As stated by Compecon: "This raises the question of why the NTA has allowed a situation to develop where competitively tendered contracts cannot be introduced upon expiry of the existing direct award contracts." In this regard the NTA quotes a lack of staff and so on. I believe this provision is regressive. I support the Minister of State's proposals in regard to the rural transport programme. However, the proposed provision defends the rights to exclusivity of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. Dublin Bus definitely does not service rural areas. If Bus Éireann were servicing the routes, the Minister of State would not have had to introduce this initiative. The Minister of State will recall that we supported his proposals on the integration of school transport in communities during the times when children are at school and after they have been brought home.
This idea of the Minister of State's was endorsed by the House. It is not, however, what I see before me. According to Compecon, the National Transport Authority consultation paper and associated documents provide no economic evidence to support the conclusion that the continued adequacy of a public bus service can only be guaranteed by entering into new direct award contracts with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. The Minister of State and the National Transport Authority are not shopping around. The Compecon report also notes that NTA monitoring of Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann performance gives rise to perverse incentives and states a more independent monitoring regime should be introduced.
The bureaucracy fought in the courts with two sets of lawyers, one for the Department and a second for Bus Éireann, against what developed on the Dublin to Galway bus route. They should come out with their hands up and admit there are now 59 buses running daily on the route whereas only one bus was running on it when they sought to prevent competition. I fear that this anti-competitive mentality is still alive in the section of the Department with responsibility for bus services.
Arguably, the intention of the Legislature was to have services put out to tender unless direct contract awards were the only means by which the continuation of services could be guaranteed. This appears to be assumed rather than proven. Nowhere in the consultation paper or any of the documents is there any economic evidence to support the finding that the continued adequacy of bus services can only be guaranteed by entering into such direct service award contracts. Ernst & Young, which was working for the National Transport Authority, stated competitive tendering would provide better value for money for taxpayers.
I do not know what we can do at this stage given the necessity to publish a note in the Official Journal next month. Failure to give one year's notice when such contracts run out results in one being stuck with them. These contracts are not being subjected to proper assessment, to use the words of those who have examined them from the competition point of view. The consultation period of the NTA is still open as the document was submitted to the authority on 11 October. This means that while a consultation is being held outside the House, we who are inside the House are being asked to endorse direct award contracts and exclusive rights. There is a contradiction here in that the whole system needs to be assessed because it is not working and the Minister of State wants to achieve value for money.
I humbly and respectfully submit that direct award contracts have a case to answer against competitive tendering. I am not sure the National Transport Authority has advised the Minister properly on the reason it has opted out of competitive tendering and is sticking with direct award contracts, especially in light of the concerns expressed by the economists who have examined the issue. They are worried that this is what tends to happen in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Producers are all-powerful and, until the Minister of State's appointment, consumers tended not to get much of a look in. We, in this House, represent consumers. We have a model that is working well, including, for example, the service between Dundalk and Dublin operated by the Matthews company, the service between Waterford and Dublin provided by J.J. Kavanagh and Sons and the new bus service between Dublin and Limerick. How much evidence must we produce to show these services work? We have run up against a Department and permanent government which is committed to direct award contracts. Those companies that have performed successfully as far as customers are concerned have come up against exclusive rights. I do not know what we can do at this stage.
It is wrong to have this measure come before us given the Minister of State's intention to do something else. The success on our roads, particularly since the motorways were built, shows that a significant business could be developed in the area of bus transport. I do not understand the urgency with which this measure was produced. I appreciate the Department does not receive a sufficient number of slots in the Oireachtas and has appended this provision to the Bill for this reason. Why is the measure urgent, especially given that it could cause damage until 2016, when none of us may be here? To shut off competitive tendering on the basis that we must place advertisements in the Official Journal in a matter of weeks would be an important decision.
