Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

Parts of routes may need a PSO. That is the problem. Private operators tend to abandon the unprofitable part of the route and then ask the authority for a subsidy for operating that route - that is UK practice after over 20 years of a private market.

A further striking conclusion of the report was that bus users were generally price insensitive. The report on price elasticity, within the OFT report, showed conclusively that people are insensitive to price. If there is just one service operated by Arriva or Stagecoach, one has to take that bus. We have controls whereas they do not.

A core objective in Part 2 of the Bill must be the establishment of a level playing field for all operators in order to ensure that the bus system is strongly commuter-focused, as well as ensuring the highest possible standards of health and safety, public transport infrastructure and bus workers' pay and conditions. The Minister must greatly strengthen the focus on commuters' needs in the Bill. The Labour Party has long campaigned, for example, for the introduction of a series of technical enhancements for bus users, including integrated ticketing - which is now on the way - AVL and real-time information systems, a simplified fare structure and provisions for park and ride facilities. I will return to these issues in my amendments.

It is also generally disappointing that the Minister has not put more clear and stringent provisions into the legislation to protect the integrity of the bus network itself, especially in terms of Bus Éireann's network. There are grave concerns about the string of small towns that are linked in a national network by the national operator, Bus Éireann. What will happen to them if we get direct point-to-point competitors, even under the legislation as it stands? Grave concerns arise and we need to ensure that the critical role of public transport services as a public and social good is recognised within the new regulatory system.

As Fintan O'Toole wrote earlier this year in regard to the savage and, in his words, contemptible programme of cutbacks to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, "public transport is a function not just of an economy, but of a democracy". It is a key right of citizenship, as the Acting Chairman knows. One of Labour's fears is that some of the ambiguous sections of the Bill could be used in the future as a trojan horse for pushing through a crass privatisation and private monopoly agenda.

Section 10, of course, provides the critical "general provisions" for the consideration of applications for the grant of licences. Given the inadequacy of the current laws, I welcome the fact that under Part 2, section 10(1)(b) of the Bill, the authority must take into account a range of considerations for granting a licence, including "a well functioning, attractive, competitive, integrated and safe public transport system", the proposed new service's contribution to increasing public transport services, the national spatial strategy, the sustainable travel and transport action plan and so on. These are all valuable and I commend the Minister on including them.

However, there remains much ambiguity in several of the provisions outlined in section 10 for assessing bus licence applications. For example, section 10(1)(a) mandates that the authority take into account the "demand or potential demand" for public bus services in granting a licence. How will this demand be measured, as the Minister mentioned in his speech? How will the impact on public passenger transport services under the 2008 Dublin Transport Authority Act as outlined in section 10(1)(b)(iii) be measured? Do these two provisions not reinforce the uncertainty of the 1932 Act and potentially allow the authority massive and unverifiable scope in invigilating applicants? I agree with my Fine Gael colleague that this highlights the need for full information and transparency on PSO and all other routes. We need a system whereby we can get that information.

Why is there no clear protection in section 10 for the bus network, especially the critical Bus Éireann national network? Bus Éireann runs a very successful nationwide inter-urban service, often in competition with numerous private operators. However, it also runs local and less profitable services that serve more rural and isolated communities. If the Minister does not protect the core network, we could be left with operators vying to run the attractive inter-urban routes but no services at all on routes serving less populated and rural communities with many citizens who rely totally on their local bus. I would, therefore, have very profound concerns that the Minister has failed to make specific provision that the new national transport authority has a clear statutory role in maintaining and protecting the integrity of the network. Again, I will come back to this issue in my amendments.

It is also exceptionally disappointing that in neither the general provisions in section 10(3) or the attachment of conditions to licences in section 23 has the Minister put any provision for the protection of labour standards and work conditions. We must think first and foremost of commuters and consumers of transport but we must also think of the conditions of those who drive the buses and look after them. In fact, the Minister has only put in place the bare minimum statutory tax and safety standards for the authority when considering bus applicants. The Minister must be very careful to ensure the strictest standards apply to all operators within the bus industry and there is no scope for any unscrupulous or criminal activity. Why is the onus of proof in applying for a licence not on the applicant to provide all relevant information to the authority in determining its application?

The inadequacies in this regard in section 10 mean that, without amendment, there will be no level playing field for public and private operators. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will rightly be operating within the framework of the highest labour standards and working conditions but it would appear that other operators will not be required to do the same. There is a real fear that this failure of the Minister could lead to a type of McDonald-isation or Ryanair-isation in terms of standards and conditions for public transport workers. Staff of Aer Lingus recently told me what is happening with regard to cabin crews throughout the airline industry, following Mr. O'Leary and Ryanair, with staff working on contracts for two or three years in desperate work conditions with very low standards. We could have that future for our bus workers as well, if we are not careful.

Another glaring omission in the Bill is that no mention is made of a transfer of undertakings for CIE, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus staff even though the staff of the taxi regulator are referenced. How many transport management and other staff will be affected and moved by this legislation and why were transfer of undertakings procedures not provided for in the Bill? A further key problem is that the Minister has not specified that an application will not be considered unless the applicant's fleet is of a minimum and acceptable quality and the highest health and safety standards are adhered to throughout the company? The Minister refers to this for the period after the application is accepted but what about before that? For example, of the approximately 6,600 private vehicle fleet, about half belong to single vehicle operators and, to date, no uniform fleet standards are applied. Why also is there no provision that all applicants must have accessible fleets before they can apply for a license? The Minister refers to accessibility but not in the earlier part of the Bill. I hope he will agree to an amendment to this part of the Bill. Will the authority insist on the vetting of all drivers at both public and private companies as they are interacting directly with the public? We will talk in the coming days of the disastrous failure of the Financial Regulator. We need to ensure that this regulator gets it right in regard to the matters I have raised.

The attachment of conditions to licences under section 13 is another clearly deficient section, and will also need amendments. Once again, the highest possible standards in health and safety, accessibility, quality of fleet and labour should be automatically attached as a condition of a licence being granted. Section 13 does not mention infrastructure provision. How will key bus infrastructure, including depots, bus stations and bus stops be maintained and regulated under the new NTA regime? The UK experience shows the importance of depots in bus market structure, even though smaller operators tend not to have depots. How will private operators be mandated to provide critical infrastructure for their passengers? The Minister should have included a prescriptive section on depots and stop facilities. Why is AVL not mandatory for all operators under section 13, given the proposed introduction of AVL and real time information for Dublin Bus services from 2010? Why are only "minimum accessibility standards and emission standards for pollutants and noise" attached as a condition to a licence in section 13 (2) (i )? What are these minimum standards?

Provisions for the transfer of licences under section 18 are also of grave concern. Why did the Minister simply not legislate for a non-transferable system of bus licences, so that the next company has to apply straight away for a licence? We could be going back into the same morass we entered into with taxi regulation.

Section 23 provides that the authority can prepare guidelines from "time to time" on the licensing of public bus services. This section is vague and would seem to allow a future Minister or CEO of the NTA with an ideological bend towards whole-scale privatisation to re-write the entire system for regulating bus licences. Why did the Minister not lay down core guiding principles in this section on protecting the network, and on quality, accessibility, health, safety and labour standards? Surely there must be a public consultation before these guidelines are drafted and this should be included in the Bill. Why has the national transport authority been mandated to submit a draft of new guidelines for opinion to the Competition Authority only? Why not submit it to commuters, consumer organisations, to the health and safety authority, to NERA and, above all, to those of us on the Joint Committee on Transport?

Even though its name is the Public Transport Regulation Bill 2009, there is little mention throughout the Bill about how it will regulate the sector. Part 3 amends section 10 of the 2008 DTA Act and refers to "regulated competition", yet why is this not made specifically clear in section 10 of Part 2, which provides for the assessment of licence applications? What procedures are in place if an operator goes bankrupt? Will the NTA or the Department step in? I know the DTA is the operator of last resort. Why is there no provision for a notice to quit period or a notice period for changed timetables for operators? Abruptly stopping or changing timetables in the UK has been a major obstacle to delivering a reliable, consistent and integrated service in areas with different operators.

One of the key problems with other regulators such as ComReg has been that their powers of enforcement and the sanctions they can use against errant operators have been incredibly weak. How will the bus licensing system be monitored and invigilated and will the Garda have a key role here? The fine for committing an offence as outlined under section 24 is just €5,000 on summary conviction. This is much too low given the gravity of offences at stake here, and must be significantly increased up to and including a percentage of a transport company's turnover. The appeals system under section 22 is unsatisfactory. It appears that the NTA will be asked to adjudicate on itself through the use of an internal deciding officer with a facility ultimately to go to the Circuit Court. Perhaps the Minister would consider using the board of the authority or the weak advisory council as the first course of appeal or establish an independent transport appeals system?

Part 3 deals with the transformation of the Dublin Transport Authority into the national transport authority. As a long-term supporter of the DTA, it is disappointing that just as it was getting established, it is to be merged and changed beyond all recognition into a national transport regulator. The greater Dublin area is a unique urban region in Ireland with special transport needs. The transport needs of commuters outside of this area are very different and require a transport regulator specific to a large urban area. This Bill clearly means the proposed governance structures of the DTA are obsolete. To use Vincent Browne's expression, we will be getting rid of the "Toytown" mayors in 2011 and we will have a real mayor of Dublin. I presume that is still Government policy. The elected Dublin mayor was supposed to be the chairperson of the DTA, so how can this possibly happen now? This is a retrograde step for democracy in Dublin and the mid-Leinster region. It is also regrettable that the major provision under the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 to provide for the development of a single transport brand for the greater Dublin area may also fall by the wayside with this new Act. Section 29 of the Bill implies that the DTA will be automatically transformed into the national transport authority, but it makes no provision for a revised constitution of the new authority or the proposed advisory council.

It is bizarre that the DTA's planning and land-transport integration powers are not immediately being extended to the whole country. I would like to have seen in the Bill the same powers for the national transport authority outside of Dublin as the DTA has for the greater Dublin area. This is very necessary, as has been clearly shown by examples such as the long-running campaign by Deputy Michael D. Higgins on the retention of land at Ceannt Station in Galway for an integrated and sustainable transport hub.

My preference is for a DTA and an national transport authority, but given the current economic circumstances, I would propose at least the establishment of a separate Dublin division within the overall national transport authority structure, and I might propose this on Committee Stage.

Mr. John Fitzgerald and Mr. Gerry Murphy have been appointed as designate chairman and CEO of the DTA. Both these officials have had distinguished careers, but I was surprised that the Minister did not appoint individuals, from either the national or international scene, to these roles with direct and long experience in public transport and transport regulation. It is also disappointing that the Minister has made no provision for the chair and CEO of the national transport authority to be approved by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport. During the Dáil debate on the DTA, I made it clear that it must not be allowed to turn into a type of "HSE on wheels". The national transport authority could become a HSE on wheels, without strict accountability to the citizens of Ireland and their elected Dáil representatives. This problem will become even greater with the extension of the DTA's far-reaching powers into the national transport authority.

One profound issue the Minister must also address is the future role of CIE and its relationship with the national transport authority, especially given CIE's important pensions role. I would like to know the connection there.

One of the major transport regulatory reforms in the Public Transport Regulation Bill 2009 is the abolition, in Part 4, of the current Commission on Taxi Regulation and its merging into the new national transport authority. Given the massive regulatory failure across the taxi industry, many people will welcome this development as an opportunity to get a grip finally on the disgraceful free-for-all and chaos within the taxi sector. Will all of the commission staff transfer to the NTA? Will their current conditions and rights be protected, as is the case for the commissioner? What will happen to the taxi advisory council? Why did the Minister not use this Bill to amend the taxi regulator's powers to allow her to take into account taxi capacity and the balance of supply and demand for taxis as a key condition of issuing licences on a regular basis? This was suggested by my colleague, Senator Brendan Ryan, and our legal advice at the transport committee showed this was possible.

The recent programme of reforms announced by the taxi regulator has addressed some of the most serious concerns of taxi workers, but the Minister must use this opportunity to overhaul the taxi regulation and enforcement system to achieve the highest quality service for passengers, as well as providing a decent, sustainable income for all taxi workers.

In contrast to the welcome that has been given to the dissolution of the stand-alone taxi regulator, serious doubts have been raised about the wisdom of amalgamating aviation regulation functions into the NTA. I am not sure how the Minister is going to do this. Will we have two different amendments or will there be separate legislation? Unfortunately allegations have been flying in aviation circles that the Minister took this course of action because of pressure from Mr. Michael O'Leary of Ryanair - the "real Minister for Transport" as some have termed him - and that it was his intention to nobble Mr. Cathal Guiomard and his colleagues in the Commission for Aviation Regulation.

Is this move only to save money or can the Minister provide evidence that will show how our aviation regulatory system will be enhanced due to this amalgamation? Is there not an argument for one powerful but separate self-funding regulator covering all the aviation functions?

Incredibly, there is no mention of the rural and community transport network and programmes in the Bill. The disgraceful McCarthy report proposed the abolition of the rural transport programme on the spurious and untrue ground that everyone in rural Ireland has a car. The programme received funding of just €10 million - or a net €8.5 million - from the Department of Transport last year. The operators of the network provided more than 1.2 million passenger journeys in rural areas, where people have no other public or private transport options as they go about their daily lives, for example when going to the post office or to a hospital appointment. The rural transport network is an essential service. It is particularly important for senior citizens and other vulnerable people. As the Minister is aware, it is an important source of local employment. Some 80 drivers are directly employed by the 37 rural transport programme companies and a further 657 drivers are privately employed. Pobal's performance and impact review found that the rural transport programme met or exceeded all its key performance indicators and targets. The Minister said he was "baffled" by some of the transport proposals in the McCarthy report. Was this one of the proposals that baffled him? Access to rural transport is just as important as the urban transport network. The bottom line for the Labour Party is that the rural transport programme should not be cut. It should be fully integrated into Bus Éireann's network of operators, under the remit of the National Transport Authority. I intend to table amendments to that effect on Committee Stage.

Although I welcome Part 6 of the Bill, I am astonished that this may be the first time for all the basic traffic management measures to be incorporated in law. I have reservations about the Minister's proposal to extend the executive powers of city and county managers, in so far as they relate to quality bus corridors and bus ways. Last night's events showed again that our councillors can be trusted to get things right, in general, when it comes to important traffic measures. We should trust local government.

In general terms, I warmly welcome this Bill on behalf of the Labour Party, especially in the context of the contractual deadline of 3 December next, which is so important for our national public transport companies. I hope I will get an opportunity to propose a series of amendments on behalf of the Labour Party during next week's Committee Stage debate. I am getting a little worried because this is the second Bill on key matters that I have supported even though it was proposed by the Minister. We normally have our daggers drawn. I hope I am not losing my edge when I say that the Minister and his officials are taking the right approach, on balance, in this instance. I disagree with my Fine Gael colleagues.

See this speech in context