Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I am not opposed to the concept of having Údarás Náisiúnta Iompair. I do not agree with the concept or ideology behind much of what is contained in the Bill given that its intention is to allow for the privatisation of public transport networks and companies. Section 20(1) states:

Public bus passenger services being provided by Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus [which is the wrong title because the company's title is Bus Átha Cliath] on the day of the commencement of this section ... may continue to operate until such time, not being longer than 2 years after that day, as the Authority grants a licence.

Basically within two years all the services of Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath will be open to competition and therefore open to privatisation. The concept of having a national transport authority is welcome given the way Ireland has grown and the need to have all the various public transport services integrated to ensure proper planning happens. We have heard from other Deputies about the failure of planning. We are still awaiting a proper public transport network to Navan. I heard Deputy McEntee speaking about County Meath. While much has been delivered, much has yet to be delivered and much is left to do to undo the drastic policies over the years of closing down many of the rural rail networks, for instance.

In this city we have only of late dealt with the closure of the Harcourt Street line with the opening of the quite successful Luas line, despite my objections to it being a private company. The success of Luas and also the success of the DART when it was introduced show that the public is willing to use an effective and efficient public transport network. While I was quite young at the time, I remember the naysayers when the DART was introduced and the arguments by many that it was a waste of public money because the public would not use the DART system. However, we are now discussing how to extend DART stations and the route itself to cater for the great desire by the public to use this public transport network.

The same can be said of the Luas. Again many people said it was an investment too far and that it would not be effective or able to deal with the road network. However, it has been quite successful and there is a demand that a Luas-type system be extended to many other areas in Dublin, including parts of my constituency. There is a proposal to extend it as far as Lucan. I have heard nobody object to the concept of extending it. There are only objections to its precise route. This proves the public is interested in public transport.

We have missed an opportunity in that we are now at a time when public resources are not as flúirseach as they were. Even in these stringent times investment needs to be put into public transport. I urge us to continue to look at the projects which were being discussed because they will cater in many cases for communities that cannot afford cars or the cost of car parking if they are travelling into and out of the city to work.

The other key requirement is that those services be integrated. The Luas, Arrow and bus services need to be integrated at the key crossing points. From discussions with representatives of Iarnród Éireann and the Luas, I know those plans were in place. However, that needs to be fast-tracked. That should be in line with what the junior partners in Government should be demanding. That public investment in laying the groundwork for the future should happen. However, one agency missing from the scope of the Bill, which would allow such development to happen in an integrated way because there would be a single authority, is the Railway Procurement Agency and the powers it has to confiscate or compulsorily purchase land depending on one's state of mind or whether one owns the house or not. That aspect should be transferred into this in order to give linked-in thinking. I will come back to the railway procurement plans at a later stage.

I have outlined some of my main concerns. While this would not be my area of expertise, as a Dubliner who has for many years depended on bus services, I have major concerns regarding the public service obligation that other public companies have. For instance An Post has a public service obligation to ensure that post is delivered to every house in the country. As far as I know there is no public service obligation - it would probably be unrealistic to demand it - that public transport be provided for every single house in the country. However, that needs to underpin anything we do on public transport. As much as possible an effective and efficient public transport network should be created which services as many communities as possible. I heard Deputy McEntee say that he and his party cannot justify one or two people on some of the rural bus services. One of the reasons only one or two people are on the buses is that for too many years the State has concentrated its investment on roads rather than on the public transport system. People have shied away from the buses because they cannot depend on them or they are not available at the key times when they are needed, which are at the various rush hours or at key points at the weekend.

By investing in public transport people will become dependent on it and rely on it if it is effective and efficient. It will move people away from the single occupancy car that drives up and down the country too regularly. It will help deal with one of the other aspects of which we are continually reminded, the carbon footprint. The more we invest in public transport and the more we encourage people to use public transport, the more likely we are to deliver on our commitments as a nation to reduce our carbon footprint.

I wish to return to the aspect of privatisation I mentioned earlier. This Bill is a remnant of the Progressive Democrats era, albeit that Fianna Fáil has embraced that party's policy of undermining the public sector and opting for privatisation wherever possible. The new bus licensing regulations contained in the Bill will have a serious impact on public transport services. Section 10 is entitled "General provisions for the consideration of applications for grant of licences". I commend the Oireachtas Library and research facility for producing the Bill digests which are informative and useful when Members do not have expertise in a certain field. While the explanatory memoranda can be quite technical, the digests provide a useful indication of the range of a Bill. However, the digest for this Bill indicates that the new regime of procurement of public transport services through contracts should eventually open the State bus companies up to competition. This should be set against the background of the continuing effects of the disastrous decision to privatise Aer Lingus which seems increasingly likely to become effectively a British company, with the greater number of its employees based in that country. Likewise, we continue to experience the consequences of the disastrous privatisation of Telecom Éireann, particularly in respect of broadband provision. Despite these warnings, it seems we are going down the same route in regard to bus services. I will not go back as far as Irish Ferries.

I am concerned that the Bill will lead to a situation where private operators will cherry-pick profitable routes. It is imperative that there be substantial investment in public transport in order to ensure there are services for all communities. I spoke in recent months to trade union representatives at Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann who explained to me the dangers of the licensing regime as it currently exists, whereby Dublin Bus has been prevented from developing certain routes because the relevant licences have already issued to private operators who have failed to put the services in place on those routes. The Minister might give some consideration to their proposal for a use it or lose it clause whereby a licence will revert to the authority if the operator who was not granted that licence does not put the relevant service in place within a specified timeframe. That is something we can discuss on Committee Stage.

Public services belong to the people and the notion that they should be run on the basis of profit alone is a dangerous one which will leave individuals and communities isolated. Experience shows us that once public transport is privatised, the logic of profit overrides all other considerations. One need only look to the farcical rail services in operation in Britain since privatisation for proof of this. The ideology behind the Bill will lead to a reduction in services in those areas which cannot offer a frequency of usage acceptable to the profit-making needs of private operators. In practical terms, people will be left stranded at bus stops unless the operator is confident it can fill every bus. The danger is that it will be considered insufficient to run a service at anything less than full capacity. My party and I have always been opposed to the privatisation of our public transport system. There is no reason that an efficient and cost effective transport system cannot be provided by the public sector for the maximum benefit of communities and with the primary function of serving people rather than profit. This has been proven in cities such as Stockholm and Brussels where the excellent public transport systems put our own to shame.

The Bill also seeks to subsume the Commission for Taxi Regulation into the proposed national transport authority. However, the only significant change I can identify is an increase in the sanctions for unlicensed taxi operation. Much more is required in this section to tackle the debacle that is the taxi industry. The tenfold increase in the number of licences since deregulation in 2000 has led to a substantial deterioration in work standards and service standards for the public and a substantial reduction in driver earnings. We have an opportunity in the Bill, in dealing with the taxi regulator, to undo the damage that has been done in recent years. For example, the legislation should include proposals for a temporary moratorium on the issuing of licences, a provision whereby the commission be empowered to buy back licences and the introduction of a new regime where licences may only be issued in accordance with public demand. Measures must also be taken to end such abuses as the duplication of taxi plates, for example, where more than one person is driving the same car with a similar plate, thus undermining those who are genuinely seeking work as taxi drivers.

The millions of euro in licence fees collected by the commission must be invested rather than merely left sitting in the bank. The Minister referred to a figure of some €21 million earlier in the year. That money must be reinvested in order to help those drivers who are struggling. Nobody is proposing that we return to the ridiculous situation that pertained prior to 2000. However, there must be a degree of regulation of the industry such that there are sufficient taxis to serve the public's needs rather than allowing a flooded market. The latter obliges people to work 80 or 90 hours a week to earn a living. Many have no alternative employment and, being self-employed, would not be entitled to the jobseeker's allowance should they choose to give up their plate. That is the dilemma for many drivers.

I intend to introduce amendments on Committee Stage to give effect to the changes that are required in regard to public transport provision. Our transport system has taken hit after hit, with funding slashed in various areas and the abolition of the night-time rural transport service. Investment is essential even given our difficulties in terms of public finances. Years of underinvestment have left the service in its current state. Reckless decisions have been made regarding public transport without even a cursory consideration of how they will affect vulnerable people in rural communities. Given that the recession is likely to see increasing numbers becoming dependent on public transport, the Government and the transport companies must be careful in their proposals to cut back on routes and frequency of service. The McCarthy report recommends the selling off of the Bus Éireann expressway service as well as the complete abolition of the rural transport programme. Mr. McCarthy and his team clearly do not depend on public transport. Their recommendations show scant regard for the need for quality transport services now and for the future. The loss of rural services will have a severe effect on communities, where they are vital in allowing people to access employment and in ensuring that those most at risk of social exclusion have access to essential services. Years of investment in roads encouraged people to depend on cars rather than on public services. The benefits arising from better public transport provision in rural areas include reduced greenhouse gases, social inclusion and rural development opportunities.

The mayoral role needs to be fleshed out on Committee Stage. The Railway Procurement Agency is immersed in a debacle where it is foisting a portal on the community beside the CIE works in Inchicore rather than siting it in the CIE works proper where it would not impact on the community. We need to be careful that the RPA, which should come under the remit of the legislation, does not continue to have the carte blanche powers it currently has.

I will discuss a number of these proposals on Committee Stage and, hopefully, when it is passed, the Bill will not encourage the privatisation of our public transport system and will enhance investment and public involvement in it.

See this speech in context