John Ellis (Fianna Fail)

Like other Members, I welcome the introduction of the Bill. The establishment of an effective public transport regulatory system is long overdue. During the years various bodies have had responsibility in this area, including the Department of Transport, CIE, Bus Éireann and so on. The 1932 Act was introduced at a time when there was no such thing as competition, with CIE essentially enjoying a monopoly of all types of transport in the State, whether passenger, commercial or otherwise. Some of us are old enough to remember how drivers who applied for licences in rural areas to undertake certain haulage work were left on tenterhooks for years before a decision was made.

It is important that we ensure there is full transparency in all these matters. The Bill stipulates that any transport provider whose application is refused must be given full information on the reasons for that refusal. However, it seems no appeal mechanism has been provided, either to the Minister or the courts, for unsuccessful applicants who consider themselves to have been unfairly treated. This is something the Minister may be able to clarify at a later stage. As politicians, it is inevitable that we will be approached by constituents whose licence applications have been refused. Some of us know it was right and proper to refuse them in some cases but in others one might wonder if they were fairly treated.

Will the Bill also cover character references for people who seek licences? I am aware of the problem that has arisen, with which the Minister is dealing, regarding operators of haulage licences. There is a need to ensure those who operate on behalf of various transport agencies, particularly bus drivers, have proper clearance. While a person or company might be the licensee, the people who operate for them should be listed and receive full clearance from the Garda authorities and others. Everybody is aware of the fear people, particularly women, have of taking taxis at night in this city. There have been a number of serious incidents. It is important, therefore, that there be full character references and checks carried out with regard to those who operate in this area.

There will also be an onus on providers. Those granted licences are getting an opportunity to operate and will have to provide a service that will cater for people's needs. When discussing this issue and providers, we tend to focus on the main providers, Bus Éireann and Dublin Bus. However, we must also begin to consider the provision of services in some of our larger towns, where there is no internal transport service. There is probably enough business in many of these towns to create such a service. In doing so, we do not want a situation where ten operators are given routes when there is only sufficient business for one. On the other hand, where there is business for one operator, we do not want that operator to abuse his or her position with regard to charges and so forth. This is something that must be monitored.

The enforcement of regulations has always been a problem, regardless of what regulations are introduced. Will there be sufficient powers of enforcement? The Garda will have to become more active than at present in enforcing regulation. In some cases it does not provide the enforcement necessary. Sometimes one is told it is due to a lack of resources but I have seen many cases where the resources were available but regulations were still not enforced.

We are aware of the problems that have arisen with the taxi regulator regarding the number of taxi licences issued and the viability of the business. It is a problem, but we should recall what happened prior to that, when one could be seeking a taxi in this city on a Friday or Saturday night and one would be lucky to get one by Monday. Perhaps too many rushed in to obtain licences when they became unemployed. There is definitely a need to re-examine the situation and I am aware the Minister is trying to do something about it.

Rural transport affects all rural communities. In some parts of the country there is still a lack of taxi or hackney services at night. All the operators want to work Friday and Saturday nights when there is plenty of business but if one is looking for a taxi on a Monday or Tuesday night, one just cannot get one. I accept the operators must make a living but is there a need to make it mandatory that they provide a service for a certain number of hours over the week rather than allowing them to work Friday and Saturday nights before returning to their ordinary jobs for the rest of the week? It annoys people in rural areas that when they are seeking a taxi or hackney, they cannot find one because the operators do not work on a particular night. I accept it is a person's prerogative, especially if it is a one-person operation, to decide when he or she wants to work. This issue will have to be examined in granting licences. There might even be a case for providing that when licences are granted, a commitment must be given by those who receive licences to operate a service in non-high profit hours rather than just in high profit hours. Perhaps the Minister might consider this and discuss it with the Taxi Regulator or those who will be responsible for enforcement.

I referred to rural transport. I compliment the Minister on receiving a briefing from his colleagues in the parliamentary party on the retention of the rural transport scheme which has been a tremendous success in alleviating the isolation of older people in rural areas. Many of them can continue to live in their own communities because of this facility rather than ending up living in institutions and costing the State a great deal more money. All public representatives have met the transport groups in the past couple of weeks. There has been much talk about the McCarthy report but if Mr. McCarthy had been sent to visit some of these groups, he would not have included them in his list of proposed cuts. For older people the service means they can collect their pension, do their shopping, meet friends and make new ones. If a person had a feeling for rural Ireland, he or she would not include it in a list of proposed cuts.

People should realise that the McCarthy report is a proposal, not a definitive position. Every part of the report will have to be examined in detail to assess the social, community and economic effects. It should be remembered that it might look good on paper to cut something but the knock-on effects in terms of what it would cost the State indirectly could be ten times more than the amount saved. The Leader has given a commitment to have a debate in the House on the report prior to the budget. It is important in that context to ensure the knock-on effects of doing something are assessed as much as the savings that can be made. It is possible to be penny wise and pound foolish, as one can see with a number of proposals made in the report. However, we are not here to discuss the McCarthy report but the regulation of transport services.

The Bill will have a big influence on development and proposed development, even in smaller towns and villages. I hope there will be tight control of the length of time the authority will have to reply to queries sent to it by local authorities. It is imperative that there be a maximum period of either 30 or 60 days in which to respond. It will have to be in conjunction with the planning laws to ensure people will not find that their planning application fails because the authority has not replied within the prescribed time. This is very important where the responsibilities of the authority are concerned. If it is given an open-ended period of time, there will quickly be major problems with planning permission either being granted by default or refused by default due to the authority not responding. This has happened with the NRA - queries were raised recently about the authority not replying with regard to Iarnród Éireann and a bridge in Athenry. This matter must be examined. These bodies must have that statutory responsibility. They should face the same requirements as pertain in the planning laws. In other words, if someone does not respond within the prescribed period, he or she should be precluded from having a second bite of the cherry. The Bill does not appear to provide for a statutory responsibility to respond.

A transparent system must be established for the selection of routes because without transparency major problems will arise. The body will be required to outline the reasons an application for a licence is refused. Licences should also be granted for a specified period of between five and ten years. Licence periods of less than five years will not lead to competition as people would be reluctant to become involved in the process. No one will invest in vehicles to provide services without certainty that he or she will be permitted to operate the service, subject to meeting the relevant conditions, for the lifespan of the vehicle, which is between five and ten years.

It is also imperative that high standards apply to the quality of vehicles. While I am aware that a variety of tests are carried out on vehicles, a roadworthy vehicle may not be suitable for the function for which it is licensed. It could, for example, be uncomfortable or too large. Some of the routes will probably only be viable if the service is provided using minibuses rather than 40 or 45 seat coaches.

While I fully support the concept behind the Bill, the nitty gritty of its implementation will be of the utmost important and some fine-tuning will be required. Individuals should have a right to appeal a decision to the Minister or, preferably, to the courts. One can license a person to serve a route with a passenger capacity of 15 or 20 people per trip. If one stipulates that the individual must provide a 40-seat bus on the route, he will not be able to do so. Given the competition which will exist for these routes, one option available to those who wish to eliminate a competitor is to undertake to provide a 40-seat bus on routes where the competitor offers to provide a 20-seat bus. While 20 seats may be more than sufficient to do the job, the individual offering to provide a 40-seat bus will secure the licence. As his or her service will not be viable, it will fail.

An open system will be required for tendering. This could involve the use of local public notices or a requirement that individuals submit their names to be placed on the tender list. This could avoid the considerable expense of public advertising in national and local newspapers. All organisations have websites and even the most computer illiterate of us is able to perform basic computer tasks. Every week, newspapers publish large public notices targeted at a limited number of people involved in the business in question. These individuals will already be aware of the contract being advertised and others who wish to enter the business will be aware that the information they require can be downloaded from the relevant websites.

Every week, Departments spend substantial sums advertising contracts. If this money could be diverted to fund services, for which funding will soon be tightened up, it would make a considerable contribution and reduce costs. If one lifts a national newspaper today, one will see a number of major notices on various issues. The cost of these notices to the State is much higher than the funding provided to some of the agencies and groups involved. While this legislation is a positive step forward, its implementation and the operation of the authority will have an important bearing.