I welcome back the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey, and his officials, Mr. John Weafer, Ms Michelle Kavanagh and Mr. Dermot McGeady. The latter is no relation to the footballer, I presume.
SECTION 23.
Public Transport Regulation Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 16, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) Bus Éireann has the exclusive right to ownership and responsibility for planning and operating the provincial and urban bus network outside of the Greater Dublin Area.".
This is one of a series of amendments aimed at improving the guidelines. At our previous sitting we covered many of these. This subsection should be inserted because at the moment the network is effectively run by Bus Éireann. We depend on Bus Éireann to maintain the network on days such as today which are critical for much of the country. We are expecting Bus Éireann to try to keep the country connected because it is the effective owner of the network. That should be recognised in law.
We have had similar debates on matters pertaining to communications and energy — for example, with regard to the electricity network. It would be a good starting point to say that the Bus Éireann network, as it exists, is the national network and that we should recognise this in terms of the guidelines and the management of regulation under the Bill.
I oppose this amendment as it goes against the spirit of the Bill. The whole idea is to open up the networks to companies that want to use them, whether Bus Éireann, Bus Átha Cliath or private operators. There are thousands of private bus operators around the country that are happy at the moment to work with Bus Éireann, as Deputy Broughan acknowledged yesterday. It is important that nobody other than the transport authority has ownership of the networks. The authority must decide who uses them based on the competitive nature of the legislation when it has gone through.
The significant difference we in Fine Gael have with the Minister and, on the other side, with the Labour Party is that we believe the networks should be opened as soon as possible to competitive tendering for bundles of routes. This amendment, if accepted, would deny hundreds of company owners — who between them make thousands of buses available to provide a better network of transport services — the opportunity to participate in this. It would make them subjects, in the sense of vassals, of the State enterprise, which would be completely contrary to good, progressive, competitive policy in a modern, 21st century State.
I agree with the thrust of Deputy O'Dowd's remarks, although not all of them. I am not sure how it is being considered here, but the amendment has no relevance to the licensing of public bus passenger services under Part 2 of the Bill. The initial guidelines and any amendments or replacements that are the subject of consultation with the Minister, the Competition Authority or the public generally will be published and must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That will outline the approach the authority will take.
Exclusive rights have been afforded to Bus Éireann in respect of the continued provision of public bus services currently provided by the company, as outlined by section 52(1)(b) of the Dublin Transport Act. That right is mandated by the need to ensure the continued operation of bus services in the immediate term in the public interest. I explained this point yesterday and I will not repeat it today. One cannot come to 3 December and have no bus services. Bus Éireann will retain the role of planning services it provides within the exclusive rights reference in section 52, subject to the provisions of that section. Given the role vested in the proposed national transport authority under section 48 of the Dublin Transport Act, it would not be appropriate to grant the type of exclusivity to Bus Éireann envisaged by the amendment. Accordingly, I cannot accept the amendment as it runs counter to the thrust of the programme for Government and the commitment to a level playing field in the public and private sectors of the industry.
The concern of the Labour Party is that, on foot of what happened on the Dublin to Galway route, we could end up with a situation where a part of the network ceases to exist. There must be recognition of the network. We have a debate that I brought to the attention of the Minister where staff of Bus Éireann asked me about launching a direct route from Tullow, County Carlow, to Dublin. They did research on this and felt there was business in the north Carlow area and that it would be a profitable route. Some of the staff lived in north Carlow and south Wicklow. They felt it could run in addition to mainline routes to Kilkenny. They were trying to expand an existing network. This could not happen in the electricity market, for which Deputy Dempsey was the Minister, and I tried to invigilate him in the last Dáil. Although it is moving, transport is a network and I would like the Minister to provide more recognition of the network. In current circumstances, Bus Éireann has the network and it can be examined.
If the Deputy reviews some of our previous discussions, the concept of the network is clearly underlying much of what is in this Bill. I have a clear understanding of what Deputy Broughan is trying to do. However, his amendment would negate the thrust of the legislation, namely, to provide a level playing field. Yesterday we spoke about considering licence applications. The impact on the network must be taken into account in this process. It cannot be used as a means of protecting a monopoly or operating a protectionist policy in the private or public sector, although I do not imply this is what Deputy Broughan suggests. All of us are committed to the idea of the network. Bus Éireann happens to have an excellent network at the moment and it is not limited to direct routes. We would like to see this maintained and that is why we pay the public service obligation subvention. That approach will continue but it must be open to everybody.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 42 not moved.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 16, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(e) maintain the highest standard of working conditions with fair and reasonable salaries for all transport workers including those established by collective agreement obligations,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 16, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(f) have due regard for the development of a fully integrated national bus transport network including the provision of local rural transport services,”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 45:
In page 16, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(g) shall include requirements for public consultation,”.
This is the topic we discussed earlier. These guidelines refer to the Minister's involvement in ensuring the provisions of the Bill are properly administered. The transport industry has made a request for a direct reference to public consultation on routes. We had this discussion yesterday. If someone suggests there should be a route from Athenry, everyone in east Galway could have an involvement in whether we decide to proceed with the route.
We dealt with this matter yesterday. The difference between this application and others is the major issue of commercial confidentiality. The national transport authority will be obliged to provide existing operators on a proposed route with prior notice of the consideration of the application. That will continue and there will be consultation, although not at the level envisaged by Deputy Broughan. It would not be practical.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 46 not moved.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 16, subsection (2), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"(i) shall have due regard to safeguard against anti-competitive practices of salami-slicing and gaming of routes which has occurred in deregulated bus market.”.
I ask the Minister to examine this in order to form a response. His officials have read the UK report, which I found striking. Transport workers asked me to read the report, which is an analysis over a long period of how a deregulated market worked. I refer to salami slicing and gaming of routes. With so little assistance to Opposition Deputies to monitor Departments, which is one of the issues the Minister spoke to another committee about recently, what we are doing at present is the most important business of all. Both Opposition Deputies have one other person we can rely on and these are very difficult issues.
One issue that arose was exclusion. This is what happens when, for example, the Chairman has a bus company and wants to ruin my service so he puts a bus on five minutes before my bus and five minutes afterwards. In this way, I cannot get into the game. The UK report refers to these as exclusionary practices. We should outlaw these in the Bill.
Salami slicing and gaming are other matters referred to in the report. This occurs when one gets a PSO route and, when it suits, pulls out of a lower-income area. This leaves them with no bus service and services are only provided on a PSO basis. The Minister might refer to such anti-competitive activities by name. I am against anti-competitive practices of all types, starting with exclusivity where one tries to drive another off the road and ranging to some people who receive licences and contracts subsequently misbehaving in such a way that they retain the licences forever and will not let anyone else compete against them.
It is a very important principle. I do not know if it should be in another section. We thought the best place for it was in the guidelines. We do not want such practices to continue. I understand a report of the Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom referred to four large companies, one of which, GoBus, a large Asian company which made an appearance at the Joint Committee on Transport last Wednesday, has been referred to the competition authority in the United Kingdom. I presume some action will be taken against it. Perhaps we could learn from the English experience and not go through the same disastrous, anti-competitive, monopolistic practices.
All kinds of carry-on is happening. I was in Liverpool in the spring. I was struck by the fact that every bus one took was run by Arriva. It was the only company I saw operating in greater Liverpool, which is a city the same size as Dublin. I do not know how deregulated competition operates there. The large companies which came before the committee, Stagecoach, GoBus, Arriva and First, have split the three countries between them, with the exception of London and do not compete. They look after their territory and do not go into others' territory.
We should refer in the Bill to anti-competitive practices and what can be done about them. It will be up to the regulator to stamp such practices out. However, will a situation arise in the future whereby the Competition Authority will be called in — there is a reference to it in the Bill — because the regulator has not been doing his or her job? To anticipate difficulties which we have had, in particular those relating to the organisation of PSO routes, we could include such a reference in this part of the Bill.
The difficulty is that the Deputy is operating on the basis of a deregulated market and this Bill does not propose such a market. We are discussing regulated competition. The United Kingdom does not have licences for commercial services. A company states to the local authority that it wishes to run a service. That is not the situation we propose to operate here. We will have a licensing system——
The local authority, such as Liverpool City Council, is the regulator but it appears there is not much competition.
I have no doubt about that, but it is not the scenario to which we wish to move or which we are currently in. I accept what the Deputy said and that the UK Office of Fair Trading report to which he referred outlined the difficulties of the deregulated market and the kinds of difficulties which have arisen. They are fairly clear and all of the Deputy's comments on the issue are correct. That is why we are not going down that route.
On amendment No. 47, I will check if anything can be done on Report Stage. I accept the point the Deputy made, but I am trying to make the guidelines as generic in nature as they possibly can be so they can have the widest possible remit, whether that is anti-competitive practices, exclusivity, salami practices, gaming or whatever. All such issues will be covered.
The committee will have heard me speak on various legislation. I am always worried about mentioning things in legislation because one then finds someone goes to the High Court to argue that if the Minister meant what he or she said, he or she would have included it in the Bill because he or she put in other provisions. The guidelines are meant to be as generic as possible. To facilitate the Deputy, I will try to see whether we can include, apart from the references to the necessity for competition, consumers and everything else, wording which will not narrow the issue too much but which conveys what the Deputy proposes.
The other day I was opposed to allowing those who broke the law to appear before our committee. It was illuminating to meet the company because it was clear it was prepared to do almost anything and allow the courts to deal with the situation. The gentleman who appeared before the committee recently was prepared to run everyone else, including the other two companies, off the road. There must be some anticipation of such a situation. It is obvious it is something which it has done in other jurisdictions and not just the United Kingdom. It is a problem. I am speaking on the other side of the coin in terms of competition. I like competition, but where there is competition, let it be fair. That is the point. Perhaps the Minister would examine the issue again.
I will. One of the things which this Bill establishes — I mentioned this in the House during Question Time last week in response to a question asked by the Deputy — is that one of the conditions for getting a licence will that the company concerned complies with national and international transport law. The reason we are discussing this Bill is because people can get away with the behaviour to which the Deputy referred as a result of the 1932 Act. There will be a different ball game when this Bill is passed.
We have reported a number of cases to the Garda. I do not know if it has pursued them vigorously. There may be an attitude that it is not worth wasting the time of courts and gardaí to bring a case where a person can be fined a maximum of €63 and €6 a day thereafter. I do not blame people for having that attitude because we did not take the matter seriously. The introduction of this Bill means we are taking the issue seriously. I will do what the Deputy asked and see if we can include a provision to address the issue in the Bill.
I am informed that Arriva, the company in Liverpool to which the Deputy referred, tendered for and was successful in getting the contract for the PSO service in Liverpool and is the PSO operator in Liverpool.
The last comment that the Minister made is very important. Where people are operating without a licence, once this Bill is passed they must be of good repute when they are being considered for competitive tendering in the future. If they have a conviction in court, even for a fine of €6 or €63, it will be an argument against such people getting a licence. While we oppose this Bill, it is important to note that aspects of it will be helpful in bringing about change.
I have brought a particular case to the attention of the Department but have not contacted the Garda, as that is the job of the Department. I understand the Department has written to the Garda and made its view known to the gardaí responsible, which is right and proper.
On the differences between the Labour Party and Fine Gael positions on this Bill, one cannot have a State monopoly as we currently have where, as Deputy Broughan will acknowledge, every bus which stops at a bus stop in Dublin city belongs to Dublin Bus, apart from some Airlink services which may not use the same bus stops. Fine Gael is not in favour of deregulation which is wrong and would bring about the position to which the Deputy referred. We are in favour of competitive tendering, where everybody competes for the route and they can compete for bundles of routes. In other words they can compete for a PSO or what is deemed to be an income-bearing route. However, the bottom line is that the market would be opened up so that everybody has choice. While I will not repeat the arguments, the Bill's weakness is the ministerial attachment for longer than needs be to the direct award aspect. It is important that the penalty on conviction for people operating routes without a licence should mean they will not get a licence in the future or that the conviction can be used in court as a reason to argue that they are not entitled to such a licence. That would protect people who have genuine licences and provide an excellent service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 16, subsection (4), between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"(b) shall submit a draft of the proposals to the Oireachtas Transport Committee for its opinion on the effects of the guidelines on the public transport market, and request that any such opinion be given in writing to the Authority within one month of the request,”.
This is a standard amendment we would like to include. It proposes that the guidelines should be submitted to the Oireachtas committee. The committee should be one of the parties to give an opinion on the guidelines.
I have considered the matter. If the Deputy is prepared to withdraw his amendment, I will introduce a suitable one on Report Stage. The Bill provides for widespread consultation and I presume the committee would be one of the bodies it would consult. It is important to give the signal that the committee should be specifically asked for its views on the guidelines. That should be incorporated into the Bill. If we are not prepared to acknowledge the importance of the work we are doing in committees, it will not be done outside. I will introduce a suitable amendment to meet this requirement on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister. It is important. Sometimes we are so overwhelmed by information, particularly that coming from Europe, that it is hard to assess. We do not have the resources — we would require permanent research staff and so on. It is such a significant area that I welcome the Minister's intention and I thank him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 16, subsection (4), lines 27 to 32, to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:
"(b) shall submit a draft of the proposals to the Competition Authority for its opinion on the effects of the guidelines on the public transport market, and request that any such opinion be given in writing to the Authority within one month of the request,”.
This is the penultimate in a series of amendments. I tabled this amendment having consulted people in the industry. There was a feeling that the wording of section 23(4)(b) as it stands is very much pro-competition and not sufficiently in favour of integration of services. Having an integrated network should be at least as important as considerations on the competitive side. The reason for section 23(4)(b) is the fear is that the new NTA might choose rather to increase integration at the cost of a reduction in competition. The role of the Competition Authority should be to provide general advice on the function of the market and not just to call for increased competition. It is a specialist particular kind of market. Section 23(4)(b) as it stands might give the Competition Authority too much influence over the function and role of the network. Having an integrated network is at least as important as having a competitive one.
Representatives of the Competition Authority appeared before this committee on another matter. I brought to their attention that when the Chairman was the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources the Competition Authority missed out on a major change in the oil market. It missed a deadline for making a submission when there was the change involving Topaz and so forth. I often wonder about the Competition Authority. The role of integration in transport is so important. I am concerned that section 23(4)(b) as it stands would mean that competition would be the be all and end all rather than considering the entire market. It is a difficult concept, but the Minister has an idea of what I am proposing.
I know what the Deputy is trying to do. The section as it stands is as good as we can do. Even listening to what the Deputy has said and looking at his amendment, I do not believe he has managed to capture what he wanted to capture. I accept it is a difficult concept. Section 23(4)(b) provides for formal consultation with the Competition Authority, specifically with regard to competition. The Deputy’s amendment would mean that consultation with the Competition Authority would focus only on the effects the guidelines would have on the public transport market. As it is worded, I am not sure that they would be qualified to do that, or that they would do it. While the existing provision might not be perfect in trying to achieve what we want, it is modelled on a provision in the Pharmacy Act 2007 and is focused specifically on the remit of the Competition Authority, which relates to competition issues per se. The public transport market encompasses a far broader range of issues than competition. It is open to any person or body to comment on the issue in the context of the overall public consultation process provided for in section 23(4)(b). I do not want to widen the remit of this element of it and give the Competition Authority the right to look at it in a broader market because I do not believe it would be qualified to do it.
Ultimately it is a transport matter, is it not?
It is. The Competition Authority is only one input. We will have input from the Oireachtas committee, which would be relatively political, if one likes, and would also be more consumer orientated. We will obviously have some submissions from operators, public and private. I would not like to elevate the Competition Authority into being the be all and end all, which ultimately might be to everybody's detriment.
I shall withdraw my amendment on foot of that and I shall review my amendment again if we are to come back to it.
I wish the Deputy luck with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 16, subsection (4), between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"(c) shall submit a draft of the proposals to all relevant commuter and stakeholder groups, Regional Authorities, the Health and Safety Authority and the National Employment Rights Agency for its opinion on the effects of the guidelines on the public transport market and public transport workers, and request that any such opinion be given in writing to the Authority within one month of the request,”.
This amendment is somewhat related. A number of people who read the Bill felt we might be giving too much prominence to the Competition Authority and believed we should add in the other bodies. My reference to "stakeholder groups" relates to bus users and other groups who would contact Deputy O'Dowd and me from time to time. We felt it was also important to include the National Employment Rights Agency, NERA, now that it has been established. The intent is to broaden it out regarding input. The Minister says he will accept this from the committee. There are other important considerations such as health and safety because it is safety-critical work.
With regard to NERA, I return to my other amendments concerning the entitlements of transport workers to ensure there is a level playing pitch in workers' rights, conditions and salaries and so on. Regional authorities should be included also because, for fiscal reasons, the Government has not proceeded with this. There was a famous plan when I was on the regional authority. We were to merge the Dublin regional authority, of which I was a member, with the mid-east, Meath-Kildare, to make a super mid-Leinster authority. The original idea was that the new head of the transport authority would be the director for that region and transport would have been a key function. The Minister had similar ideas at that time. That was the plan. Now, because of fiscal constraints, we have gone away from it but it was a good idea to revive the concept of the central north Leinster region as an integrated economic social entity.
That was what we proposed in the Dublin Transport Authority Bill. The Minister should broaden it out and ensure these other bodies would have an input.
I do not disagree with the Deputy but this goes back to the point I made earlier. When one starts naming one entity or another, one gets into trouble. The Competition Authority is included for a specific purpose because it is supposed to be the expert on competition matters per se. The Bill deals with competition, regulated markets, and so on. Paragraph (c) covers all the groups the Deputy mentioned. Concerning anybody else who wants to be included, it states the authority has to publish, in a manner it considers appropriate, a draft of the proposals and this will give persons at least one month. Anybody can make his or her views known. Paragraph (d) states that all who give views under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) must be taken into consideration and the guidelines must be published.
I do not disagree with the spirit of the Deputy's amendment but paragraph (c) covers it adequately. It gives everybody the opportunity to make their views known.
It is very interesting that the Health and Safety Authority, rightly, moved to consider the area of crashes and collisions because roads are workplaces. Workers come and go and are at work. Other organisations have bitterly fought the coming in of the HSA but this is a significant area. I welcome that move because it is good for everybody to make that fundamental recognition that people who, because of their work, have to drive more than others deserve extra protection.
The Minister might look at this issue again and at NERA. It concerns people who are prepared to employ people on a minimum wage. We may well have proposals coming in where such drivers might be on minimum wage, or near it, or have terrible shifts. There is no question this might happen. That is the point. In theory competition can be great but the implication is that there can be terrible consequences if a level playing field is not ensured. I have been making the same point all along. I shall withdraw the amendment but would like the Minister to consider the issue again.
I will consider it in the context of road transport operating licensing, RTOL, as I said to the Deputy yesterday. That licensing is more appropriate than this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
The section is opposed by Deputy O' Dowd.
The Chairman may note my party opposed it. I will not go through the rest of the rigmarole yet.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 24.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 2, to delete "€5,000" and substitute "10 per cent of the operators' annual turnover".
This concerns summary conviction. However, one might be dealing with the gentleman and lady who were delegates to the committee recently. Then one would talk about a company with 44,000 vehicles in China and many other countries and in the UK, which has almost limitless resources to take grip on the market, as I believe it has done in Scotland or Wales.
There should be appropriate penalties. Is there an opportunity, at summary or other level, to include, for example, taking 10% of the operator's turnover? I heard a person speak recently about another competitive market who said that if some body or bodies misbehaved he would go after them and hit them. Ten per cent of turnover might be a ferocious penalty. When one is dealing with people who have massive resources, if such a person commits an offence under the Part, on summary conviction he would be liable to a fine not exceeding €5,000. This is derisory and meaningless. It is a small business expense.
I do not know if this is the appropriate area. The "body corporate" is mentioned — "the neglect to any person being a director, manager" and so on. If one goes through the stages of the court, I do not know whether at that stage one becomes liable, but should we not include something very powerful in this regard to send a message to people, for example, those who were with the committee recently, that if they are not prepared, even under this regime, to respect our country, our rules and our economy, there will be a penalty. This would obviously apply to other people too, for example, a State company if it misbehaved. A fine of €5,000 is totally derisory. We need a significant deterrent. It is an administrative penalty, to start with, going back to our big discussion on the fishing Bill. Others might propose a very large penalty, possibly prison, if a person persists in disobeying the laws of the land. I ask the Minister to come up with an appropriate penalty for the kind of companies with which we may be dealing.
I do not disagree with having a firmer or stronger penalty but it must be proportionate to the offence. Ten percent of one person's turnover is not the same as 10% of another company's turnover. Each company would pay an entirely different sum for the same offence.
It states up to 10%, not exceeding it.
I understand that but the point is how this would be judged. How long would it take? How long is a piece of string? How big is a company's operation? How would it be presented to the court? How would a court determine exactly the 10% of turnover? Multinational companies would not provide that information whereas an Irish company might suffer a disproportionate fine compared to a multinational. One could not get 10% of the latter's total operation, but only 10% of the turnover within the state. I do not have a problem with fines being increased but to go after turnover would not be practical.
I know what the Deputy is saying and in some senses I have much sympathy with him. However, the provisions in the Bill deal with the maximum penalty currently permitted by the Attorney General for convictions in the District Court. In addition, from a legal point of view it is inappropriate that the fine level arising from a Bill would not be stated specifically and clearly in the primary legislation. If the Deputy checks this he will find it confirmed. The fine may be up to €5,000, or €10,000, or whatever, but it cannot be 10% of turnover.
In the current discussion about banking this is exactly what everybody is talking about, along with what happened in the UK and France. We may not have reached that type of decision yet. In the case of banking we are talking about banks that are bust. The point is about principle and what happens if one misbehaves. In the United States there are ferocious laws, not just for banking but in other areas. I do not know what might happen beyond the District Court but where else might this person be prosecuted?
It is not the only way in which such people can suffer. We will have power under the legislation to revoke licences and if a person receives a summary conviction at maximum, or at any level, it will be possible for us to say to that person that he or she has convictions and therefore we will not process any further licences. We will also have power under the Bill to say to someone with a conviction for any level of infringement that we will not process any more licences for that person and, in effect, not let him or her operate.
Did the Minister say the fine would be €5,000 a day?
I will check it but I do not think we can do that because the maximum fine in the District Court is——
How come we had €6.35 a day or £6 a day?
Apparently, we cannot do it anymore. I will check that out for the Deputy.
We should consider penalties because one does not know what kind of grey area we are in with existing licences. I hope the Bill will be passed next week. How long will it be before the national transport authority is up and running and issuing licences? The Minister's colleagues in the Department will not have to worry about that issue any more. Will it be 1 January?
No, it will not be done that quickly. We will establish the board first. We have the chief executive and the chairman in place.
Are they based in the Dublin Transportation Office, DTO?
Yes.
Are they with John Henry?
Yes.
Does it start from there?
Yes. We are engaged in the budgetary process to finalise the numbers of people who will transfer. Industrial relations issues arise in that regard. The first thing that has to be done is that guidelines have to be——
Are they transferring from the Department into the authority?
Staff will be transferring from the DTO and the Commission for Taxi Regulation will transfer over a period. People will transfer from the bus licensing section in the Department and there will be some extra people as well.
Will it be a year or more before people are working in the national transport authority?
I do not want it to take that long, but until we have the guidelines in place I cannot give a definitive timescale. I would like it to happen more quickly than a year.
There is a concern that appropriate sanctions would be in place. Perhaps the Minister will examine the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I note that the section is opposed by Deputy O'Dowd but he is not present.
Section 24 agreed to.
Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, are opposed by Deputy O'Dowd but he is not present.
Sections 25 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendment No. 52 is ruled out of order because it places a charge on Revenue.
The amendment relates to a matter after the Cathaoirleach's heart. To be fair, he raised umpteen times the critical nature of park and ride infrastructure to rail and bus services. Perhaps there should be a specific reference to that matter in the legislation. Will the Minister indicate whether that is something to which we should refer? We have had much discussion about real time information and park and ride. We discussed Tallaght and Lucan as well. Perhaps the Minister could examine those issues.
Amendment No. 52 not moved
Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 19, line 38, before "regulated" to insert "sustainable and".
We are going back to some of the key functions of the Dublin Transport Authority Act. I wish to add the word "sustainable". I hope that when the economy eventually gets going again, if that ever happens, we will make sustainable growth the hallmark of our approach in deciding on the best way forward for the country. I seek the same thing in terms of competition. I suggest that competition should be sustainable and regulated.
In amendment No. 54, I propose to add after the word "interest" that there would be sustainable and regulated competition in the provision of licensed public bus passenger services in the public interest "in the categories where this is one deemed appropriate as identified in section (8) of the Public Transport Regulation Act 2009 and associated guidelines”. I wish to confirm that the licence would only be granted once it is appropriate according to all the guidelines, as outlined in the previous section. We are in the difficult process of trying to integrate the Dublin Transport Authority into the legislation but we should ensure there is adherence to the guidelines. It is a simple point.
The amendments propose a number of revisions to the general objectives of the authority. On amendment No. 53, the issue of sustainability to which the Deputy referred is already addressed in significant detail in the new section 10(1)(a) to be inserted which refers to a general objective of “the development of an integrated transport system which contributes to environmental sustainability and social cohesion and promotes economic progress”. That covers fairly accurately what the Deputy is seeking. We do not need to amend the provision further.
On amendment No. 54, which also relates to the objective in the new section 10(1)(e), it is also considered to be inappropriate because it is too limiting. The objective of the authority must be set at a high level and establish a framework on which it will build. In that context the section should not limit the capacity of applying the objective of regulated competition in the public interest to certain categories of licence only. Identifying categories and applying certain provisions of section 10 to them should be more appropriately done against the background of the general overarching objectives. I ask Deputy Broughan to withdraw his amendments.
I accept the point made on amendment No. 53 about the new section 10(1)(a) but in general the word “sustainable” should be included somewhere in the provisions. I will withdraw the amendment and consider what the Minister said about amendment No. 54.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 54 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 are out of order as they involve a charge on Revenue.
Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.
I move amendment No. 57:
In page 20, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(g) In section 14 insert new subsection after subsection (1):
"(2) (a) 5 members shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister, and
(b) 4 shall be appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Minister, the Minister having regard to the advice of the Joint Oireachtas Committee.”,”.
On amendments Nos. 57 and 58, I indicated last year that I had strong views on board membership. To be helpful, Members will be aware that I invited applications for anyone interested in serving on the board of the Dublin Transport Authority, DTA. We received a reasonably good response. In light of the fact that we are moving from the DTA to the national transport authority, those applicants will still be considered, but in the context of consideration of the appointments to the board, given the changing objectives and functions of the authority arising from the provisions of the Bill, there is some merit in increasing the number of ordinary members. That might be helpful to the Deputy.
I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage to provide for an increase in the number of ordinary members. That might be helpful to the Deputy. We can discuss the Deputy's amendment at that stage if he wants.
People from Galway contacted me about the opening of the motorway. I am sure they also contacted the Minister about opening it as soon as possible.
It is to be opened.
I am delighted to hear that.
The work could not be done this morning and those concerned were working on that. They are going to open it in so far as that is possible. There are contractual difficulties. An effort will be made to facilitate people.
I welcome the Minister's comment. It is essential that it be done because people cannot get from Ballinasloe to Galway safely with the flooding.
It is amazing.
On the amendment, it is important that the joint committee have a role in the making of appointments. I do not know whether the Minister is going to consider this. Could the committee have a role in ascertaining the capacity of nominees? I do not understand why the joint committee could not make nominations itself.
Any Minister appointing members to a board wants to appoint people in whom he has confidence. I advertised and had 68 applicants for the DTA positions. There is legislation due under the renewed programme for Government. All future appointments to bodies such as the one in question will involve the Oireachtas committee.
If this committee wants to consider the matter and make suggestions to me over the coming months, it can do so and I will put the suggestions into the melting pot. However, if we opted for 11 members rather than nine, I would want to appoint them pretty quickly. Once the legislation is passed, I would be prepared to wait a couple of months in respect of a couple of vacancies to see what comes forward from the committee. To be fair to and honest with the committee, I am not saying I will accept a nominee thereof but——
I accept that totally. What is proposed is part of democratic consultation, which I welcome. I withdraw my amendment.
We can discuss this on Report Stage because I will be tabling an amendment on it.
My policy is to have an election for the board.
An election.
Why not? It works in other jurisdictions.
That would be acceptable as long as the Deputy did not call me before committees and the House asking me to answer questions on problems with the DTA. That is because I would have no say in nominations to the board.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 20, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(h) in section 14 insert new paragraph after paragraph (2)(d):
"(e) the proposed Chairperson and Ordinary Members shall go before an oral hearing at the Joint Oireachtas Committee for Transport to allow that committee to direct questions to the proposed Members as to their competence for that office having regard to their experience and/or qualifications.”.”.
It is proposed that the chairperson and ordinary members should appear before this committee. Is this stated in the Minister's amendment also?
The board will be answerable to this committee in respect of the actions of the DTA.
It will be accountable like any other body. My point is that the nominees should appear before the committee to be asked questions, rather than interrogated, as to their competence before being appointed to the board.
I am not going down the American route.
Are four members of the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland not being selected by the committee?
Yes.
Is the Minister saying that will not happen here?
No, I am saying I am giving the committee an opportunity to put forward names of interested parties. I will give these names the same consideration as I give to those who apply directly or who are made known to me from other sources.
I appreciate that.
I will be tabling an amendment on Report Stage.
Is amendment No. 58 withdrawn?
I will not withdraw it but press it.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 20, subsection (1), between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(i) In section 48—
(i) subsection 1(a) following “the provision of” insert “national”,
(ii) subsection 1(b) delete “, subject to section 56,”,
(iii) subsection 2, delete subsection (a),
(iv) subsection 2(b), delete “in accordance with section 52 or,”,
(v) subsection 6(a), delete “and section 52,”,
(vi) by inserting after subsection (11) the following:
"(12) Where the Authority proposes to enter into a public transport services contract it shall—
(a) advise any local authority in whose functional area the transport service will operate of the proposal to enter into such a contract, and
(b) invite any such local authority to submit written views in relation to the proposed contract, which it will consider prior to entering into the contract.”,”.
I ask the Minister for his response to this amendment.
The amendment seeks to introduce a number of changes to section 48 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008. This empowers the authority to procure public passenger transport services by way of public transport services contracts which may be pursued either by direct award or following a competitive tendering procedure, as stipulated in the section.
I will deal with each of the amendment's proposals separately. The proposed addition of "national" to section 48(1)(a) is not necessary. The Bill already provides that the functional area of the authority in regard to the exercise of its functions under Part 3, Chapter 2, of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, which includes section 48, is the State. The Deputy’s point is covered in that there is a national remit.
The second element of the amendment proposes the deletion of the reference to section 56 from section 48(1)(b). Section 56 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act provides that where a transport operator fails to provide public transport services that are subject to a contract or fails to comply with the terms or conditions of contractual commitments, the authority may directly provide the services in question. I do not accept the proposed amendment as I consider it important to retain this facility to allow the authority to step in where there is a failure in the provision of transport services for the public. This is part of the contract we are now signing with the companies.
It should be noted that the concept of allowing authorities to take such emergency measures is provided for in PSO Regulation No. 1370/2007 where there is a disruption of services that are subject to a PSO contract. That covers the Deputy's point.
The third element of the amendment proposes the deletion of section 48(2)(a). This would mean rail passenger services provided by Iarnród Éireann could not be secured by means of a direct award contract. I am not sure whether that is the Deputy’s intention. It would result in there being no legislative provision to allow for the immediate continuation of the current subvented rail passenger services provided by Iarnród Éireann when the new PSO regulation came into effect. This is related to what we were saying about the importance of 3 December because there would not be a PSO contract in place. In the absence of the contractual structure, there would be a doubt as to the capacity of the State to maintain the subvention of existing rail services. We could not agree to that. The Deputy’s intention was to ensure people could compete but this is provided for in the Bill.
The consequences of the amendment to section 48(2)(b) are similar to those already mentioned regarding the existing rail services provided by Iarnród Éireann. In this instance the deletion of the reference to section 52 would mean the existing subvented bus services provided by both Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann would not be subject to direct award contracts and provision would only be made for the procurement of public bus passenger services following a competitive tendering procedure. Article 7.2 of EU Regulation No. 1370 provides for the publication of information regarding proposed tenders and direct award contracts and services in areas potentially covered by the award in the Official Journal of the European Union at least one year in advance of an invitation to a tender or a direct award. If we went that particular route, it could be at least 12 months without services.
The proposed amendment to section 48(6)(a) that would remove the reference to section 52 is of course linked to the proposal to repeal that section which I oppose.
The current section recognises the fact that it is proposed that the initial direct award contracts with Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann will be of a shorter duration of five years for bus services and ten years for rail as opposed to the possible maximum periods outlined in this section. That reference should be retained.
The sixth element of this amendment proposes the insertion of a new subsection (12) into section 48 to provide for a consultation process with local authorities for proposed public transport services contracts. The amendment at section 29(1)(f) addresses the matter of public transport services contracts other than the initial direct award contracts with the three CIE companies under section 52(3) of the Dublin Transport Authority Act.
The consultation requirement cannot be applied in respect of those contracts as it is proposed the initial direct award contracts with Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann and Iarnród Éireann will be made by the authority as soon as the Bill is enacted, before 3 December 2009 and the relevant provisions, both in the current Bill and in the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008, are commenced. The existing wording of subsection (12) as provided in section 29(1)(f) confirms this situation by excluding the initial contracts with the CIE companies from the requirements of the subsection.
As the deadline for signing the contracts is 2 December 2009 at the latest, there would not be time to consult with local authorities. However, the provisions will apply in full in respect of all future contracts.
The fundamental difference between Fine Gael and the Government on this legislation is that we see it as copper-fastening various existing monopolies. Notwithstanding the fact that everyone accepts services must continue after 3 December, legislation has forced this situation to come about in which there is no period for consultation. When the Dublin transport authority legislation was first proposed, Fine Gael said it should have been expanded to establish a national transport authority giving sufficient time to deal with the issue of bus competition. We see this legislation as a copper-fastening of the CIE companies' current relationships for a significant period. It does not allow for free and fair choice of competition for bundles of routes in a short period. Does the Minister believe these direct award contracts can be competed for in a shorter period than the legislation allows?
Yes.
How quickly does he see that happening?
That will depend on whether a challenge is made to some of these contracts. Once the authority is established, guidelines will be put in place. Any time after that, a challenge can be made. It does not create a monopoly or copper-fasten exclusive rights for five to ten years. They can be challenged.
If the authority awarded a route to me against a State provider, then theoretically the State provider could use these sections in argument in court claiming, say, it had bought such amount of rolling stock and there was a special status for up to ten years. It might be better to limit the time specified in the legislation.
There is a fundamental flaw based on one misconception in the Deputy's argument. Contracts will be signed over the next ten days with Bus Éireann, Dublin Bus and Iarnród Éireann so as to maintain existing services. If this were not done before 3 December, notice would have to be given in Official Journal of the European Union at least one year in advance of an invitation to a tender or a direct award.
If I thought I could have got the two Bills through the House as one and quickly, we would have had more time. I accept it is not the Deputy's fault. It was a call we made.
The national transport authority has not come into being yet.
No, it has not, partly because we wanted to move to the current situation. Once this legislation is passed and the Dublin transport authority is established, the contracts must be signed to ensure current bus services are still available. It can be up to five years for the bus contracts, ten for trains.
If, after the national transport authority is established, another transport company challenges the route award claiming it can provide a cheaper or better service, it would be up to the authority to determine if the company could and act accordingly. The contract would have to cease then.
How can the Minister be sure this will be the case?
It is a legal issue and we have taken the best legal advice that we can, as indeed have the companies involved. We have tried to ensure the contracts are as flexible as possible. Even if the national transport authority were never established, the legislation would give the Department a range of powers to terminate the project. The legislation also gives the Dublin transport authority the power to step in, consider licence applications and public service obligations.
What if the provision for buses was changed to two years? Would it not make the companies involved more competitive? Such a move would buck these companies up and make them aware they cannot go on forever with past practices.
The maximum period for the bus contract is five years. It can be challenged at any time, within a year or six months, depending on how fast the national transport authority is up and operational.
I understand what the Minister is saying, but part of our problem with the Bill is that it was introduced very recently. In theory, it could have gone through the Dáil in one day. We are pushing it through at the last minute. The Minister is telling us that if this does not happen, the situation will be catastrophic. I am arguing that the State is being forced into a position where it has to renew these contracts for five years without competitive tendering. That is where I disagree with the Minister.
We will not settle this with 20 minutes left.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60:
In page 20, subsection (1), between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:
"(g) in sections 48, 52 and 54, by substituting “public bus services” for“public bus passenger services”,”.
This amendment corrects a mistake made in drafting. During consultation on the Bill it came to our attention that the term "public bus passenger services" was used in sections 48, 52 and 54 of the Dublin Transport Authority Act 2008 to describe the bus services provided by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann or future subvented bus services that would be subject to a competitive tendering procedure. The term that should have been used is "public bus service", the term used in section 2 of that Act. The amendment regularises that position.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 20, subsection (1), lines 28 to 31, to delete paragraph (g) and substitute the following:
"(g) repeal section 52,”.
I want the Minister to comment on this amendment.
It is similar to previous amendments we discussed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 62 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 21, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) Regulation of bus services within the Greater Dublin Area will be provided for by a separate division within the National Transport Authority which shall have all necessary powers accorded to the Dublin Transport Authority under the 2008 Act.".
This goes back to my central criticism of the Bill. We have been hearing the mantra that we should do away with all quangos. However, many agencies have a genuine remit. I did not consider it advisable to include aviation within the remit of this regulator because it is fundamentally different. Merging the functions of the two aviation regulators would be one thing, but I am not sure about merging them with those of this regulator. The ideal would be to have a regulator for the Dublin or mid-Leinster region and a separate regulator for the rest of the country, as it is a different role in a massive urban territory. We should be looking at this issue in the context of local government reform. We should have big regions and give them more power. As the National Transport Authority develops, there should be a shadow Dublin authority within it. This would be up to Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Murphy to organise. If we were to have one strong mid-Leinster regional authority, transport should be part of its remit.
Through the success of the Munster rugby team, we have seen the concept behind the province make a great comeback. Since there are over 1 million people living in Munster, can they not run most of their own affairs? I ask the same question about Connacht. In the long term County Donegal and others in the north east should form part of an Ulster regional authority. The Minister was on the right track with the Dublin Transport Authority, but most of Connacht should be governed from Galway. Following the tragedy on the N17 last week, we have to wonder if that road might have been improved years ago if responsibility for it lay in Galway. I understand the economic resource argument and so on, but we should at least have a division to look after the bus networks.
I do not disagree with the Deputy's view. Logically, that is the way it will transpire. The only difficulty I have is that we should not prescribe it in law; therefore, we should leave it to the National Transport Authority to decide the matter. There is logic to it, particularly in the greater Dublin area. We set up the Dublin Transport Authority owing to the density of the population, the infrastructure involved and so on. It is better to leave the matter to the good sense of the people we appoint.
I am strongly in favour of having a mayor for the greater Dublin area, which historically was known as Meath. If there was a directly elected mayor — I presume this will happen in 2011, as provided for in the programme for Government — his or her key function would be to manage the Dublin Transport Authority, similar to what occurs in London. What will we do now?
I have initiated discussions at official level between the Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. It is up to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to bring forward the necessary legislation on the position of mayor and his or her functions. There is a clear commitment from the Government that the mayor will have a role in dealing with transport issues in the greater Dublin area. It is a matter of how we do this in the legislation specific to the position of a directly elected mayor. The Deputy's point is similar to the one I made recently about the need for a strong tier of regional government in this country. At our level, we should be involved with policy matters and legislation and trying to ensure people are held to account, be they in government, State or semi-State bodies. The delivery of services should be dealt with on two tiers.
I do not totally agree with the Minister.
We agreed that we would finish at 4 p.m. Members have other commitments.
We only have five amendments left to deal with. This does not mean that if the Minister, Deputy Kennedy, the Chairman or I walk through a shopping centre tomorrow remote from our territory, we will not hear of five or six cases. That is the way it goes. It goes with the territory.
It is an important part of the function. It is a matter of getting the balance right. We will have that discussion at another time.
Besides the transport issues, that is the big criticism we have heard.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 64 not moved.
Section 30 agreed to.
Deputy Michael Kennedy took the Chair.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 21, before section 31, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
"31.—That the Minister for Transport is fully and directly accountable to Dáil Éireann through standard Dáil procedures including oral and written questions and all forms of debate for all policy, strategic activities and financial accounts of the National Transport Authority.".
This is an old chestnut. The last time I put down questions, ten of them were ruled out of order. I do not know whether this is coming from the Department but I believe it is. It is a way out of not having to deal with the messy interface between policy and administration. In Britain, not just in the London administration but also in Scotland and Wales, answers are given on policy matters. Nobody wants to hold the Minister to account for the state of a particular road but we expect he would answer for the NRA. Nobody will hold him to account for a desperate collision, but we expect answers on the RSA, and so on. Through this amendment, we seek to break with the past.
My understanding is that the famous sub-committee of the sub-committee of the commission headed by the Ceann Comhairle is coming forward with a formula which might address this, so that, within reason, we could discuss these issues, for example, at the commencement debate in the mornings under the proposed new system. Hopefully, Ministers will come to the House to talk but they will not be held accountable, in the same way we do not hold the Taoiseach accountable, for all the minutiae of administration.
We try, though.
We do. To be fair, we do not expect him to run every aspect. Senior Deputies who were in the House in the 1970s and 1980s — the father of the House is the Fine Gael leader — seem to suggest there was an era when Ministers answered for pretty much everything and took it upon themselves to do so. There must be a via media whereby the Minister could at least talk about policy. He said he wants us to get to the policy and legislation and to do the kind of work we are doing here today, which, by the way, should get better coverage because these are vital issues. There should be a situation where this new body will be accountable in broad terms. In other words, the Minister should be able to come to the House and say a body is doing a pretty good job, but should deal with X, Y and Z; he does not have to say he has questions about the last licence it gave on the Galway to Dublin route. In general terms, we should accept this amendment.
I want to make a general comment on sections 31 to 41, which deal with the dissolution of the Commission for Taxi Regulation. The various sections deal with the mechanisms of the transfer. It is my understanding that approximately €120 million has been collected by the commission since the introduction of the deregulation of taxi licences. We were informed at the last meeting, in response to Deputy Connaughton, that about €23 million is still in the accounts of the commission.
While this has nothing to do with the personalities involved, it seems the taxi commission has been a bureaucratic waste of money given the situation in regard to the taxi industry at present. While I do not want to go into the merits and demerits of that, I note that section 31 states: "The Commission for Taxi Regulation is dissolved, at the request of the Authority, on such day as the Minister appoints by order." I would hope the new authority would be in a position to review the whole operation of the taxi industry and, where existing work is being done, for example, by the Garda, that this would continue.
I merely make the point that we need less bureaucracy and, without going into the merits or demerits of the situation, we have had a lot of complainst and dissatisfaction with the taxi commission. Whatever else happens in the new authority, we need to have a much more straightforward authority and regime. As I said, this has nothing to do with the personalities involved, the question of the number of taxis or anything else like that.
Deputy's Broughan's amendment is not required and is superfluous. The Minister for Transport is already fully accountable to Dáil Éireann in accordance with Standing Orders. The Minister will be answerable to Dáil Éireann regarding all public affairs connected with the Department of Transport and the bodies under the aegis of the Department, as well as the matters of administration for which——
Why are questions thrown out?
That happens when they are not relevant to the areas of responsibility of the Minister. While I did not look at the Deputy's ten questions, I looked at ten other questions from a certain Deputy that were disallowed last week. They all basically asked the Minister whether there was going to be a 6 a.m. service between such and such a place and another place. The NRA questions I often get from the same Deputy are such that if he just went to the bother of clicking on the Internet and looking up the NRA, he would be able to get the information.
I will accept that the questions that are disallowed should not have been disallowed in all cases. However, Deputies opposite will also have to accept the fact that people are abusing the system. Deputy Broughan is absolutely right that we should have a discussion and there should be a via media where genuine concerns of a Deputy can be fully met. However, the amount of time being spent by officials and Departments trying to ensure the accuracy of parliamentary questions is a huge use of taxpayers’ money. It is right that the system should be there but it is not right that it should be abused. We need, in a non-confrontational, non-political way——
Some of the replies are obfuscation or do not answer the question, although I am not talking about the Minister's Department. Some of the answers are absolute crap, for want of a better word. They are appalling and insulting, in fact.
I accept that.
They cannot be understood.
If a Department is getting 50, 60, 80 or 100 questions which it should not be getting, it means that the genuine question — I am not just plámásing members — put in by spokespersons because they need the material——
On policy issues which are driven by——
Exactly. I agree with the Deputies. We should have that discussion.
Many of them are very good but some of them are appalling.
I wish to draw members attention to the fact it is 4 p.m., which is the time we agreed to conclude proceedings. Does the Minister wish to respond to Deputy Fahey's contribution?
There are a number of other ways the Minister can be held accountable. One does not need to put it into the legislation specifically.
On foot of our regular discussions on this issue, Deputy Fahey is aware that I disagree with him. I do not believe setting up the office of the taxi regulator was a bureaucratic waste of money or anything else, as the office has carried out some highly valuable work. However, I accept the Deputy's point that many involved in the taxi industry are working harder and for longer. The report prepared by Goodbody Economic Consultants for the Commission for Taxi Regulation also indicated this clearly. Huge improvements have been made in the taxi industry during the time in which the commission has been in place.
No one likes being regulated. Members will complain about banks and financial institutions not being regulated or will condemn lax or light touch regulation. The taxi regulator has tried and endeavoured. Like everyone else, she is only human and might not have got everything right. However, she got a lot more right than wrong. I would not like the inclusion of the Commission for Taxi Regulation within the National Transport Authority to be perceived as a slight. I make this point as the Minister responsible.
On a point of information, is the Commission for Taxi Regulation not being abolished in effect? This goes back to my comments on the Dublin Transport Authority. Members have read the legislation which appears to state clearly that as long as she is commissioner, there will be a commissioner. That is another way one can read it. My understanding is that after Ms Doyle's time has expired, there will be no obligation to have a commissioner. Will there be a division within the office of the regulator that will comprise the commission? It appears that in practical terms, the office is being abolished.
It is not being abolished. However, the Dublin Transport Authority is a regulatory body and other aspects of transport regulation also will be included within it. I am trying to ensure that at the appropriate time the National Transport Authority and those involved therein will have maximum flexibility to organise themselves to achieve the synergies and advices across the board that might be necessary. I am trying to give them maximum freedom to do this.
I refer to day-to-day regulation and administration. The Irish Taxi Council is the body which has linked all the drivers' bodies nationwide and which probably comes nearest to representing the 48,000 drivers or holders of 27,000 taxi plates. If, in a year or two, that body was to seek a meeting with the regulator, would it not be seeking to meet someone the drivers knew very well from the old days, namely, Mr. Murphy or Mr. John Fitzgerald?
Or they may not.
I do not wish to hold up the meeting and will not have an argument with the Minister at this hour of the evening. This is no reflection on Ms Doyle and I have had no difficulty with the personality involved. However, the reality is that the number of taxis has increased from 7,000 to 27,000. As each licence cost €6,300, more than €120 million was collected and I do not know what was done with that money. While I agree that much good work has been done, the legislation states in straightforward language that the Commission for Taxi Regulation is to be dissolved. This committee will seek a new regime from the authority. I do not believe that having nine enforcement officers does any good and responsibility for enforcement should revert to the Garda. Moreover, both the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs must have a direct role in respect of the inevitable fraud within the industry. Therefore, this committee will demand that the authority adopt a different approach. I do not care how many taxis there are; the more the merrier and competition is desirable. However, a quality service is also sought in which those who provide the service can make a decent living. All members are at one on that issue.
I refer to a point I made previously when I stated the replies to parliamentary questions could be crap at times. I make it clear that the vast majority of answers are excellent. However, I will return to the Minister's point about questions for the NRA or whatever agency is involved. Some of the questions I tabled in September through the Minister to the HSE still have not been answered. While telephoning today about significant matters regarding hospitals in County Louth, I inquired as to the reason and was told they had forgotten to e-mail the parliamentary questions to the people responsible. That is what I meant by stating it was a poor service when the question was on a serious issue. After this, I will receive no answers.
I do not think the Minister wishes to answer for the HSE.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 21, before section 31, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
"31.—The National Transport Authority and public transport operator shall be required to grant work staff previously taken on to provide services, the rights to which they would have been entitled if there had been a transfer within the meaning of Directive 2001/23/EC together with all pension rights and entitlements of the said staff with the previous public transport operator.".
Briefly, while it has been noted that the commissioner will retain all her rights and entitlements, the legislation is unclear as to whether the other staff in the Commission for Taxi Regulation who have been carrying out the work about which the Minister spoke will retain all their entitlements under the transfer of undertakings regulations, TUPE, and Directive 2001/23/EC, together with all pension rights and entitlements. This concern arises in respect of the development of outside agencies. This issue has been encountered previously regarding transport staff from CIE, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, as well as the Minister's colleagues within the Department of Transport, whose rights and entitlements will be protected if they transfer to this agency. I seek the Minister's views in this regard.
In such circumstances everyone is covered under the transfer of undertakings directive. It applies automatically in circumstances where workers are being transferred, which is the case in this instance. All the rights of all the workers will be protected. I should note that staff from CIE, Bus Éireann or Bus Átha Cliath will not be transferred anywhere. This relates to departmental staff, Dublin Transport Office staff and Commission for Taxi Regulation staff. The staff who will move to this body will be covered by the transfer of undertakings directive and protected.
I refer specifically to the staff from the Commission for Taxi Regulation. Will they retain all their rights and entitlements?
I refer the Deputy to section 39 of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31 agreed to.
Sections 32 to 40, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 41.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 25, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall direct the Authority in carrying out the regulatory functions of the Commission on Taxi Regulation to take taxi capacity and the taxi demand-supply balance into account as a key condition of the granting of licences.".
These final two amendments relate to the transfer of the commission's functions to the Dublin Transport Authority. Amendment No. 68 relates to the Schedule and seeks to amend the Taxi Regulation Act 2003. The amendments arise from discussions between the Department and the Joint Committee on Transport. As the Acting Chairman is aware, members obtained their own legal advice. The committee's legal advice stated the commission had the power to regulate the number of taxi licences and could perform a survey based on demand, as is standard in other European jurisdictions. For example, in the states of Berlin, Brandenburg and North Rhine-Westphalia, the provinces of the Netherlands and so on it is commonplace for a regulator to evaluate how many taxi plates are appropriate for a population as it rises or falls. Amendment No. 67 proposes the insertion of subsection (2) to the effect that "The Minister shall direct the Authority in carrying out the regulatory functions of the Commission on Taxi Regulation to take taxi capacity and the taxi demand-supply balance into account as a key condition of the granting of licences". Amendment No. 68 proposes to insert the phrase, "and may, if the level of consumer demand so justifies it, make regulations limiting entry to the taxi market by reference to a particular number of new licences to be granted in any particular year, if it is satisfied that such a limit would not have any material adverse impact on the service to consumers". While we were having lengthy discussions with our legal advisers, led by the Chairman, I made the point that we were used to regulators limiting the number of competitors. The classic case is one the Minister administered in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. None of us, tonight or in the next few weeks could go out and open a radio station. We would have to wait for a regulator, the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland. Mr. O'Keeffe will have to look at the market to assess how many rock stations or west of Ireland stations we could have and so on. He has given a bevy of new stations recently. He looks at the numbers in the market, so there is a precedent for it in a major market. In the cross communications industry, we cannot set up a new mobile telephone company tomorrow night and introduce a fifth or sixth competitor in mobile phones. It is not possible. I know Tesco considered the situation.
Our legal adviser agreed that there was a precedent and that the number of taxis can be regulated. Our committee sent the Minister our advice and I am seeking to implement such a provision within the Taxi Regulator via these amendments.
Both of these amendments would restrict the number of taxis. Deputy Broughan and other members will know that, when we restricted the number of licences, the cost of them went through the roof to €80,000, €90,000 or €100,000. We should not revert to such a situation or circumstances in which one could not get a taxi when needed. I do not accept the argument. The best way to decide on the number of taxis is by qualitative controls, which the CTR has been applying.
The commission is doing it now. It is a sleeveen approach. The reason being given is that it is intended to provide accessible taxis only, but we all know that it is a moratorium by the back door. My amendments do not request a moratorium, but how can other jurisdictions, such as Berlin, be so wrong?
Other jurisdictions do not have written constitutions and High Court decisions on this matter.
Germany does.
Allow the Minister to finish.
Leaving the decision aside, the Goodbody report showed that the number of wheelchair accessible taxis was falling. In this light, the decision was a good one and I praise the regulator. The way to ensure a good quality taxi service that does as the Deputy says — provides a service for the public and a good living for the people involved — is to apply standards that must be met by everyone. The best taxis will survive.
We have all heard of wheelchair taxis that have refused to call because of the extra time and trouble involved.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 1; Níl, 6.
Tá
- Broughan, Thomas P.
Níl
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 41 agreed to.
Sections 42 to 46, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 34, line 31, after "drivers" to insert the following:
"and may, if the level of consumer demand so justifies it, make regulations limiting entry to the taxi market by reference to a particular number of new licences to be granted in any particular year, if it is satisfied that such a limit would not have any material adverse impact on the service to consumers".
The Labour Party supported this Bill on Second Stage. I ask the Minister to examine a number of the amendments again. I refer in particular to those concerned with a level playing pitch regarding the rights and entitlements of bus workers, including their working conditions and salaries so that a company not prepared to adhere to our employee protection regulation will not have an advantage. On that matter, I am disappointed the Minister has not accepted my amendments. For that reason I will abstain on this Stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
TITLE.
Question proposed: "That the Title be the Title to the Bill."
I want to vote on the totality of the Bill.
I am told by the clerk to the committee that Deputy O'Dowd cannot vote against the totality of the Bill on Committee Stage.
Can I call a vote on this question?
Yes.
Deputy Frank Fahey resumed the Chair.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 3.
Tá
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Kennedy, Michael.
Níl
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
Question declared carried.
I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance. I also thank all members for what was a very interesting and good debate.
Bill reported with amendments.