Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I want to be clear. I know people have been working overtime and that there have been difficulties; I accept and acknowledge that. I will call a vote on amendment No. 3 but I will discuss all of them together. I accept that the pink sheet is more powerful than the white one.

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

"5.—A public bus passenger service may only be provided in accordance with a contract entered into under section 48 of the Act of 2008.".

The Bill arises from the discussions in the Dáil on the Dublin Transport Authority Act when I made the point very strongly that reform of the 1932 Road Transport Act should have been part of it but it was not. All of these amendments seek to address the fact that the Bill is being stuck onto the Dublin Transport Authority Act and much of it does not make sense. Fine Gael's key point is that many good aspects of the Dublin Transport Authority Act will not necessarily apply to the national transport authority. The Bill will expressly allow licensing outside of Dublin without competitive tendering for routes. I acknowledge that section 52 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act, which we opposed and asked to be deleted, allows for different systems to apply to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Nevertheless, at the core of our principles on public transport is that competitive tendering for bundles of routes, and not the licensing system which we oppose in these amendments, would allow anybody, whether Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or a private contractor, to apply for a bundle of routes which would meet their needs. These could be PSO routes or a mixture of PSO and productive routes that make money. The problem, and reason I will call a vote on this amendment, is that the core of the Bill does not allow for competitive tendering. It allows for a sweetheart relationship between the State and Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. That is the core of our opposition to the Bill.

The Bill will be passed with Government support. It will not open up public transport to real competitive tendering. A bus market can be dealt with in many ways. I want to make it clear that we oppose complete deregulation, which would mean open season for everybody. We do not support privatisation, where privatisation means privatising routes to specific people. We are stating that we must have competitive tendering. The legislation proposes a direct award system to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann and we believe this is anti-competitive in that it gives a special relationship to those two companies and protects them for a period of up to five years. The routes of Iarnród Éireann are protected for a period of up to ten years.

The Minister argued that the intent of particular sections of the Bill is to allow for competitive tendering for individual routes before the five year period is completed. We do not accept that and we argue the State should allow it immediately. The very good reason for this is that the private sector is being excluded from these routes by the Bill for a significant period of time. The private sector has double the amount of buses of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann together and employs thousands of people. To allow it to compete at this stage would remove a burden from the taxpayer in terms of the money used to fund Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.

The figures clearly show that this year, the CIE group of companies will be subsidised by the taxpayer to an amount of up to €320 million. This is a large amount of money. Between them, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann receive approximately €100 million in subsidies. It would make sense if people who have bought and paid for buses are allowed to go on the road and participate in competitive tendering for individual routes. It would increase choice for consumers and create more routes. At present, the Dublin Bus network does not meet the needs of the more than 200,000 extra households in existence in the greater Dublin area, many of which do not have a rail or public bus service. If we really want to make changes and have an alternative choice for our citizens we should immediately allow competitive tendering throughout the country.

I have spoken to Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. Dublin Bus accepts that it is ready for competitive tendering, but like St. Augustine who prayed to be made holy but not yet, does not want it to happen yet. It wants to wait five years, which is not good enough. We should have competition immediately. That is the fundamental point we are making on the Bill and why we propose these amendments.

The fundamental issue is that we must have choice. Either we have real competition or we do not. In 2000, when he was Minister for Transport, the late Séamus Brennan proposed opening the bus market to competition. This has not happened in the past ten years and we believe it probably will not happen in the next five years, notwithstanding the arguments the Minister of State will make. We are strongly of the view that this is going down the wrong route and protecting people who do not need to be protected. If Dublin Bus accepts that it will be competitive in five years, there is no reason it is not competitive now.

The bus market must change and issues of monopoly and lack of choice for consumers should not continue to arise. As I stated on Second and Committee Stages, issues have arisen with regard to Dublin Bus abusing its position in the marketplace.

According to correspondence received from the Department of Transport under freedom of information provisions, a private operator which had licences for certain routes found that Dublin Bus abused its market position. When the operator started to provide its service, buses from Dublin Bus preceded it along the route and inspectors were everywhere. That operator has since gone out of business, with the result that the service it provided is no longer available. We want competition in a market which is not abused by dominant players.

I understand Bus Éireann maintains a symbiotic relationship with private operators with a view to providing a better service to the public at reduced cost to the taxpayer. However, except in the case of school transport, Dublin Bus refuses to engage private enterprises in a good business relationship. It allows them to operate orbital routes while closing them out of cross-city routes. The company has had it too good for too long. Its management does not argue against competition but says it should not be introduced now.

This Bill will copperfasten the unhealthy relationship between CIE companies and the Government during a period in which less money is available for subsidies. We should be able to stand on our own two feet and State companies should compete on a level playing pitch with private enterprise.

See this speech in context