trips, distance travelled, the types of services offered, accessibility requirements, passenger age profile, gender profile - to which the Chairman referred - and booking methods. We also base that against the accessibility index and the deprivation indices to ensure the services are meeting the required need. As everything develops in conjunction with the NTA, we will build a profile in terms of mapping the routes throughout the country in order that we can clearly see where the services are operating.

Another target group in terms of accessing the programme, in addition to older women, is people with disabilities. It is a key target group for the programme. We have the numbers but we need to find ways of measuring the qualitative impact of the provision of transport on people's lives. We are working on that. We have made proposals to the National Transport Authority, NTA, which we are jointly examining.

Chairman

That concludes the proceedings. I thank the witnesses, Ms Doreen Keaney, Ms Anne Graham, Mr. Denis Leamy and Mr. Padraig O'Rourke, in addition to the others officials who are in attendance, for assisting us in our deliberations.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 May 2012.