Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

Essentially, the taxpayer is subsidising the CIE companies to the tune of almost €127 million per annum. In these amendments, Fine Gael is arguing that this is not good enough. The spectrum of control in the bus market is now going from the State operation which we currently have to a direct award system for Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann.

I acknowledge that the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, has been absent from the Chamber due to issues outside his control, but I should clarify that Fine Gael has never favoured a deregulated market. I refute absolutely the comments from the Minister of State who has just left. We have never favoured such a market and we will not. We favour the tendering of individual routes or bundles of routes to competing operators, with such bundles including a mix of profitable and social routes.

The advantages in this method of tendering and running our public transport system are that such a system is designed to maximise the benefits of competition in a market while seeking to protect the public interest in terms of route coverage, safety standards and possible price controls. In essence, the regulator would define the routes or bundles of routes on which the participants in the market must bid for the right to operate.

In general, such bundles would be geographically cohesive in order to maximise scale efficiencies to the operator and would attempt to balance profitable and social routes. In the case of individual routes, the tender could range from concession charges paid by operators for the privilege of operating profitable routes to route-specific subsidies received by operators to compensate for the cost of operating social routes.

That is at the heart of what the people of this country want and this debate. The Fine Gael position is exceptionally clear; it is open, fair, balanced and competitive above all else. It gives the best deal for the taxpayer and provides the greatest choice at the lowest cost. It provides a bus for the consumer and unlike Deputy Broughan, we do not care if that bus is red, white or blue as long as it is there on time, fares are competitive and the taxpayer is exposed to the least amount of expense in providing that bus.

What could be fairer than giving the choice to compete for routes to Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and the private operators, of which there are over 6,000? Private operators have twice the number of buses in CIE companies and they cost the taxpayer nothing. Choice is fundamental.

This Bill's purpose is to reform a Bill from 1932 — decades ago — but it has been rushed through the Dáil to meet the deadline on 3 December. If the Minister and his Government were serious about reforming the bus market and change, this legislation would have been introduced when the Dublin Transport Authority Bill was initially introduced to the Dáil over a year ago. At that time I said to the Minister that we needed a national transport authority and not just the Dublin Transport Authority. It did not happen and we now have a timetable with a very short period in which changes will happen.

The main beneficiaries of the legislation will be the CIE companies and those who will be disadvantaged are the consumer looking for choice, competition and reduced fares, and the taxpayer. That is the issue in a nutshell. The truth is out and the arguments are clear for all to see. The divide is clear between those who do not want change or say that it might happen in five years and those of us in Fine Gael who argue for immediate change. The people want such change and they will not put up with the current arrangements.

Recently, the rail line between Drogheda and Dublin was damaged with the collapse of the Malahide viaduct and this brought a complete change in public transport. People had the train before but they do not have the buses now which they really want. Using the bus was quicker and more efficient because it gets to the city more quickly. On the line between Drogheda and Dublin there are eight points where speed reductions are employed despite the millions spent on it. Commuters want a seat if they can get one; they will get it on the bus but they are not guaranteed one on the train.

There is much new thinking on this and it is one of the good things to emerge from what could have been one of the worst ever tragedies in Malahide. People are thinking again and considering using the bus. Buses are now believed by many people in my area to be the best form of transport. They think it is the most efficient and reliable, given what has happened. It is amazing to think that despite millions of euro in investment, the train is no quicker now than it was 30 years ago.

The fundamental point in this legislation is a lack of proposed change. It is more of the same State control and East German thinking. A programme on television last night showed how thinking changed fundamentally when the Berlin Wall fell. We want the Berlin Wall in public transport to end and we want choice and competition. I could go on ad nauseam about this but there is a core argument. If we are paying €127 million per annum in subvention for two bus companies and providing them with a sweetheart deal for the next five years, notwithstanding section 52 or 58, is that good or bad for the consumer? Is it good or bad for the taxpayer? I believe it is bad. That is the reason I am pressing these amendments to a vote. We need massive change, but we are not going to get it in the legislation. Between 1932 and now we have had no change. This legislation is now being rushed through the Dáil at the last minute, and we are being warned of the alternatives if it is not passed, alternatives that make no sense at all because they fail to go to the core of the issue, the change that is so urgently needed in our country.

See this speech in context