Subsidy is not a dirty word

€24 million (the unconfirmed annual subsidy to new transport company Alesa) is a lot of money.

But so is the cost of increased traffic jams, pollution and respiratory diseases caused by the increased number of cars. While investing in public transport could address these problems, subsidising energy bills of Chamber of Commerce members will not.

The Chamber of Commerce has conjured the spectre of the Dockyards to scare the country from investing in buses, forgetting one fundamental difference. While the dockyard was a loss-making enterprise, which contributed little to the country except in employment, public transport is a public service meant to provide every citizen access to any part of the country. It also gives citizen an alternative to travelling by car, thus reducing the country’s carbon footprint.

Does the Chamber want us to repeat the Arriva experience or does it want public transport users to pay the full cost of the reform through a massive increase in fares?

The Chamber reassures us that it recognises the importance of public transport reform but warns that there is no guarantee that the “next attempt will be successful”.

So what is the Chamber saying exactly? Should we do nothing because we can never be sure about the future? Or would the Chamber have simply done another reform with the same amount of subsidies offered to Arriva?

In fact a sure way of ensuring that the “next attempt will not be successful” is to repeat the mistakes committed by Austin Gatt, who had tried to square the circle by expecting public transport to improve while reducing subsidies from €10 million to €6 million. The end result of this was a skeleton bus service, a cheap service operated by smart drivers driving environmentally-friendly buses but often failing in the fundamental mission of bridging the gap between A and B in the shortest time possible.  

The lack of subsidies was reflected in long voyages, which compressed various routes in one big panoramic tour and in the shortage of buses. 

So does the Chamber want us to repeat this experience or does it want public transport users to pay the full cost of the reform through a massive increase in fares? 

The Chamber would have been right to ask questions regarding the transparency of the deal.

One legitimate question from a body set up to defend private enterprise would have been: Was Arriva offered the same amount of subsidies offered to Alesa before it was politely kicked out of Malta by the present government?

This is a crucial question because had Arriva stayed, the government would not have found itself having to pay sub-standard private coaches to provide the service for the past months, accumulating more and more losses.

I would also agree to calls for a parliamentary committee scrutinising the way subsidies are transferred to the new public transport operator.  Scrutiny on the way taxpayers’ money is always justified.

For while it makes perfect sense to subsidise loss-making routes and to ensure that the service offered is affordable, taxpayers’ money should not find its way in the company’s profit margins. The government is duty bound to publish the workings showing what amount of subsidy is required to subsidise the routes and to keep fares affordable.  Otherwise the public would suspect that some of the subsidy is simply boosting the company’s profit margins.

Another legitimate question: why on earth should we be even considering an increase in bus fares when the subsidy is set to increase drastically? The current fare system was one of the most positive aspects of the Arriva service. At just €6.50 one can use the bus service for an entire week whenever one likes.

While some tinkering is acceptable, perhaps to encourage monthly tickets (which are less likely to be used by tourists), the government should keep in mind that the service is mostly used by vulnerable categories like the elderly, migrant workers, students and people who do not afford a car. These categories simply do not have a disposable income to spend on long-term public transport use.

While middle-class people may accept to pay more for a better service, the most vulnerable categories would simply have to cut on other expenses to afford any increase in fares. Moreover, subsiding public transport to ensure affordability is nothing out of this world. In Tallinn, the capital city of Estonia, public transport is free for all residents in a bid to encourage people to use public transport and improving accessibility.

Unlike many Arriva-bashers whose aversion was motivated either by partisan loyalties or sheer hatred of buses, I highly value the importance of public transport in a small, increasingly congested island. I also recognise that despite the grave shortcomings of Arriva, had Austin Gatt not taken the bull by the horns we would still be lumped with the old buses and driver-owners. I sincerely hope that the present administration will succeed in giving Malta the public transport system it deserves.