Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The purpose of this morning's meeting is to meet with Mr. Gerry Murphy, chief executive, and his colleague Ms Anne Graham, director of public transport services and chair of the national committee for integrating local and rural transport, of the National Transport Authority to discuss the recently announced plans for the rural transport programme. On behalf of the committee I welcome Mr. Murphy and Ms Graham.

I wish to draw the witnesses' 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 committee. However, if you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and you continue to do so, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also wish to advise you that any submission or opening statements you have submitted to the committee 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 House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Murphy to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Thank you for inviting us today. We have already circulated committee members with our document Strengthening Connections in Rural Ireland, which explains the restructuring, as well as a questions and answers document. I will focus on some of the key points in that document to allow more time for committee to ask questions.

It is best to look back at the early stages of the programme. The rural transport programme was launched in 2007 but was built on an initiative that started in 2002. That had been established to meet the patently unmet transport demands in rural Ireland from a social inclusion and community-based perspective. The rural transport programme to date has had a focus on rural isolation and enhancing the mobility, accessibility and community participation of local people, especially those at risk of social exclusion. While the services are open to the public, older people and people with disabilities have formed the main customer base of the programme to date.

The programme operates through 35 rural transport programme groups covering the country, which are managed in the main by voluntary committees, with subsidy funding to the groups provided now by the National Transport Authority. The individual groups are responsible for identifying the specific services to be provided locally.

There has been a great success and growth of the programme. The level of services has increased rapidly over the years, going from 40,000 services in 2003 to more than 217,000 services in 2012. The number of passenger journeys recorded has increased from 171,000 in 2003 to 1.73 million in 2012. Funding for the pilot transport initiative and its successor, the rural transport programme, has increased from €3 million in 2003 to €11 million in 2010. However, in common with many other Government-supported services, funding levels have fallen back in recent years as a result of the pressure on public finances. We have seen this in all public transport subsidy areas.

A value-for-money review was commissioned by the Government in 2007. It examined the period from 2002 to 2009 and specifically focused on the period after 2007 when the programme was mainstreamed. When it was published in early 2012 the review raised concerns about the overall value for money of the programme and the cost of the organisational structures. In 2009 some 22% of total group expenditure went on administration. In addition, there was inconsistency in fare levels throughout the country, inconsistency in the cost per service throughout the country and an absence of data to measure the benefits or positive impacts of the schemes, as well as a range of other issues.

In January 2012 the Government decided to give the National Transport Authority responsibility for integrating local and rural transport and for the rural transport programme as well. We took over that function on 1 April 2012 and we have been working on the details of the plan since that time to improve integration. Ms Graham chairs the national committee which involves all the stakeholders, including the HSE and other bodies, and is working to examine the findings of the value-for-money review to see whether we could restructure the programme. Our plans for restructuring were launched on 9 July by the Minister of State with responsibility for public and community transport, Deputy Alan Kelly. As a result of this restructuring we believe that rural transport services will be better protected through lower administration costs and will be more closely woven into local authority transport planning and our mainstream national transport provision. There will be no reduction in transport services offered locally as a consequence of the restructuring. In fact, users will benefit from better integration with other State-funded and licensed transport services, all of which are under our remit.

What is in the new plan? The key element relates to the new administrative structures. We will establish 18 transport co-ordination units. They will be grant-aided by the authority and will work with the NTA and the local authorities to provide a co-ordinated response to local transport needs. These units will retain much of the experience and local links and knowledge of the current service providers and only the existing rural transport programme groups can apply to form the new units. The voluntary boards will remain part of the new structures. The administrative savings achieved by this will protect the services provided to the end user.

Amalgamations and mergers will have to take place to deliver 18 units from the current 35 groups. We are engaging with a consultation process with the entire sector. We spent yesterday in Portlaoise with the network and representative groups and had a very productive meeting. We are encouraging groups to talk to each other and to come to us with formal plans for how they are going to amalgamate and create the new structures. We will start a formal submission process in September and will ask for submissions for the units. By Christmas we hope to have those details confirmed.

Another new element of the plan is relationships with local authorities. We already work in partnership with regional and local authorities across Ireland to ensure that the national transport policy is reflected in regional and local plans and also to hear from local authorities in order that we can reflect their needs in our plans. To date, local authorities have been excluded from transport provision in their administrative areas. In the future we hope they will prepare local transport plans for their areas which identify the areas that need to be better served by public transport. These plans will help us to identify the gaps and needs throughout the counties. The units at local level, because of their detailed knowledge, will be able to detail the routes and stopping points for services. We are also asking local authorities to help to house the transport co-ordination units in any available office space they may have. We hope to reduce the costs of the programme through the use of overtime with this kind of arrangement.

I refer to the change in bus services. Bus services will be provided by bus operators contracted to the authority. At the moment Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Irish Rail are contracted to us. All scheduled and demand-responsive services currently provided will be incorporated into public transport service contracts. The rules regarding those will be set out in national legislation and will rest with the authority. There are two types of contract. One is by direct award. A number of rural transport groups provide the majority of their services by using their own fleets, of which many vehicles are wheelchair-accessible. We propose to directly award contracts to those groups in accordance with EU regulations - that is, they will not have to competitively tender. The second type of contract covers the remainder of the services. In a similar manner to what happens now, we will have a tender procedure for those services. One aspect of our procurement will be to focus on improving accessibility levels across the country. The units will take bookings and handle dispatch for the service. They currently do that, and people will be familiar with such services. They will check the performance of operators, report on moneys and identify potential route changes to us. We will vary the contracts to develop new routes or better serve the demand that is emerging.

There are two other initiatives occurring with which these units will be involved. Community car schemes involve volunteers offering to use their cars or a car given by an organisation to drive individuals who have no transport. The units will have a strong role in this initiative. They can confirm the need for those services, identify the pool of drivers and generally advise us. We will have to exercise exemptions from taxi and hackney regulations, which is one of the new features of the new taxi Bill. Carriage for reward, even if it is for basic petrol money, would move community car schemes into the taxi licensing area. The new taxi Bill addresses that matter and allows for exemptions for community car schemes.

Our proposal includes a local area hackney licence for certain rural locations. The objective of this licence, which we would hope to introduce later this year, is to facilitate low-cost entry to the hackney market for transport provision in isolated rural areas which would not have any other services. A typical example would be an isolated village or town where people have no options for returning home at night from their community or social activities. These licences will only be applicable in areas where there is no other provision in terms of hackneys or taxis. The units will play an important role in giving advice to the authority on the suitability of those areas for such a licence.

That is a brief summary of the programme and its history. There is much to be done in serving rural areas. We know the gaps and needs very well. A key step is to get the framework right. If there is the opportunity to do so in the future and an increased subsidy is available, we will have the correct framework on which we can build.

I commend all those involved in rural transport groups over the years who have developed this initiative from nothing in 2002 to 1.73 million journeys in 2012. Their hard work, expertise, and enthusiasm, and the voluntary nature of the boards, has taken the scheme from a standing start ten years ago to a national network of services which we want to protect today. I will be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Murphy. Does Ms Graham wish to add anything?

Ms Anne Graham:

No.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Graham and Mr. Murphy and thank them for coming before the committee today. It will be helpful in trying to establish the impact of the plans for restructuring.

I have had an opportunity to review the plans for restructuring the rural transport programme. The main document is Strengthening Connections in Rural Ireland. In my reading of the document, however, the proposals will weaken the connections which exist. It is clear that this has been brought about by a ministerial decision to reduce the cost of delivery of the service. We all accept that all State services over the past number of years have had to re-examine how they do their business and consider restructuring. It is a falsehood to suggest that the service will be enhanced or strengthened by reducing the number of companies in the manner in which it is intended and reducing the money available. I fail to see how one can do that in a manner that will strengthen the service that exists.

I am reasonably familiar with the rural transport system. I come from Clare, and East Clare Accessible Transport, ECAT, as it started out, was one of the pioneers in developing a rural transport programme. For that reason I am deeply concerned, because I know the negative impact decisions can have.

The delegation has rightly identified the target groups - namely, those who live in isolation, particularly those who are infirm, old or have a disability, and the young cohort of teenagers and young adults who do not have access to private transport. They have benefited hugely from the scheme.

The Minister seems to have based much of the plan on the value for money review and the notion that 22% of the total group expenditure in 2009 was spent on administration. That would be of concern to all of us. However, if one examines what the administration comprises, many groups, as identified in the document, carry out procurement for a fleet of buses. That involves an administrative function. That will still need to be done in a new setting.

In many cases the administration costs can be attributed to the work involved in raising other finances and resources, which is often done through some of the volunteers, to purchase vehicles. Much of that work is done through charitable sources. Without that level of administration and the added benefit received from being able to fund-raise to purchase buses, the cost to the State would be a lot more in the long run.

I have some specific questions. In regard to the door-to-door service provided for many people, particularly those who are infirm, have mobility issues and are elderly, does the delegation intend to ensure they will be retained at the current level? I do not refer to how internal administration might be managed. On value for money and reviews of cost, how has the cost structure of the NTA changed over the past three years? What are its annual running costs now compared to three years ago?

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

The key issue the Deputy identified was whether the new structures can properly reflect and identify the needs in local areas compared to the larger 35-group structure.

We consider that because we will have 18 units, which is a significant number of units, and these will be much aligned with local authority boundaries and feeding into the process local authorities will be undertaking, we should be able to maintain the knowledge of what is happening in local areas.

Something had to be done. There was not only the value for money review but also the McCarthy report, which looked at services and recommended that the programme would be abolished. At one time that was being considered. What we have tried to do is restructure the programme to retain all of its best elements but to drive down the administrative cost basis to protect the service.

I was asked specifically about the door-to-door service. Yes, that will be retained. The objective is that it will be retained to current levels. The current level of service allows people to ring up to organise a service and for a dispatcher to be contacted. That will be retained. Even though there will be subsidy cuts in the programme, because there are subsidy cuts generally in public transport, we feel that through the restructuring we will be able to maintain the current level of service. In 2011, the grant aid for the programme was €10.6 million. In 2012, the amount reduced to €9.77 million and in 2013 it fell to €9.133 million. The grant aid in 2014 will be approximately €8.5 million. With a declining subsidy available we had to address the underlying cost base and see whether we could come up with something that enabled the service to be retained.

On our own costs, all of the salary cuts that apply to the public sector apply to our organisation. We are currently underfunded. We rely on the taxi service introduced by the Commission on Taxi Regulation to enable us to discharge all our operations. We manage that carefully. Off the top of my head I cannot give the figure.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Mr. Murphy would communicate the overall figure to the committee.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Yes, that will be fine. The principle is that we have reduced our cost base as well.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that there is a reduced amount of money but there are genuine fears as to how it is possible to bring a greater level of Government interference into a sector and expect that one can do the same with less money. Almost exclusively, when one increases Government involvement or regulation one dispenses with the voluntary activity because once the State takes greater control volunteers fall away from the project. It is my view that the impact on the voluntary sector will ultimately increase the cost level. If the money is not available, the service will diminish. It is not a criticism of Mr. Murphy, because he is constrained by the moneys available to him, but I will not leave the meeting with any confidence that the same level of service ultimately will be maintained. Given that there is less money and increased regulation I can only see that as having an overall negative impact. That is deeply disturbing, in particular to the vulnerable sectors that utilise and depend on the service to such an extent.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Deputy Dooley has a valid concern about increasing regulation, but I assure him that I would anticipate there will be less regulation. Currently, the groups are reporting to Pobal, which is acting on behalf of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. They have a reporting line. We are stepping into the reporting line. Our objective is to reduce the administrative demand on the groups, to reduce the level of reporting required to align it more with the type of reporting we are already seeing from Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. We will not increase the regulation on the groups nor on the network that represents the groups. One of the objectives when we met them yesterday was to find a way to proceed and to see what we could target as the key information they need to generate for us rather than just generating rafts of information which is a demand on them. I assure Deputy Dooley that our objective is to simplify the process for the new groups that are set up to deliver services.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the presence of the representatives of the National Transport Authority. I hope the knowledge that local administrators have will be retained. In my area the administrators do more than just make sure a bus turns up. In some cases they are socially connected to the people in the sense that if a person is missing from a particular service they are often the first to alert the emergency services. If an elderly person living alone in an isolated area does not appear for his or her usual pick-up by a rural bus service the administrator, who is invariably from the local community, will either check by phone with a neighbour or call the emergency services. Whatever about the administration and reporting mechanisms, local knowledge is critical. We have seen all too often with the so-called positive changes made to the roll-out of public services that the further one removes the service from the end-user the more one makes it impersonal and one loses the connection with the individual. I am most concerned about that.

Mr. Murphy corresponded with me recently on the hackney issue, with which I have a major problem. I am delighted the issue has been raised. If one is in Belmullet in west Mayo and one undergoes a small public service vehicle test, one must have a knowledge of the intricate geography of places between 80 miles and 120 miles away. That is bonkers. If one is located in one of the smaller counties, such as Counties Louth or Carlow, one will be required to have an intricate knowledge of areas less than 50 miles away, depending on where one lives. In recent weeks I got results from the National Transport Authority which bear out that the knowledge test is prohibiting people from gaining entry to the service. In many cases, that is why there is not a public transport system. I could name four or five people who have got jobs driving hackney cabs in west Limerick but they cannot pass the test because it is primarily about Limerick city. Deputy Dooley is closer to the areas that are the focus of the tests than the people concerned, who have more in common with Deputy Griffin than with Limerick city.

It seems that lines on maps are the be-all and end-all. I have heard some of the questions that are asked in the knowledge tests. Having traversed all of County Limerick in the previous general election, I have a fairly good knowledge of the county, but I would not be able to say which street, running between Clare Street and Henry Street in Limerick, is a one-way street or on what street in a particular village is the post office. One could be talking about a place 80 miles away. God help the person in west Cork who has to sit the test because he or she will have to know about Kildorrery, Mitchelstown, Youghal and Cloyne. They are probably more likely to visit Dublin than such places. The area knowledge test is designed to protect someone or something but it is not protecting the consumer who is deprived of having a rural transport infrastructure because people are failing the test.

In 2010 in Wexford, 13% of people who sat the test passed. What makes it worse is that if one looks at the number who failed and those who got results of between 60% and 80%, the bulk of the questions in the good results are probably based on their local geographical area where they are likely to serve. With the greatest respect, a person driving a hackney cab in Shanagolden, Loughill or Foynes does not need to know about Herbertstown, Bruff, Hospital or Garryspillane because they are never going to pick up a fare there and they are highly unlikely to be ever asked to drive a person there. The knowledge test system is a barrier to gaining entry to those wishing to provide a service. It does not reflect what is needed. It is based on geographical boundaries and if one is unfortunate enough to come from a sparsely populated county in the west, all of which counties are probably bigger than those on the east coast, one is goosed before one starts.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Murphy might take those questions. If not, he can respond later.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

I will answer the question on taxis. Ms Graham might deal with the one on the knowledge of local administrators. The geographical area is the area in which they would be allowed ply their trade. That is part of the issue. While somebody may be from the western part of a county, when they get the licence they will have a right to operate throughout the entire county and to go into the city.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not necessarily the case. If someone is from Shannon Banks or Westbury in Limerick, which is part of County Clare, they are expected to know Doolin, Lisdoonvarna and Lahinch, yet they are in a suburb of Limerick city. That is ridiculous. They will never go to those areas.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

The issue is that-----

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Murphy's knowledge test, by his own admission, is covering areas that people do not physically cover.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

The knowledge test people have to satisfy will cover the licence area in which they will be allowed to operate.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It covers the functional geographical area of the local authority. In the case of Limerick, it covers all of the county of Limerick and Limerick city. If someone lives in Montpelier across the bridge from O'Brien's Bridge, which is less than a third of a mile, his or her knowledge test will include areas such as Athea and Abbeyfeale but not O'Brien's Bridge, Ogonnelloe or Clonlara, which is where the programme will serve. That is ridiculous.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

I may be mistaken but I understand that the knowledge test we apply is related to the area in which one gets the licence to operate.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is not.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

It may be that persons may initially intend to operate only in a portion of a county but when they get the licence they will be entitled to operate throughout the county or in a city within the county. For that reason the knowledge test is set to test knowledge across the entire county.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to hog the meeting, Chairman, but that is not the case. The area knowledge test does not cover that.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Murphy might investigate that and revert to the committee, and we will supply the details.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Yes.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason for the huge failure rates is that what Mr. Murphy requires as a chief executive officer in terms of the knowledge test is not what is being delivered. There is a major problem in that regard.

Ms Anne Graham:

In regard to retaining the local knowledge with the new transport co-ordination units, TCUs, we recognise that is an important feature in terms of the restructuring. We would hope that in the submissions that come forward from the groups to form the TCUs they would take into account as far as possible, particularly where they will be across a number of counties, the retention of the staff that would have that local knowledge to ensure the important role they carry out can be continued in the new TCUs.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. By all accounts, the rural transport scheme has worked very well over the years at a cost that is very good by today's standards. A major issue for many people with whom I have spoken is local knowledge on the part of the local community driver. That knowledge is extremely important and I fear that we are cutting back on that by reducing the number of companies and the number of local people who will have an input. The people who know what is happening on the ground are those in the rural areas where there are people who are isolated, vulnerable, sick, old and wheelchair-bound. That local knowledge is vitally important and reducing 35 groups to 18 units will have an impact on that.

We have spoken about the subsidies, which have been reduced year on year, but we should not try to fix something that is not broken. We might patch it up here and there but we should not overhaul the entire system. That is one of the problems we face. When Pobal carried out a review, its representatives travelled 150 km through the entire area of Galway and found that the number of checks that had to be carried out were extremely difficult to do. If we cut back on those we will face more problems. Centralising the service is a bad idea. We must prioritise local knowledge because otherwise the managers and others will end up doing more work.

I have a number of questions, the first of which is on the rural hackney plan being done under the review of taxis. What percentage of this measure will contribute towards that plan? Many taxi drivers are concerned that introducing this new tier of hackneys will impact on their businesses. I do not know if the witnesses have taken into account all of that.

Will the witnesses explain the direct award contracts with no tendering? Is that a good idea? How will it work? Is there a cost to local authorities who will house some of these companies? If that is the case has that been factored in? Will there be job losses in some of these companies and on the part of individuals, particularly local people who have small companies? Has the impact of those in the communities been factored in? Everything must be weighed up in that regard.

Mr. Murphy mentioned that Colm McCarthy wanted to abolish this programme. Mr. McCarthy had very right-wing driven ideas in terms of abolishing many facilities and much that was good in this society, including social welfare and other cutbacks in those areas.

There are areas that can be examined but whatever way we mask this we are talking about cutbacks, which will have a huge impact on local communities. Despite what has been said, certain areas will not get a service, as happened with Dublin Bus when services in many local communities were lost. We were told that was a great idea but we ended up with many communities not being served, with very few savings achieved.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

While we intend to enable the rural hackney licence, I am not sure what will be the need or response for it because it will be allowed only in areas where there is no other provision. Current taxi or hackney drivers should not be worried that we will license somebody who will be operating in the same areas as them. One of the features, which we have already discussed with our taxi advisory committee and the industry, is that we will have to be advised by local authorities and, say, rural transport groups that a service is not provided by anybody operating in the area before we will consider that rural hackney licence. I do not see it as a threat. It is an enabling mechanism, yet at this stage I am not sure how many will be issued or where they will be issued.

Regarding direct award contracts, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are in a direct award contract with us. They are internal operators in the country and they are allowed to be given a contract for services without tendering under EU regulations and national legislation. In the same way the rural transport groups that own their own fleets, and operate greater than 50% of their services through their own fleets, can be given a direct award contract. That will secure many of the groups and the wheelchair-accessible vehicles being used throughout the country.

On the cost to the local authorities, our hope is that the local authorities will offer this accommodation free of charge on the basis that it should be surplus accommodation.

We are really only seeking a unit for four people. We feel they have space available and they have diminishing numbers, so there should be an opportunity whereby the programme will not have to bear the cost of rental accommodation so that more money can go into the services.

I will hand over to Ms Graham to speak about job losses. Before doing so, however, I think there is a recurring theme whereby the 35-group model is the only one appropriate and satisfactory to rural transport provision. It grew up that way in Ireland but that is not the way it is offered in many other European countries that have much better rural transport provision. They have regional models which allow them to reduce administrative costs. In Ireland's case, it was a response from the ground to fill a need, but it is not the most efficient structure for doing so. It is not efficient to have 35 managers reporting on finance and other issues to boards. That is a repetitive task which involves unnecessary duplication across the country. We want to retain the skills, as Ms Graham mentioned, of local administrators and managers who know what the needs are, as well as the dispatchers who are in touch with people in taking calls. Those are the jobs we need to keep. However, certain functions are being duplicated right across the country which are unnecessary for the programme. It would not reflect international practice where services are provided on a much better basis than in Ireland. We acknowledge that and would like a lot more subsidy to go into the rural transport programme.

Perhaps Ms Graham could now deal with the job losses.

Ms Anne Graham:

In restructuring and going from 35 groups to 18, unfortunately, there may be some job losses. We estimate a loss of approximately 22 or 24 posts across a programme that currently employs about 140 people. In restructuring, we found that provision and staffing of the rural transport groups is varied across the country, with some having higher staff levels than others. In some areas, posts are required and about seven posts will be provided. We estimate that the net loss will be about 15 to 17 posts.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Griffin, Colreavy and Maloney have indicated. I will take them now, in that order.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I welcome the work that is being done by the rural transport programme, which is very important for people in rural communities throughout the county. I welcome the efforts to obtain better value for money from the service. I would differ from some previous contributors in that I am optimistic the NTA can deliver that. Reform and restructuring should always be considered, particularly where there are relatively new structures in place. Realistically, we are talking about a service that has only been in place for about a decade in some places, and less than that in others. We should be open-minded on the reform and restructuring proposals. Having said that, it is an area that I will be watching closely in future to ensure the level of service provided is maintained and hopefully enhanced. In that way, as previous contributors have said, local knowledge will not be lost.

The Chairman of this committee has a serious societal role to play because rural isolation is a major problem. This has been discussed responsibly in various quarters recently. It is a matter that will not be going away and it needs to be tackled. Transport is a big part of tackling the problem of rural isolation. I welcome some of the initiatives that have been announced in the restructuring programme but I have concerns about the rural hackney licence, although I welcome it. I come from a very rural community myself, living at the foot of the Slieve Mish mountains on the Dingle peninsula. In mid-week, for example, it is difficult to get any hackney operator in that area and other parts of rural Kerry. There is a vacuum to be filled, therefore, particularly from Monday to Thursday. Transport operators who do not feel it is viable to operate from Monday to Thursday do operate at weekends. Is there a threat of displacement if rural hackney licensees operate on the same nights? How will the NTA get around that? Certain hackney operators have told me they are concerned that on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights somebody could be doing the run for a much lower price than them. There is that fear, but there is an opening on quieter weeknights for a lower-cost service run by drivers with fewer overheads. How will the NTA strike that balance? I do not mean to be critical of the proposal because it certainly needs to be fulfilled.

I concur with Deputy O'Donovan about the testing system. I am aware of a person who operates in Killarney and a maximum of 20 miles outside the town. He has been asked to identify street names, as Gaeilge, in Dingle, which is over 50 miles or an hour's drive away. The man might have been there once on his holidays but would certainly not be taking fares there. That area needs to be examined because good people are being barred from entering the system due to such difficulties. I urge the NTA to examine that matter.

None the less, I wish the NTA well in the future. Kerry Community Transport has provided an important service to the people of Kerry since its inception. I hope KCT will continue to do that with the NTA's support in future. There should be an open dialogue and feedback with Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that a better service is delivered for its recipients.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I represent the constituency of Sligo-North Leitrim which, at the next general election, will include Sligo, all of Leitrim, south Donegal and west Cavan. I see the value of rural transport every day and the difference it has made to people living in isolated parts of the constituency. At committee meetings, one finds that very little time is spent on praise; we talk more about problem areas that concern us.

Rural transport is a discretionary service; it is not a legal right or citizens' entitlement. The Government can grant the service or withhold it at any time. That concerns me, for starters, because rural transport should be a statutory right. I would like the Government to address it rather than the NTA, which is not in a position to do so.

I share the concerns expressed by a number of people here that service improvements are often described as such when the real objective is cost containment. While I am all in favour of streamlining services and getting the maximum bang for one's buck from the services provided, if the intention is to control costs then it will be difficult for the NTA to deliver on its promise of collecting more than 70% of people in rural areas from their homes and bringing them to their destination. It will also be difficult even to maintain the current level of service.

In 2009, administration costs accounted for 22%, which is extremely high compared to comparable services.

Have the administration costs in 2015 and 2016 been calculated and included? To what extent have communications and joint working arrangements been developed between rural and school transport contractors and private bus hire companies? Have links been developed with Bus Éireann to ensure, for example, that people can connect with the nearest stop for inter-city services if they want to move outside their own areas? I ask the witnesses to explain in more detail the role of community car drivers in terms of insurance implications and fitness to practise. Another member asked a valid question about engagement with local hackney and taxi drivers.

My final question concerns cross-Border rural transport. A town in County Fermanagh could be much closer to a person living in a rural area in County Leitrim than a town in the latter county, andvice versa.

Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses. As someone who represents an urban constituency, I became jealous and emotional listening to rural Deputies speak about the great townlands of counties Clare, Limerick and Kerry. They made me think of returning to the country.

The rural transport programme is a very good scheme both in principle and in practice. As the report indicates, it has benefited many people, although not everyone. Those of us who maintain contact with rural county councillors will be aware that it is not a perfect system. All systems that are not perfect should be subject to review where they involve taxpayers' money. That is a good and positive thing. The scheme is useful but it could be further developed to make it more efficient in dealing with the difficulties of isolation that affect people in certain counties. It makes a good effort at dealing with these difficulties but it does not address them in their totality. This is why I argue there is nothing wrong in carrying out a review. That includes the monetary aspects. We are living in a country that has been made bankrupt and that relies on the financial generosity of our neighbours, and all schemes are subject to review.

Reference was made to an bord snip nua and the McCarthy report. I am glad the programme was not abolished, and the Minister should be credited for retaining it. Anyone who is interested in rural transport should examine what happened recently in Greece and six months ago in Spain. We have nothing to complain about. Those countries did not waste much time agonising over their systems or citizens in rural areas.

I support the rural hackney scheme. I have family members in Scotland, where the rural hackney scheme is one of the greatest innovations that ever occurred for those who live in isolated areas. The scheme also operates in parts of Wales. It has proven to be a solution to the provision of a transport system to isolated areas on an efficient basis. One of the reasons for its success is that we are living in the age of technology. Clearly there will be teething problems, but we should hold counsel until we see whether it works as successfully here as it did in other jurisdictions. I hope it will be a success.

John Whelan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the officials from the NTA. I know full well the value of the rural transport programme to communities in Laois-Offaly. If it was diluted or diminished in any way, it would send shock waves through people who are already marginalised and isolated in many ways. Fewer people can afford cars and some lack the capacity to run basic errands such as travelling to town or making medical appointments. It is an integral part of life in rural Ireland, and not only in places we would regard as extremely remote or isolated. I welcome what is being proposed in principle, as long as it is not merely a penny-pinching exercise. We can develop a better and more efficient service that takes account of natural hinterlands rather than local fiefdoms. It is important that the service be opened up in that way and if there are mergers they should lead to more effective services. Common sense must apply. There have been occasions in this country when rationalisation and centralisation did not work. The health service is one such example. People bayed for years for the closure of the regional health boards but that reform looked better on paper than in practice. We must be careful to avoid these mistakes. If we learn from the mistakes made elsewhere we can end up with a better rural transport service.

I would make a similar argument for the rural hackney service. If common sense prevails, there need not be displacement. I know many people, including those who run small businesses in rural areas, who would be willing to provide a service for customers, clients and elderly people who cannot otherwise access such a service because it would not be economical for them to do so.

We are coming to the time of year when my colleagues and I are inundated with requests from parents whose children cannot access school transport in rural areas. For some of these families, the bizarre scenario will arise whereby a bus passes the child by on the road or picks up his or her siblings. The rural transport programme could step into the breach if common sense were applied rather than the current absurd demarcation lines. Children from small villages such as The Swan have to travel to the nearest secondary school 10 km away in Ballinakill, but the official school bus passes them by. The rural transport bus may not be going at the appropriate time.

It is a shame to see two buses in one place, both half full, or half empty, depending on how one looks at it, and neither fulfilling the service required for children, students and parents. I would like the witnesses to comment on that. Is there scope for improving rural transport for school children?

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The witnesses' mission is laudable in the sense that they want to maintain or enhance services, doing more with less. They mentioned 22% on administration fees, which is high. If this works out, by how much do they foresee that being reduced?

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Deputy Griffin made a good point about rural hackney licences. I spoke about geographical areas and he is talking about time constraints. We have not made the regulation yet, so let us consider that. If there is a need for a hackney licence in an area where nobody is operating, or if we identify particular times at which nobody operates or is willing to provide a service, we should examine that in devising the terms of such a licence.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope Mr. Murphy would also seriously consider the enforcement of any particular measures that would be outlined and be cognisant of the fact that there are concerns about the lack of enforcement capacity.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

That is correct. We will enforce, and we advertised for a support company to help us to enforce because we have staff constraints. I anticipate that by October we will have appointed a company that can provide support officers who can work under the direction of our teams to enlarge the enforcement operations we do throughout the country. The Deputy mentioned knowledge tests. We have a separate issue and I must come back and explain the link. We will examine whether we are doing something in our knowledge testing that is causing a service problem, particularly in isolated rural areas. We will take it in the round along with the rural hackney licences.

Patrick O'Donovan (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that were done, the second issue would no longer exist. I am certain people are being deprived of having a licence by the knowledge test. If the knowledge test reflects the area in which the person serves, we will not require the second system.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

I am willing to examine both issues. It is a good point raised to examine whether we are doing something that prevents provision.

Deputy Colreavy asked a number of detailed questions that Ms Graham will answer. He mentioned discretionary services and Deputy Griffin said that Deputies will examine that closely. We understand that we have a serious role to play here. We are very pleased the Government has placed rural transport in our remit because it brings it together with the scheduled services for which we are in contract with Irish Rail, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, and the licensing we do for private operators. Bringing rural transport into that mix allows us to consider the continuum of transport for people in isolated rural areas, how they can get to employment or education, or carry out other business, and how they can connect to national services. We have carried out reviews throughout the country on a better link between Bus Éireann services, private operators' services and this connecting service from rural transport. We hope over the coming years we will start seeing reconfigurations that better pick up all the services.

Ms Anne Graham:

One of the roles of the transport co-ordination units will be to identify where those connections between Bus Éireann and rural transport could be better made and what infrastructure is required to support those connections so we get those links between the rural transport services and the main scheduled services. The value for money report targeted an administrative cost of 13% of the costs to be achieved next year. When examining a service provision overhead, we hope the TCUs will be able to grow services, take on other transport services possibly currently provided by the HSE, so that overhead is being shared across a much greater service delivery. Then one does not have the same concern about the level of administrative costs. We would approach it both ways: reducing costs and growing the service provision so those administration costs are shared over a greater number of services.

School transport is one of the key areas the national integrated rural transport committee is examining. It has difficulties in that the programme for school transport provision managed by Bus Éireann is very structured. We can look to see whether rural transport can provide a service at a different time to broaden the number of passengers it can serve. Where there is school transport provision in a certain area we are also looking to pilot a scheme to examine the return legs of those services, particularly where the bus goes to a school in a rural area and returns to a town, to see whether we can gain efficiencies associated with that. We would have to do it separately from the school transport procurement. If that is successful we would examine rolling it out in other locations.

There are already some cross-Border rural transport initiatives, for example in Donegal. We would try to retain as many of the cross-Border initiatives that are there as possible and grow them with our colleagues across the Border.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there any impediments imposed by legislation or regulation in the Twenty-six or Six Counties?

Ms Anne Graham:

Yes. If a service is going across the Border, the provider must also provide a service coming back across the Border. The contract must cover both services.

Michael Colreavy (Sligo-North Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could we have a list of those at some stage? We might be able to push it along.

Ms Anne Graham:

Certainly.

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

Deputy Colreavy asked about the community cars. There is no real change. Where they are operating, they are operating. The Taxi Regulation Bill is trying to ensure there is no legal problem with them. They are in a grey area because of the issue of carriage for reward. It is a question of putting the legal framework right, and then they can continue to operate as they are. Deputy Maloney raised some points about rural hackneys, which I have addressed. We need to take on board the concerns to ensure we do not displace people from the industry and examine how well it operates and review it. We can tweak and manage it by secondary legislation through our regulations if we see any difficulties arising.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their comprehensive insight and answers. I return to my deep concerns about how we will see a dismantling of the service and the voluntary endeavour. Efforts have been made before to co-ordinate all transport requirements in rural Ireland working with the health boards and schools. So much voluntary work goes on with which the witnesses may or may not be familiar. For example, the west Clare mini-marathon, run by a small group of volunteers who take no payment from it, raises €100,000 every year. They provide a localised service transporting people from west Clare to Limerick and Galway for cancer treatment, which works exceptionally well.

There is a huge voluntary effort in terms of fundraising, etc. It does not fall within any programme. I am somewhat concerned that as we start to put in place more regulation and greater structures - as we are doing with the current rural transport programme - it will disassociate the local voluntary community, which feel that, thank God, at last the State is now taking control and will hand it over with a very significant increased cost to the State. In proceeding along these lines the National Transport Authority needs to be mindful of the huge level of voluntary activity that continues and does so much good work. I am concerned that the National Transport Authority is trying to reduce what believes is an administrative cost, but which I believe is an administrative cost associated with the voluntary effort and fundraising providing a huge foundation to the service often through the purchase of the basic equipment required - the vehicles. While the National Transport Authority has done a value-for-money audit, I am not sure it has taken account of all the strands that need to be included and that it will ultimately cost more money to deliver the same service. That is just a comment and I do not expect a response.

Brendan Griffin (Kerry South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I share concerns over the voluntary aspect and trying to bring those people on board. I regard this development as very progressive as it mainstreams rural transport in the State for the first time. It is a significant step forward and I hope we will look back in the future and regard this as a watershed moment. That would be my view, which may differ from Deputy Dooley's outlook. We need to be vigilant to ensure no mistakes or backward steps are made. I am very optimistic.

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish the National Transport Authority well in its efforts. It is evident that there is considerable support on the Government side for it. I have no doubt it will see an enhanced and increased budget coming forward at the end of the year to ensure it will be in a position to deliver on this watershed. That is probably the most welcome outcome from today.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Deputy wish to make an announcement?

Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I simply recognise the commitment of the Government parties to this service and the Labour Party's commitment.

Dessie Ellis (Dublin North West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The new rural hackneys are set to be introduced during certain hours. Is there a danger that these will be used to take out some of these companies and be used for transporting people? I am not clear what the Minister has said in regard to this. Is he saying that these new hackneys will be used at certain hours of the night, or is there a danger that they could replace some of the existing companies that transport people, including disabled people? Many of these hackney vehicles would not be wheelchair-accessible and those operating them would have considerably less cost than some of the rural transport companies concerned. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

No. I can absolutely guarantee that there is no way the rural hackney licence will displace or affect the work of the rural transport groups. They operate certain scheduled service and door-to-door services. However, they do not operate in an isolated rural area at 11 p.m. for somebody in a local hotel or pub wanting to get home. That is one of the big gaps that has been articulated to us. That is not a gap that existing rural transport groups could fill or would wish to fill. Rural hackney licences will be granted to people allowing them to operate for 10 km or 15 km. They would be permitted to stand in the car park of the local pub - at the moment a hackney licence does not permit standing. They would be able to pick up and people would know they were there that evening. That licence would only be issued if we were informed that the local authority, the rural transport groups and the other social groups in the area had identified such a need. That is the only situation in which we will issue such a licence.

Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for my absence earlier as I had another meeting. I am sure the witnesses have covered the questions I had. I welcome the new programme. Coming from Meath, I know Flexibus works extremely well there and the people there welcome the programme. Does the National Transport Authority intend using any one area in which to pilot the scheme? When I spoke to the Minister he agreed that Flexibus worked extremely well. Is there any chance the National Transport Authority will be using any group as an example of how to move the programme forward?

Mr. Gerry Murphy:

There are many good examples. There was mention of Clare. We visited Clare, which has a fabulous operation with very committed services. Many groups are operating good services. The groups themselves share good practice, which is very good. Their representative organisation is becoming stronger and more active in the area of pulling together good practice. This will not be done on a pilot basis. It will be done on an immediate basis for them all. The objective is that by January or February we will have reconstituted those groups into 18 units. We will make the best use of supporting information technology. A group in the Sligo area has developed very good technology and we will investigate using that across the groups. I know the service offered in Meath is very good, but there are many good examples throughout the country.

Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the witnesses to send details of the follow-up items to the clerk for distribution to the members. I thank Mr. Murphy and Ms Graham for attending and engaging with us. Transport policy is always a matter of interest for Members of the House and I am happy that we have got clarity on many of the issues today. I wish the National Transport Authority well in implementing the new scheme.

The Select Sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport will meet on 4 September at 11 a.m. to deal with the Committee Stage of the Taxi Regulation Bill. In the meantime I hope everyone has a good summer.