Noel Dempsey (Meath West, Fianna Fail)

I know what the Deputy is trying to achieve in either one or both of the amendments. I have had a good look at this during the course of the passage of the Bill and discussed it with officials and others. What the Deputy's amendments would do is almost the exact opposite of what he wants to do. I acknowledge what the Deputy has said about amendment No. 14 in particular. However, if either of these amendments was accepted, particularly amendment No. 13, we would essentially end up with deregulation.

As the Deputy said several times, and I agree with him, it is important that the needs of consumers are not just considered but placed at the centre of the consideration process for licences. The demand test is established as having specific regard to those particular needs of consumers. I accept there might be a fear that this will work to the disadvantage of existing companies but that is not what is intended. On amendment No. 13 specifically, the removal of the demand test could have the potential to facilitate effective deregulation. If it was not there, one would have that difficulty and would end up with deregulation. The retention of the requirement for consideration of consumers in regard to the consideration of all applications for licences will ensure that the interest of consumers takes precedence over the interest of the providers themselves. The provisions of section 10 are such that they afford sufficient flexibility and discretion to the authority in the consideration of licence applications but they also reinforce the central aims of the Bill itself, which is consumer focused. That point relates specifically to amendment No. 13.

Amendment No. 14 would mean that the paragraph in question would require the authority to consider applications in the context of both demand and potential demand, or the sustainability of the demand or the potential sustainable demand, in the case of applications for all licences. This would be to add an unwarranted complexity to the consideration of applications, which would not be helped by the fact that the concept of sustainability of demand would be very difficult to define — almost impossible, I would suggest. The concepts of demand or potential demand which are contained in the paragraph are clear and can be fairly readily explained. I referred to this point on Committee Stage.

Given the context of this section, which is a pivotal element of the overall Part of the Bill, the application of the concept is linked directly at all times to the needs of consumers and focused on those needs. Meeting consumer demand for the provision of any public bus service would be the primary reason any operator would contemplate the introduction of such a service in the first place. It is also the reason the concepts of demand or potential demand form the test against which all applications for licences have to be considered. In any event, in developing the structure for the consideration of the licence application, the authority is mandated under section 1 to have regard to the general objectives established for it under section 10 of the DTA Act of 2008. These include the consideration of issues relating to environmental sustainability, social cohesion and promoting economic progress. In that context, it is considered that the theme this amendment promotes is already reflected in the overall mandate being given to the authority.

Having considered this — the Deputy has made some eloquent pleas in this regard at various stages in the House and on Committee Stage — I believe what he is trying to achieve is actually achieved by this section as it stands. For that reason, I ask him to withdraw the amendments.

See this speech in context