I was listening earlier when the Chairman referred to Mr. Michael O'Leary. The union I represent and for which I work was formed 100 years ago — we celebrate our centenary this year — to fight and oppose the type of tyranny people such as Mr. O'Leary bring to workers in this country. It would be unacceptable to us if the Chairman, the committee or the Government introduced a type of tyranny to bus workers with no security of employment or guarantee of wages, sometimes not even knowing who their employer is, but carrying out a service to the public in the name of the State and public transport. Far be it from me to criticise somebody who is deceased and is not here to defend himself, but certain conditions should have been applied to the granting of Stansted to Ryanair and the undermining of Aer Lingus at the time. Some guarantee should have been put in place to maintain decent standards for workers employed in Aer Lingus at the time. Privatisation does not hold all the fears for us provided there are decent wages and conditions for workers and security of employment. That is a basic human right to which any worker is entitled, any day of the week and at any time, regardless of the recession.
If bus transport is to be the principal provider of passenger transport throughout Ireland, how can Bus Éireann justify cutbacks? If it is to be a significant player in ensuring links between communities, how can it cut one third of its fleet? According to the Deloitte report, Bus Éireann has 700 large public transport buses. That is only a fraction of the number of large public transport buses in this country. According to the Deloitte report, Bus Éireann carried 50.2 million passengers in 2007, or 95.7 million when school numbers are included. As everybody on the committee knows, a very substantial part of the school transport is contracted out. The majority of schoolchildren in this country are transported by contractors. Bus Éireann grew its passenger numbers by 15% between 2001 and 2007. I sometimes wonder if that is because of good management or despite the management.
We are aware of scenarios, for example, on a Sunday evening where many third level students are returning to their colleges. If one leaves Tralee or Killarney to go to Limerick, one is dropped at the station in Limerick. The bus does not continue out to University of Limerick or the Limerick Institute of Technology. That is a glaring example of an unfriendly corporate decision towards a travelling public. I am not talking about having to get two tickets to go from here to Heuston Station with Bus Éireann. I am talking about a simple situation where one has a loading of perhaps 80% or 90% on a bus, one drops them outside the station in Limerick and they have to find their own way out to the accommodation in UL. That is a nice journey on a wet evening, particularly at this time of year.
In 2007 Bus Éireann received only €36.6 million under the public service obligation, equating to 12% of total revenue. This can be compared to Connexxion in the Netherlands which received a subsidy as a percentage of revenue of 49%, Can Postal-Post Auto in Switzerland which received 51%, and TEC in the Walloon region in Belgium which received 78%, according to the Deloitte report. This is compared with 12% in Ireland and we are talking about cutbacks. The Government has a responsibility here. The Deloitte report has found Bus Éireann to be as efficient as its peers. It goes on to say it will not be possible to make major cost savings on bus networks without reducing services. It also says it will be important to ensure the integrated nature of the network is maintained as far as is practicable. How can an integrated service be maintained with such severe cutbacks? Who is the miracle worker in Bus Éireann who will find the solution? Speaking to drivers and other staff grades, they cannot see it. If this report is to form the basis of what will happen, how can cuts be carried out while maintaining an integrated service?
The report also states that overall wage and engineering costs are in line with peers in the UK. The Chairman was eulogising about Mr. Branson and the trains. There are large regions in the UK with private sector transport buses yet we have costs and efficiencies on a par with it. Surely we should try to maintain that.
The report found the scheduling of buses and drivers to be efficient when the nature of each service was taken into account. It highlights that the scope for significant cost savings in Bus Éireann is limited and warns that the company should be very careful. Again, this relates to the integrated network.
In view of the report's recommendation I find it very difficult to see how Bus Éireann management can justify a proposal to reduce its staff numbers by 322 and fleet by a total of 150. There is a question continuously going through my head; the buses are approximately a maximum of five or six years old, so what will happen to them? Somebody referred to e-voting machines earlier so will there be 150 Bus Éireann buses mothballed in garages and stored until an expected upturn in the economy? I cannot see that as a practical runner, as it would tie up significant capital. It would be a significant waste of resources funded, in a large part, by the State.
There is no doubt in our mind that if the company continues along its proposed path, severe hardship will be placed on communities which have no other access to public transport. The company should be endeavouring to develop services that will be of real benefit to towns, villages and communities which will not otherwise benefit from public transport.
Along those lines, there is opportunity for the company in these times. In recent weeks, the drivers have noticed an increase in numbers on certain services. The drivers went to the trouble of inquiring about the increased numbers. As a result of the economic times we are in, many families have had to get rid of the second car and people have had to begin using public transport.
This is happening throughout the country, so it is a very dangerous time for Bus Éireann to be thinking of pulling services, not only from rural communities but cities around the country. Dublin has its commuter belt but so have Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo and Waterford. It is vital that consideration be given to that, although I am not sure how the mechanism can be found between this committee, the Department of Transport and the company. I am nevertheless convinced that a way should be found to deal with this issue. At a time of growing unemployment in our communities, it is vital that Bus Éireann provides transport to places of employment.
There can sometimes be a disconnect with regard to timetabling. For example, one may see buses arriving at the centre of a town at 8 a.m., where people could use them to get to work if they were in at 7.30 a.m. or 7.45 a.m. because the start time may be 8 a.m. Workers could avail of the services to travel to work and there could be a corresponding scenario at the other end of the day to allow people travel home after work.
I was fascinated by one of the Deputies earlier speaking about Dublin Bus being able to use the Dublin Port tunnel in the morning but not in the evening. That must be an Irish joke. Deputy Michael Kennedy made the comment.
