Brendan Ryan (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State. The Labour Party welcomes the report on the cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, which we are debating. It is a very useful document which can, if implemented, provide a framework for a customer-focused approach to improving bus transport in Dublin and throughout the country.

The terms of reference specified that the review should assess whether the resources currently available to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are used in the most effective and efficient way possible to deliver an optimum public transport service and to assess the effectiveness and appropriateness of the network of services currently provided; assess the operational efficiency of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann with particular reference to resource utilisation; identify any issues, such as human resource or organisational issues, which adversely impact on the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of service; and make recommendations in regard to actions required to enhance efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of public transport services.

Those terms of reference were appropriate and, by and large, were met. Under the effectiveness and appropriateness heading, several improvement opportunities for Dublin Bus have been identified, which make sense. They are as follows: over-complexity of network and services; the need for co-ordination of services along core corridors; direct routing where possible; need for timetable redesign such as clock-face departures; marketing and information provisions such as real-time bus stop information; and achieving value for money from service provision, all essential elements of any service.

All these make sense, are very obvious and have been recommended by the transport user bodies for many years. I question whether it was necessary to engage consultants to come up with these recommendations because they must be part of any comprehensive blueprint for improvement and change.

Given the nature of the Bus Éireann service, there are not many challenges under this heading for the company other than more direct town to town services, which it provides.

Under the efficiency heading, both companies come out well by international comparison and benchmarking. Wages, fuel costs and engineering-maintenance costs are in line with benchmarks and many cost improvement efforts are already under way, which is encouraging. Both companies can be rightly proud of those findings. Before the report came out, I would have expected something worse than has been reported in this regard.

On Dublin Bus fleet size, the report states:

Our analysis shows that the current fleet size is adequate to service current demand. We favour optimising the existing network and extracting full value from existing fleet before considering future fleet expansion.

However, the report does not recommend reducing the fleet size, which is what is being implemented by both companies. It is the subject of some of the union problems referred to by my colleagues on both sides of the House. This decision must be reversed in the interests of the bus user and of maintaining services.

Senator Donohoe raised issues about the unions and Senator O'Donovan said those responsible must reconsider their position. There are two sides to every equation and the company has a certain responsibility in this regard as well. Presenting a group of workers with a fait accompli , saying their jobs are gone and that one is taking the buses off the route is not the way to do business, whether in the public or the private sector. If one adopts that attitude, whether in the public or the private sector, one will get the result we are seeing at present.

The report laments the decline in numbers using the service, yet the decisions being taken by the companies will make matters worse. I was informed by Dublin Bus yesterday that as a direct result of the reduction in the fleet by 10%, a very important route, the 105, which takes students from Malahide, Portmarnock and other points along the way to Dublin City University, is to be decommissioned. These areas, which are within a six to ten mile radius of the regional third level college, will not be served by a direct service to the campus. How can that make sense? This decision must be reversed. Given that the Minister requisitioned this study, should the bus companies not have focused on the recommendations contained in it rather than taking actions which were not recommended in the report?

In the area of human resources or organisational issues, the report does not seriously reference any matters that might get in the way of the required changes being delivered other than the possibility of claims for disturbance money. That is also relatively good news.

I take issue with the methodology employed by the study. Deloitte & Touche's approach to this review was to undertake a substantial amount of desktop analysis, consult extensively with senior management in both companies covering a range of functions and hold stakeholder meetings with Dublin City Council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, the Dublin Transportation Office, Dublin City Council and the bus route licensing division of the Department. All those measures were justifiably carried out, but the key stakeholders are the bus users. Surely there is some merit in gaining insights from the workforce below senior management level. This report would be much stronger if there was some involvement by the workforce. Some effort should have been made to tap into the insights of this very important group of stakeholders.

I refer to the public sector obligation, PSO. The report concludes that Government PSO payments, including capital payments to both companies, are relatively low. It states that in Europe, levels of operational subvention are generally higher as a percentage of revenue — it is 68% in Brussels, 57% in Zurich, 62% in Amsterdam, 79% in Lyon and 38.5% in London. The Dublin Bus PSO payment in 2007 equated to 29% and Bus Éireann was 12% of total revenue. These significant differences in commitment to public transport are worthy of note and confirm what the Labour Party has been saying in this regard for many years. Under the efficiency heading, the bus companies met the benchmark targets but the Government did not in regard to PSO.

The report touches on a number of supply and demand side considerations to deal with congestion, which is rightly considered a major issue for both companies, restricting their efficiencies and increasing their cost bases. One of these is congestion charges in the city centre. These may become part of a solution in the future but not before the various elements of Transport 21 are in place which will allow people to get out of their cars. London had the public transport infrastructure but Dublin does not yet have it.

The report notes that the outdated Road Transport Act 1932, as amended, is the primary legislation governing the provision of passenger services by private bus operators while a separate authorisation regime applies to Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. It states that the current system is reactive rather than proactive when it comes to granting licences and that Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are concerned that the current licensing regime does not take into account the impact of granting a licence to a private operator on its overall obligations to operate comprehensive PSO networks. They believe a clearer policy is required to avoid cherry-picking of profitable routes by private operators and I have some sympathy with that position.

We need to modernise the licensing system and have a comprehensive debate on it. We cannot have a continuation of a licensing regime which last year did not allow Dublin Bus, with its 41X service, to pass through major expensive national infrastructure like the port tunnel.

I refer to the recommendations that include Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann recommendations and some general recommendations that apply to both. They make perfect sense and have the potential to deliver real improvements for service users. I do not intend to go through them as they are in the report. However, as mere recommendations they are useless; they must be implemented.

On implementation, the report suggests a three-phase approach: phase one, focus on assembling the team, planning the programme of work and initial consultations; phase two, design and implement a pilot; and phase three onwards, design and roll out new services to remaining corridors.

It estimates that the initial phases one and two could be set up and implemented in a six-month timeframe with the subsequent roll-outs over an 18 to 24 month timeframe. I have some sympathy with the views of Senator Donohoe that perhaps this is not the time to do this, that there is less chance of implementing and achieving these phases now and that if we had done this four or five years ago, we might have had a greater chance of success and we might have the infrastructure in place today.

The Minister has the report so he should implement it. As I said, he should stick to the report's recommendations and not decommission the buses. He should also heed the warning contained in the report. The programme of work represents fundamental change for the company and should be regarded as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be required if it is to be successful. The changes must be made in a co-ordinated way and it is essential the needs of the customer are central. It is important to remember it is an integrated set of recommendations and that an ad hoc approach or the selection of some elements or the ignoring of others will be unsuccessful. Let us hope the report does not end up on the shelf covered in dust.