Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)

I thank all the Deputies for their detailed contributions during the course of this wide-ranging debate. I very much welcome the broad support among Deputies for the establishment of the Dublin Transport Authority. I reiterate my apologies to the Deputies for not being able to be here for the opening of the Second Stage debate because of an unfortunate clash with a North-South Ministerial Council. I regret that but I read the transcripts of that debate.

I noted carefully the contributions made on a range of issues during the course of the Second Stage debate and, although I may not be able to address them all, I will take some of those that were the focus of attention for various Deputies. Most Deputies raised the issue of democratic accountability, in terms of the composition of the authority and the advisory council as well as the accountability of the authority to the Oireachtas. I disagree fundamentally with Deputy Reilly's assertion that this is a HSE-type organisation. The Bill contains a strong accountability framework which strikes a fair balance between efficiency and democratic accountability. The Minister for Transport and the Secretary General of the Department of Transport will be fully accountable to the Oireachtas in respect of the DTA — as everybody here will be aware, the HSE has its own Accounting Officer. The funding of the authority will be routed through the Department and we will be responsible and answerable for that. In addition, the chairperson and the chief executive of the authority will be directly accountable to this House through the Committee of Public Accounts and the Joint Committee on Transport in respect of their various functions.

I do not disagree fundamentally with Deputies on the necessity that such organisations are fully accountable to the House. However, in many respects the committees of this House do not exercise effectively their role as scrutineers of the actions of various bodies. They tend to hold a couple of meetings a year on broad general issues and do not focus enough on the individual organisations. A little examination of conscience on that matter by Members of the House on all sides would be no harm.

I have been criticised by some for having mention of "the Minister" approximately 186 times in the Bill and for the potential for the Minister to interfere too much. On the other hand, I have been accused in the House of shedding all my responsibilities. However, there is a strong accountability regime in place in this regard and I fundamentally disagree with that point.

As part of the issue of accountability, a number of Deputies made suggestions on appointments to the authority. I am afraid I am of the old school in that if a body is under the aegis of my Department or me, as Minister, I do not feel I should allow somebody else to make the appointments to the board of that authority because I must come in here to answer for it and account for what it does. I am not particularly interested in ensuring that my hands, or those of any future Minister, are tied when it comes to appointments to the board. One could get some very funny appointments to a board which might not care too much what the Minister might say or do at some point in the future. Political accountability rests with me and the issue of appointments should rest with me as well.

A number of Deputies raised a point about the advisory council, representation on the board and so on. Deputies made the case very strongly that there should be more local public representatives involved in that, particularly on the advisory council. I am looking at that and am disposed to accepting we change that and have greater local authority representation. The idea of allowing a group, or groups, to make nominations to the Minister, who will appoint people to the advisory council, needs to be teased out because once one says a group should be entitled to a certain number of nominees to the advisory council, 75 other groups will say they should be allowed the same number. I will keep an open mind on that on Committee Stage.

The Road Transport Act 1932 was raised by a number of Deputies, principally Deputies O'Dowd and Broughan, and the fact the Bill does not provide for the reform of the licensing arrangements for commercial bus services. It has been suggested the absence of such reform means there will be no competition in the market for at least five years. That is not the case and is a misreading of the situation. Section 48 empowers the authority to procure public passenger transport services by way of public transport service contracts. Contracts in respect of light rail and metro must be pursued by way of open tendering and public bus services may also be secured in that fashion. Bus services can also be procured by way of direct award contracts in line with section 52 and a similar approach will apply in respect of the procurement of rail services. It will be a matter for the Dublin transport authority to instigate the procurement of public transport services as it sees fit.

The Bill does not place any restrictions on the authority in terms of a time period as to when it might invite tenders for a new funded service. The period of five years referred to in section 52 relates to the length of the initial direct award contracts for existing bus services provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann only. The future growth of the market for subvented bus services will only be pursued by way of open tendering so competition is in place.

As well as the commitment to establish a Dublin transport authority, the programme for Government also includes a commitment to improve bus services under Transport 21 by reforming the bus licensing provisions under the Road Transport Act 1932. It is my intention that proposals for a new bus licensing regime will follow in subsequent legislation. It is too early to give precise details of the proposals but I can confirm that the new Bill will deal with the replacement of the Road Transport Act 1932 and the provisions of the Transport Act 1958 which relate to the provision of bus services by the State bus companies.

That new bus licensing regime will be designed in a manner consistent with the new EU PSO regulations. It is envisaged that new licensing structure will apply in respect of all commercial bus services, including those provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, and that the powers to grant bus route licenses in the greater Dublin area will be given to the Dublin transport authority.

The new Bill will also encompass provisions relating to the subvented bus market outside the greater Dublin area which are consistent with the EU PSO regulation. I have dealt with a number of the points made by Deputies in regard to what might or might not arise in the Bill. However, it is not possible at this stage to indicate a precise timetable as to when those proposals will be published but in the meantime, applications for new bus licences and notifications from State bus operators will continue to be processed under the provisions of the Road Transport Act 1932.

I assure Deputies it is not my intention to delay this as I see it as a critical and crucial second step in the reform of the bus licensing regimes. I intend to carry this out very quickly. The fact Deputies and the Seanad have facilitated this debate means we may be able to bring this to a conclusion this side of the summer recess and that will help that process.

Deputy Broughan suggested there is an anomaly between the provision of a five year direct award contract for Dublin Bus and a facility for ten year bus contracts in regard to private bus operators. By virtue of their exclusive nature, EU Regulation 1370/2007 which establishes a new framework for PSO contracts for bus and rail services provides that direct award contracts are treated differently to contracts which are the subject of public tenders. The approach proposed in regard to the length of contracts, which is set out in section 48(6) is consistent with that regulation. It provides that the actual determination of the duration of each contract is a matter for the Dublin transport authority within the framework of the maximum durations established in the EU regulation. The specific timeframes are established only in regard to the first direct award contracts mandated under section 52 in order to ensure that when the subsequent direct award contracts are entered into, they will be fully compliant with the regulation. The Bill does not establish specific periods for those subsequent contracts as that will be a matter for determination by the DTA in accordance with section 48(6).

I refer to the other question the Deputy raised in regard to the operator of last resort and the protection of employees. I do not propose to designate CIE as an operator of last resort for the simple reason that at this stage CIE might, in some case, fail to provide the type of service I, another Minister or the Dublin transport authority might want. It would not be wise to make it an operator of last resort.

In regard to the issues around the terms and conditions of employment, public transport operators are already subject to the relevant requirements of employment law and EU legislation. Notwithstanding this, I understand the concerns expressed by the Deputies and will try to bring forward an amendment for consideration to address that issue. As the Deputies will be aware, the issue is generally a matter which is discussed and decided at national level. We cannot have a sectoral agreement in transport. However, it is an important principle and we should in some way enshrine in the legislation that we expect minimum standards in this area. Hopefully, we will have a suitable amendment.

On the question of extending the greater Dublin area, as Deputies know there is a provision in section 3(c) to extend the geographical area of the greater Dublin area by order of the Minister. The Dublin transport authority can make recommendations to the Minister for Transport in that regard but I am not of a mind to change it at this point. It would cause delay and a certain amount of confusion because we would be moving into an area in which another regional authority was operating. Deputies are aware there is a provision in the Bill for services from areas, such as the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern's area of Drogheda, and so on, to be designated as GDA services.

I have been advised that the ability of the Road Safety Authority to appoint transport officers to enforce, inter alia, road transport regulations regarding driver hours etc., needs to be clarified in law arising from an inadequacy of language in the Road Safety Authority Act 2006. Deputy O'Dowd was contacted by an official in my Department and we tried to make contact with Deputy Broughan as well. I ask for the indulgence of the Deputies in the House in dealing with this matter on Committee Stage. I look forward to their co-operation and I thank them in advance.

I thank Deputies for their contributions. As I indicated, I propose to bring forward several amendments in response to issues that have been raised during the debate. I always try to approach a Bill on Committee Stage in an open manner. If the Bill can be improved I look forward to working with Deputies from the Opposition to try to ensure we improve it on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context