Mr. Dermot O'Leary:

I thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to outline our views on the Government's decision to privatise 10% of Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus routes. The NBRU represents more than 2,500 staff in both bus companies. This responsibility is not borne lightly and we deem it to be our duty to convey to the decision-makers the folly of pursuing an ideologically based agenda to the detriment of staff and public alike. This committee is in a position to influence the decision-makers with regard to this ill-thought out move to privatise public transport provision. It is only six short months since staff at both companies suffered significant reductions in take-home pay, which was the second time in three years that our members suffered a reduction to their terms and conditions. Those cuts came as a direct result of the Government decision to reduce subvention to both companies.

I would like to set out a number of areas where we in the NBRU feel this initiative is fraught with major difficulties. The number of direct job losses involved is akin to closing a factory employing more than 430 people. Dublin Bus directly employs in excess of 340 people on the routes targeted for privatisation and Bus Éireann employs approximately 90 staff on the affected services. If a factory of this size were to close anywhere in the country, there would be an outcry by all and sundry, quickly followed by the establishment of a task force.

I am aware the committee has received presentations from the National Transport Authority and the representative body from the private coach sector, the CTTC. The representative from the CTTC was unambiguous in his assessment of the future employability of displaced Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann staff. His contention was that a transfer of undertakings would not apply. It is, perhaps, an indication of the thought process with regard to how staff will be treated by the private coach industry. The same representative also said that if tendering were introduced, it would inevitably lead to job losses among bus staff because private operators would not employ the same number of staff and if they did, they would be on lower wages.

The insertion of social clauses in public procurement contracts is becoming an increasing feature across the EU. They vary from a minimum employment standard to a model which incorporates the industry norm as the benchmark. Furthermore, transfers of undertakings do not confer any entitlements in relation to occupational pensions. All staff employed by the companies are members of the CIE pension schemes. It is also important that the committee should understand that a number of the affected employees hold letters of comfort relating back to the break-up of CIE and the establishment of three separate companies under the umbrella of the holding company. Those letters of comfort effectively bestow the right of the holder to redeployment back to CIE. Another issue for concern would be the ability of both companies to remain economically viable and competitive should they be compelled to sustain the employment of surplus staff.

I note that the composition of the committee is diverse in terms of the geographical spread of representation. This observation is advanced as recognition that all politics is local and any impact on a social service inevitably draws the ire of those constituents directly affected by removal or a diminution of their service. Recent campaigns in Elphin, Dromod, Rooskey, Abbeyleix, Durrow, Johnstown and Urlingford in north Kilkenny are reflective of how people will mobilise in such circumstances. Committee members will be aware that these areas were deprived of a service because Bus Éireann felt it had to withdraw from those towns to compete with competitors that were awarded commercial licences along the new motorway network. The irony is that the NTA has had to award PSO contracts to operators to provide a social service through the towns between Portlaoise and Cashel which had previously been served by Bus Éireann on a cost-neutral basis. It does not take a stretch of the imagination to envisage a scenario where Bus Éireann, under financial duress, replicates such decisions throughout the network. This will inevitably lead to a plethora of PSO contracts being awarded at considerable cost to the taxpayer.

Fragmenting the network of both companies on an ideological whim is surely no basis for formulating a public transport policy. The taxpayer is entitled to transparency with regard to what benefits are to be derived from such an approach. It took a number of generations to build those networks, and to dispense with the parish, village, town and community based relationships which are almost exclusive to public service provision would be yet another attack on the social fabric of this country. The NBRU has consistently advocated a return to the position of 2005 and 2006, when discussions took place around the future involvement of private operators in public bus transport. Those discussions were centred on the premise that the existing activities of Dublin Bus - extended to Bus Éireann - would continue. All new routes would subsequently be open for tender to all operators, including both bus companies. Such a model would be multi-purpose. It would protect the existing PSO service for public transport users, reduce the financial impact on the Exchequer and maintain sustainable employment within both bus companies. We also sought and were given assurances during these discussions that the impending legislation, then the Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008, would enable Dublin Bus to retain is current activities. We firmly believe that a direct award by a competent authority, in this case the NTA, to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann in relation to their current activities is entirely compatible with EU Regulation 1370(2007). I again thank the committee for affording us the opportunity to address it with regard to the concerns of our members.