Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Oct 2011

Vol. 743 No. 3

Topical Issue Debate

Financial Services Regulation

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue for debate and thank the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, for attending the House to respond to it.

I was prompted to raise this issue as a result of a desperately sad case in which I became involved last week — which has received some coverage in The Irish Examiner — having visited a family who have been touched by the unbelievable tragedy of losing a family member through suicide. The financial circumstances of the family at the time of this sad event are likely to have contributed to what happened. At the very least, they created an environment where pressure became acute and unbearable for someone. I have looked at the chain of events leading up to this sad event and at the financial transactions which led to the creation of that environment. There is no doubt but that mistakes were made by many parties along the way, including, tragically, the family involved.

I want to focus on a particular part of that chain, namely, the general role played by mortgage brokers and financial intermediaries. Much of what I learned in terms of regulation, if any exists, in this sector caused me concern. The family concerned received a mortgage, the application form for which contained no evidence of a bank account. Also, the person granted the mortgage did not have life assurance, was not able to produce evidence of income and had already built up mortgage arrears from a previous mortgage. Despite this, a mortgage many times the amount of the original mortgage was granted.

A particular link in this transaction is the role of the mortgage broker-intermediary who received information from the family and used that information to apply for a mortgage which the family had no ability to repay. As I stated earlier, responsibility rests everywhere. However, money was loaned to people who had no ability to repay it. The money should never have been given to them.

From my review of this sector since then, a number of things have become clear. We need to move quickly from a system of registration to regulation. That is essential. Whatever regulation exists needs to be strengthened and a number of new features need to be added. First, we need to have at the core of this sector protection of the borrower, in particular a borrower who could become vulnerable in the future. Second, we must have in place a system of cross-referencing. As I understand it, a person in this sector against whom there is a ruling from the financial ombudsman can continue to practise, including under a different name or different company. I would appreciate clarification on that point from the Minister.

Money is being transferred from clients to brokers to banks. There must be in place a system that ensures there is a verifiable paper trail of money transferred and that this is done by people who should be doing so. My final point relates to insurance, in particular run-off insurance. For example, where a solicitor who is no longer in operation is sued because of something he or she did when in operation and the person taking the action is successful he or she will be paid from the solicitor's insurance. As I understand it, no such policy exists in respect of mortgage brokers who are now becoming debt intermediaries.

The Central Bank is currently investigating the case in which I am involved. I believe these matters need to be urgently brought to public attention. I would appreciate if the Minister of State could clarify in his response what regulation currently exists in this sector and if the general thrust of what I have outlined in terms of the need for a strengthened regime can be acted upon. It needs to be.

Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brian Hayes)

I apologise for my delay in coming to the House. I thank Deputy Donohoe for raising this important case, the particulars of which I am aware. It has a much wider application because of the number of people who used this option to obtain financing and mortgage deals when there was a flood of opportunities to do so in the past.

Mortgage intermediaries that intend to provide services to consumers must be authorised by the Central Bank in accordance with section 116 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. A mortgage intermediary is defined as a person, other than a mortgage lender or a credit institution, who, in return for commission or some other form of consideration, arranges or offers to arrange for a mortgage lender to provide a consumer with a housing loan, or introduces a consumer to an intermediary who arranges or offers to arrange for a mortgage lender to provide the consumer with such a loan. It is an offence for a person to engage in being a mortgage intermediary unless he or she is the holder of an authorisation granted for that purpose by the Central Bank and holds a letter of appointment in writing from each undertaking for which he or she is an intermediary.

The Central Bank is responsible for the authorisation and supervision of over 2,000 mortgage intermediaries. I have no indication from the Central Bank of a lacuna in the law in this regard.

The points raised by Deputy Donohoe about a particular case have a wide application. It would be important, therefore, that his statement in the House would be transmitted immediately to the Central Bank. He has informed the House that a complaint is now before the Central Bank concerning the case. It is not the Minister for Finance's position to comment on this complaint and it is better to await the deliberations of the Central Bank.

Deputy Donohoe has also raised the fundamental issue of the supervision of the granting of authorisation to mortgage intermediaries. Is there a proper supervision regime in place? Is the complaints system adequate to allow for the removal of a negligent mortgage intermediary? If the Central Bank believes the law needs to be changed to provide additional consumer protection, as outlined by Deputy Donohoe, the Government would be open to suggestions. However, the authority in the first instance rests with the Central Bank to determine if such a change is necessary and what further policy changes may need to be considered by the Government. It is important the Central Bank makes its determination on the particular case raised by the Deputy known soon as it has wider implications across financial services supervision.

Deputy Paschal Donohoe

I thank the Minister of State for his detailed response. I am not suggesting the entire industry is performing in the way I described in the case that came to my attention. However, other individuals in this sector have also come across such difficulties but, thankfully, have not resulted in the tragedy I encountered.

I suspect there is an effective process in place for registration but not for regulation. A change is occurring where parts of the sector in question are morphing into debt intermediaries, a business which takes on people's debt, restructures it and then charges them for doing so. The point I am making would then have greater applicability because one would be dealing with people who would be far more vulnerable than people who are applying to take on a mortgage or debt in the first place.

I will return to this matter in the future. I appreciate the Minister of State's reply.

Deputy Brian Hayes

I agree with Deputy Donohoe that the issue is one of regulation and supervision. There is little point in handing out authorisations unless the actual work is properly supervised and regulated. The Government is minded across a pan-European level to see how we can strengthen the law in this regard. This is also a key issue of the Polish EU Presidency and one which could get further direction from the European Union.

People who believe the advice they received from a mortgage intermediary is defective, or even bordering on criminal, can take the matter up with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. People must not feel they have nowhere to go, as there is much advice on such matters.

The important issues raised by Deputy Donohoe need to be teased out further with the Central Bank. Much more work needs to be done in the area of financial services regulation and supervision.

Flood Relief

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise a local issue, namely the proposed Clontarf flood barrier, which will have a citywide impact.

In September 2005, Dublin City Council's Clontarf promenade steering committee considered different options for the flood defence-arterial water main works and chose option 5, comprising walls and bunds containing water mains. No public representatives, residents' groups or business groups were represented on this committee. However, the environmental impact statement, EIS, states the main stakeholders were present. The minutes of the meeting indicate that council officials realised, even at that point, the need to provide clear images and drawings for the public consultation process. This recommendation was not pursued, however.

A consultation evening was held in St. Anthony's Parish Church in Clontarf on 12 June 2006 to deal with the scope of the information to be included in the EIS. Residents' groups were invited to the meeting. According to a council e-mail of Tuesday, 11 October 2006, the public consultation process on the flood defences-arterial water mains did not commence until 3 December 2007. Accordingly, this meeting cannot be considered to have been part of that process. Indeed, the EIS had not even been completed at that stage.

In November 2007, all residents' groups were written to informing them that Dublin City Council was about to apply to An Bord Pleanála for planning permission through the submission of an EIS, as yet unseen by residents, businesses or local representatives. The letter also informed them a period of public consultation would take place and that full details of the project would be on public display for eight weeks in Dublin City Council's civic office, Marino Library, none of which are in the Clontarf area itself, and on the council's website. On 3 December 2007, this submission and public consultation was further advertised in the Irish Independent and this date was the commencement of the public consultation period.

One day later, on 4 December 2007, Dublin City Council applied to An Bord Pleanála for permission for the works as outlined in the EIS and first advertised to the public one day previously. Subsequently, in July 2008 planning permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála.

There is no evidence of any involvement of either public representatives, residents or local businesses, prior to a decision being made in September 2005, that the preferred option for the works was for bunds-walls rather than four other options under consideration. Although the council has accepted the height recommendation changed after plans were first presented to local councillors in 2006, this was not communicated and no supplemental presentation was made detailing the alterations or the reasons held by the council for departing from the original proposal. Prior to the planning application being made to An Bord Pleanála in December 2007, no public representatives or residents groups had sight of a completed environmental impact statement, EIS, or had an opportunity to provide feedback or comment on it. The EIS was made available on 3 December — the application was made to An Bord Pleanála on 4 December. As a result, the only opportunity these stakeholders had to make an input into the process was that afforded them by the An Bord Pleanála system at a cost of €50. Although the EIS was made available after the application had been made to An Bord Pleanála, it was never available at any public location in Clontarf. My point is that the process was deficient from the beginning.

I wish to bring the Minister of State's attention to another matter. The development is in close proximity to a number of special protection areas and a special area of conservation, namely, north Dublin Bay. I direct the Minister of State to Article 6(3) of the habitats directive and the guidance provided by the Commission, those being, EC (2000), EC (2002) and EC (2006). Any plan or project that may have a significant effect on a special area of conservation shall be subject to an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site's conservation objectives. This appropriate assessment should include, where appropriate, obtaining the opinion of the general public and must comply with the requirements as set forth by the directive and clarified by the Commission's guidance notes and the European Court of Justice, ECJ, cases C-127/02 and C-418/04.

The EIS on the works in question does not comply with the requirements of the directive and relevant explanatory documents, since no appropriate assessment was undertaken. In taking the decision under An Bord Pleanála reference 29N.JA0008, the competent authority — Dublin City Council — has failed to take account of the appropriate assessment of the implications of the development for the designated Natura 2000 site in light of the site's conservation objectives and has not made certain that the development will not affect the integrity of the site.

Like the council, will the Minister of State accept that the consultation process was deficient? Will he accept the documentation that I will provide him for his officials to examine? Will his officials examine the relevant European legislation and the ECJ cases I have outlined? I will be as quick as possible in the four minutes allowed to me.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy has had five and a half minutes.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

Will the Minister of State engage with the Irish Insurance Federation, IIF, to ensure that the question of these works proceeding or not proceeding in the immediate future will not have a negative impact on householders on the Clontarf promenade?

Deputy Brian Hayes

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I know the area well, having played there as a young boy before going to the west side of the city. I also know of people's concerns, but I must point out that this is a Dublin City Council scheme. The objective of the Office of Public Works, OPW, which has national responsibility for providing policy and funding, is to work with local authorities in the delivery of such schemes.

I will set out the facts. The Clontarf sea front area was identified as one of the areas most at risk of flooding in the Dublin coastal flood protection project study, which was completed in 2005 by international expert consultants Royal Haskoning and commissioned by Dublin City Council with funding from the OPW. Following the study's completion, Dublin City Council appointed Royal Haskoning to design a flood relief scheme for the area. The scheme was designed to the normal standards required for coastal flood protection, including protection against a flood with an annual exceedance probability of 0.5%, typically known as a 200-year flood event, with an allowance for climate change.

The OPW understands that Dublin City Council made available full details of the flood defence project to residents, local businesses and elected representatives at the various informal and formal public consultations in 2006 and 2007 leading up to the submission of a full EIS to An Bord Pleanála in 2007. The submission was also advertised in the national press, site notices were erected and the project details and EIS report were put on public display in the council's civic offices and in Marino Library. The EIS took full account of all aspects of the project, including the visual impact of the flood defence structures. The EIS and the project were subsequently approved by An Bord Pleanála in 2008.

Dublin City Council has since advanced the scheme as part of the north city water main project. The procurement process for the overall scheme, which includes the north city water supply scheme phases 1 and 2 and the flood defence works, has been progressed as one contract for reasons of efficiency and economies of cost. The OPW has agreed in principle to provide the funding to undertake the flood defence aspects of the works, amounting to approximately 46% of the overall costs. This is Dublin City Council's scheme, not the Government's. We provide the money for schemes and set national policy frameworks.

This scheme incorporates the use of landscaping rather than extensive wall construction. This is designed to minimise the impact and, in so far as it is possible, retain the character of the Clontarf sea front. The council accepts that there will be a loss of visual amenity. Without this project, however, the area will continue to flood, which the Deputy knows it has done frequently.

I understand that, in response to concerns raised by residents and members of the business community in recent weeks, Dublin City Council made a presentation to a special meeting of councillors of the north central area committee yesterday afternoon. At that meeting, the council agreed to arrange meetings with the residents for next week with a further area committee to take place on 7 November. The OPW had a member of staff at the meeting who explained that the rationale for the OPW providing funding for the scheme was based on the scheme being cost beneficial and that it would conform to the normal standards applying to such coastal schemes. The OPW awaits the outcome of the further consultation process.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

I thank the Minister of State for his reply, although the matters it addressed differed from those that I raised. Will he accept the documentation? If I forward it to his Department, will he ask his officials to investigate under section 21 of the Planning and Development Act on An Bord Pleanála whether every statutory box was ticked in respect of the consultation process? Will his office also take into consideration the European legislation to which I referred? I will forward it to his office and to other Ministers with responsibility in this regard. Will the Minister of State take into consideration the insurance implications of these works going ahead or not going ahead and engage with the IIF? If his office commits to doing so, it would provide solace to the residents and wider community affected. These are three simple suggestions and I appreciate the Ceann Comhairle's indulgence.

Deputy Brian Hayes

The suggestions are good, but they will not make any difference. The key issue is that this is a Dublin City Council scheme. The council is looking for money from us. To obtain that, it must show that the State will get value for the money we spend. We are prepared to consider any alternative arising from the consultation with local councillors last night and with residents next week. If the council makes an alternative proposal, we are prepared to consider it.

The only criterion we have when an application is made is whether it is worth spending money. There is no point in spending money if it has no value when an event occurs. All of the EU legislation in the world will not make a difference. This is a question of getting value for the State's money. If an alternative proposal is brought to our attention by the council, we will consider it.

We have set money aside for the scheme. If it is not spent this year, I cannot guarantee the people of Clontarf that it will be spent next year. If a flooding event occurs, I ask people to realise that the houses, businesses and communities along the long Clontarf Road will suffer the brunt of it.

The only way to stop the floods is to build a wall or a variety of other schemes that may help. We are open to considering all alternatives, but time is of the essence. Given the fact that we are not the party conducting this process, our task is to fund something if it has value and will stop a flood. Otherwise, the money will not be provided. The next time a flood occurs, Deputies will ask me why we did not do something.

Dublin City Council must sort this issue out with the local community and local councillors in the first instance. Assuming it does, I will consider any alternative proposal. We have a clear model on which we determine cost-benefit analyses. If an alternative delivers value for the State's investment, we will consider it and progress the scheme. I hope I have been fair, honest and forthcoming in responding to the Deputy.

Social and Affordable Housing

Deputy Dessie Ellis

Recently, I visited the Balgaddy estate with my colleague, Eoin Ó Broin, where I met residents and had a tour of the general area. Balgaddy estate is a 400 unit social housing estate comprising three developments, namely, Meile An Rí, Buirg An Rí and Tor An Rí. It was built between 2004 and 2007 on the border of Lucan and Clondalkin. The design of the estate won awards from the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland in 2004. It was to be a model urban village with community facilities, employment opportunities and social and affordable housing. Today, for many of its residents Balgaddy is a nightmare.

From the very start, residents complained of damp, structural cracks inside and outside the houses, faulty heating systems and leaks from badly constructed roofs. The promised community facilities were never provided and units held over for this purpose remain vacant. So much for the social dividend that was promised. To date, the only facility provided is a children's play area which was completed recently, seven years after the residents moved in.

From the very beginning, Balgaddy residents raised their concerns with South Dublin County Council. When no adequate response from the council was forthcoming they formed the Balgaddy Working Together group in an attempt to force the council to meet its obligations. Seven years later, the residents are angry and frustrated at the false promises and neglect of the council, and rightly so.

In response to the inaction of the council, the group in conjunction with the Clondalkin Lucan area partnership commissioned independent engineers to carry out a survey of 40 properties in the estate. The report by Buckeridge Forristal Partnership Consulting Engineers was published in June and found significant damp and mould in many of the homes caused by roof leaks, faulty heating and plumbing and defective windows. The report recommended details of action on each of the issues concerned. The extent of the problems confirm without any doubt that these issues are structural and in need of a systematic and proactive response.

While primary responsibility for resolving the problems in Balgaddy rests with South Dublin County Council, the scale of the problem requires the involvement of the Minister of State and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Residents in Balgaddy have a right to live in decent and comfortable homes. The council has a legal responsibility to ensure its tenants live in adequate housing. Where a local authority is failing in this regard the Department has an obligation to intervene. Health and safety factors alone dictate that the Minister of State's intervention is necessary. Will he outline to the House today what he knows about the problems in Balgaddy and what action he and the Department can take to address the very real problems which blight the lives of hundreds of families in Balgaddy?

Deputy Brian Hayes

Balgaddy was designed as an urban village scheme to include a mix of social, voluntary and private affordable dwellings. Five phases of construction were proposed in the Balgaddy scheme, for which a masterplan was prepared in the year 2000. A total of 400 units have been completed by Gama Construction Limited, the main contractor appointed by South Dublin County Council.

My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning, understands from the housing authority that issues have arisen which require remedial works on window sashes, roof flashings and external plaster cracks. There is also an issue with condensation and mould growth which arose as a result of increased insulation linked to ventilation levels required by the building regulations. In some cases condensation is a result of building fabric failure and in others by the pattern of tenant use.

In the past year, a considerable amount of work has been carried out by council staff, and contractors working on their behalf, to address all the issues arising. A dedicated team under the direction of the county architect is now systematically inspecting and evaluating the condition of all housing stock which has been subject of complaints and carrying out any necessary remedial works on a house by house basis. This process will continue until all affected units are addressed. Considerable progress has been made to date and is continuing. A pilot contract to replace window sashes in 14 units has been put in place.

A building survey was commissioned and carried out some months ago by BFP Consulting Engineers, a draft of which was received by the council in July. This is being reviewed against the council programme and any fresh information supplied is being factored into the ongoing work schedule. The contents of the report were broadly in line with the surveys carried out by council technical staff and already being addressed by on-site teams.

Deputy Dessie Ellis

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Representatives of the Balgaddy group are in the Gallery and what the Minister of State has described is not what they tell me is happening. In light of the serious concerns, supported by an independent report, will the Minister of State consider following up requests from me on behalf of the residents? Will he meet a delegation of the Balgaddy residents, preferably in Balgaddy, to discuss their concerns and to explore possible courses of action available to him to assist them in having their concerns addressed? Will he meet the South Dublin County Council director of housing, Billy Coman, and the county manager, Joe Horan, to discuss the situation and to ensure the concerns of the residents are adequately addressed? Will he ask his officials to prepare a report on the contents of the Buckeridge Forristal Partnership Consulting Engineers report, and an earlier report as yet unpublished commissioned by Cara Housing Association, into housing problems at Meile An Rí Drive and to make these reports available to the House? Will he organise an inspection of the houses in case an issue arises with regard to pyrite? I flag this just in case it needs to be addressed. Will he outline what powers and resources are available to him to intervene in this matter and assist South Dublin County Council and the residents of Balgaddy to address the many structural problems in their homes? A very high percentage of children and residents with disabilities live in the estate. The number is more than the national average. I urge the Minister of State to take on board these concerns and address them.

Deputy Brian Hayes

I thank the Deputy for raising the matter and I recognise the presence in the Gallery of the residents concerned. I will make the Deputy's request known to the Minister of State, Deputy Penrose, who has responsibility for housing and planning, with regard to a meeting between him and the residents concerned. I am glad to inform the Deputy that on Monday I will meet Joe Horan and the staff of South Dublin County Council and I will raise the matter. Although I have no responsibility for this matter, it arises in the functional area in which I live and I have no difficulty in raising the matter with South Dublin County Council. I will send Joe Horan a copy of the Deputy's remarks and ask that the issue be addressed at our Monday meeting.

I presume the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government is willing to examine any report. It should be published and does not need to be put in the library of the House. This is a housing authority function, and ultimately a matter for South Dublin County Council's housing department as the housing authority responsible. If it requests additional support from the Department I am sure the Department will consider it given all of the circumstances.

It is also fair to state that work has taken place. I am sure residents are of the view that not enough has happened but under the circumstances we must ensure the work continues and that the project work is mapped out in terms of time and resources so local people can see the mistakes, appalling and all as they are, can be resolved for the community so it is an area in which people want to live and of which they are proud. I will ensure the Minister of State is aware of the Deputy's comments.

Public Transport

Deputy Derek Keating

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this matter for discussion under Topical Issues today. I wish to raise a serious issue affecting the lives of many thousands of people, the local and national economy in the greater Dublin area and the personal lives of many people.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport recently announced the cancellation for the time being at least of the metro west project, due to the previous Government's mismanagement of the economy and given the situation inherited by the current Government. Although this was bad news for commuters and for the economy in general, it is now compounded by what I consider to be the carry-on in Dublin Bus.

I have learned in recent weeks of the impact of changes imposed by Dublin Bus on the citizens of the greater western area, including areas within my own constituency such as Lucan, Clondalkin, Palmerstown, Rathcoole, Saggart and Newcastle and many other areas outside my constituency.

Dublin Bus has introduced a new No. 13 bus service with little or no meaningful consultation with the citizens of Clondalkin. The No. 51 service was discontinued and this has caused considerable confusion and disruption. I spoke to some people who informed me that they waited for the No. 51 bus, saw the No. 13 bus pass by and only later realised that this was the replacement service. This is an example of the confusion which can cause great difficulties in people's lives.

In the coming weeks, Dublin Bus is planning to remove the No. 78 and No. 79 bus services to be replaced with a new No. 40 service, which will follow a new route. There has not been any adequate, meaningful consultation, notice or discussion. If mismanagement were an Olympic sport, Dublin Bus would be in line for a gold medal.

In my own constituency, the No. 26 bus route has changed without adequate meaningful consultation or discussion. The Nos. 25, 25A and 25B services have been reduced and the No. 26, when it arrives in Lucan, is generally three-quarters or completely full. The No. 66X is a wonderful service but because of its express nature it bypasses Lucan village and many of the highly developed populated areas in Lucan. When these buses arrive in Palmerstown, with 3,000 homes and more than 7,000 people, the bus service is not adequate between the hours of 7.45 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and is often non-existent.

The Government provides approximately €25 million to €30 million a year in funding to Dublin Bus. In the circumstances, the National Transport Authority has shown little evidence of value for money when such chaos looms. Every morning, many hundreds of people from Rathcoole to Maynooth are stranded as a result of the changes in the bus services and the bus routes. Their grievance — which I support — is that there is very little meaningful or worthwhile consultation. If consultation is to be meaningful, it must involve the user of the service who is the most important person. The consultation process should also include traders' associations, the local school communities, local residents' associations and public representatives.

People are suffering more stress in the daily circumstances of their lives. The priority for the Government is to bring about a recovery in the economy and the transport needs of the people must be met. I am very unhappy at the way in which these needs are being affected.

Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Leo Varadkar)

I thank the Deputy for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House and to my attention. As the Deputy will be aware, I do not have an operational role in Dublin Bus and nor do I make decisions as regards individual bus routes. These are matters for the company in conjunction with the National Transport Authority, which is the regulator. The funding of public service obligation services is governed by a public transport contract between the NTA and Dublin Bus.

The Deloitte cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann was published in January 2009. The review found Bus Éireann to be largely efficient. However, it identified some scope for greater efficiencies in Dublin Bus. Following the publication of that report, Dublin Bus undertook an extensive review of its bus network and subsequently announced its plans for the reorganisation of routes and timetables. The objective of the redesign is to provide current and future bus customers with a service that will be modern, accessible, integrated, easy to understand, punctual and frequent.

The redesign is delivering real and tangible benefits to the vast majority of bus users. For example, when completed later this year, there will be a doubling in routes with frequency of ten minutes or better. A total of 60% of customers will be carried on high frequency routes whereas this stood at 23% previously. There will also be increased interchange opportunities with heavy and light rail services. The redesign will reduce the lay-over of buses in the city centre and improve traffic flows, thereby leading to an improved city centre environment.

I understand that Dublin Bus has held over 30 public meetings and 250 meetings with key stakeholders as part of its consultation programme. All changes are advertised in advance through social, national and local media as well as leaflet drops to houses in areas serviced by the bus routes where changes occur. Dublin Bus is continuing to ensure best practice is achieved in the delivery of the service and that the new network enhances this efficiency as part of the network review progresses. All schedules reflect the new traffic levels.

I support the efforts of Dublin Bus to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness under the network direct programme and significant efficiencies and savings have already been achieved. Given the losses recorded by Dublin Bus in 2010 and further reductions in the PSO subvention due over the coming years, it is important that the Deloitte report and the network direct programme are fully delivered upon to ensure the viability of the service.

With regard to some of the specific routes referred to by the Deputy, route No. 13 was recently introduced offering Clondalkin and Ballymun a new travel option. A full consultation was held in the areas with a public road show held at Clondalkin library on 2 February and at the Ballymun civic centre on 3 February. Revisions were made to services and these were made available on the website prior to the changes. On Friday 23 September, details on the proposals were published on the Dublin Bus website, Twitter page and Facebook page and e-mails were sent to Deputies and councillors. From 26 to 30 September, a door-to-door leaflet drop was carried out and 21,900 leaflets were delivered. In the week beginning 26 September, notices appeared in the Northside People and the Southside People; on Wednesday 28 September, notices appeared in the Irish Independent; on Friday 30 September, notices appeared in the Evening Herald and information brochures were delivered to the local public libraries and credit unions.

I am informed there are no plans to change the Nos. 78 and 79 bus routes on Monday as has been suggested by some parties. A consultation was held in the Ballyfermot area throughout October with a road show in the Ballyfermot civic centre on 21 October 2010, with consultations taking at least four weeks. There will be no change to the service without advance notice of at least nine days to customers, including the distribution of leaflets to homes in the vicinity of the route.

Deputy Derek Keating

My response is that it is not working. If all of this consultation process was meaningful why are there so many complaints and why are so many people stranded? I have attended many consultation meetings and my abiding memory is how the issues raised by people are not addressed in this consultation process. I was very careful in my use of the words, "meaningful consultation". If consultation is to be meaningful it has to take into account what people are saying and hence the confusion that has arisen.

I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. I ask that he agree to convene a meeting with the National Transport Authority to review some of these exercises, given the impact on people's lives, the inconvenience and the grievances expressed. They have difficulties in getting to schools, colleges, places of work. This is not working.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Consultation has to be meaningful but it can only be meaningful to a certain point. This is an efficiency operation as much as anything and no matter what happens, savings have to be made and savings are best made now by straightening out bus routes and having fewer and more frequent bus services rather than having less frequency on existing bus routes. My experience in Dublin 15, where we also have Network Direct, is that there have been complaints from people who have been discommoded and who are suffering with a worse bus service. Most people have a better bus service, but they do not complain nor tell us they think the bus service is better. It is interesting to note that despite the economy being flat, the numbers using Dublin Bus this year have stabilised and have even increased slightly. This is a good sign that more people are using the bus this year than last year.

On the National Transport Authority, it is conducting a network review of the Lucan area and is doing a look-back exercise to assess the impact the changes have had in the area. I support that. I do not want to get involved in a meeting about individual bus routes; it is just not possible for me to micro-manage at that level. If the Deputy would find it useful, I could arrange for him to meet with the NTA on the issue or to meet directly with senior management of Dublin Bus.