Tommy Broughan (Dublin North East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 8, lines 39 to 41, to delete all words from and including "save" in line 39 down to and including "appropriate," in line 41.

Section 10(1)(b) states "save where the application is in respect of a category of licence where the Authority deems it not to be appropriate, shall take account of any or all of the following:" I ask that this sentence be deleted up to the word "appropriate" so it simply reads "shall take account of any or all of the following:". The section is ambiguous at present and could be interpreted to allow the national transport authority to grant a licence to operate a network or route which would compete on the road with existing services, including services on PSO routes. That would directly affect the financial stability of a company offering the public service transport, which in turn could lead to an increase in the State subvention or difficulty for a State company in maintaining a service.

There are good points in the provisions. For example, consultation must take place and all the qualities that a good licensing system must have — such as being attractive, integrated and well-functioning — could be negatived if the Bill is left as it stands. That is why we should remove that portion.

Amendment No. 16 deals with the authority taking account of "any or all" of certain provisions. The term seems vague, although it seems to have the basic meaning that the national transport authority — which is currently the Dublin Transport Authority — could ignore the parameters for the granting of a bus licence. The good qualities that the Bill has regarding the introduction of a modern bus licensing system would be wiped out.

We had a discussion last Thursday and Friday about the term "any or all". It is the type of phrase that the Attorney General or Parliamentary Counsel should have eliminated from the Bill. We have resources in our own offices to put forward amendments and it is difficult to get everything correct in a legal sense. Unless it was intended, the Department should have a watertight formula in this regard. This is in preference to saying that the authority should have regard for these important provisions or it should not.

I do not see any necessity for the term "any or all" and I do not see how the authority could deem it inappropriate in the first place to take these provisions into consideration. If that is the case, why have the Bill at all? Why not just continue with the ramshackle and chaotic system from the 1932 Bill?

I ask the Minister to consider the rationale of the two amendments. We discussed the appeals system on our last day of discussions. It is conceivable that some of these issues will end up in the Circuit Court down the line. One aviation operator, Mr. O'Leary, loves to go to court when he gets the wrong decision from the regulator and there could be a modus operandi to go to court or a European forum. Would it not be better for the Bill to be watertight? Is there not merit in both of these amendments?

See this speech in context