Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 May 2003

Vol. 567 No. 2

Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Coras Iompair Éireann.

Róisín Shortall

Ceist:

79 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the position regarding his discussions with the CIE group of trade unions regarding the future of CIE; when the last meeting was held; when the next meeting is planned; if his attention has been drawn to the serious concern expressed by the General Secretary of ICTU that this could destroy the recently agreed national pay deal; the steps he intends to take to avert an industrial dispute by transport workers, having regard to the overwhelming vote by members of the NBRU to strike; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13673/03]

Since outlining my proposals for regulatory and structural reform of public transport to the Public Transport Partnership Forum last November, I have met trade union delegations on four occasions. At our meeting on 4 February I agreed to bilateral discussions between my Department and the trade unions on the reform of the bus market in Dublin. A total of four bilateral meetings were held during February and March.

The most recent meeting with the trade unions took place last Thursday when the Taoiseach, I and the secretaries general of both our Departments met a delegation from congress. At that meeting it was agreed that there would be further contacts between congress and officials from our Departments.

From the discussions which have taken place, I am acutely aware of the concerns of the trade unions and their members and I hope they also fully understand that the primary objective of the proposals for the regulatory reform of public transport is the delivery of more and better quality public transport services to the travelling public at a reasonable cost to both the user and the taxpayer. The proposals are designed to use competition for the provision of services to stimulate better performance, improved efficiency and better cost effectiveness and to enable taxpayers to see clearly how funding for public transport is being spent to deliver service and to establish a clear link between payments from the taxpayer and performance.

While I am anxious to make speedy progress on the implementation of a programme of regulatory and structural reform, I am also anxious to continue a constructive dialogue with the trade unions.

I am sure the Minister will accept that David Begg is a reasonable person who does not make statements lightly about the danger in which the Minister is putting the national pay agreement as a result of his actions in respect of CIE. Does the Minister accept there is a real problem in respect of the manner in which he is forcing his proposals on transport workers and a real danger that there will be repercussions in terms of national partnership? Does he accept that valid points are being put forward by the unions concerned, not just in their own self-interest but in respect of the points they make about the experience in the United Kingdom, in particular the disastrous outcome of privatisation there and the case being made for retaining public transport services in public ownership? What consideration has the Minister given to the points being made and is he prepared to discuss the points of principle at stake in this whole affair?

I have made two sets of proposals. One is to open the Dublin Bus market to the private sector by 25% in 2004. I have also proposed that the holding company in CIE will be dissolved and the three companies established independently as State companies so that they can compete with each other and offer alternative services to the public. I have made it clear at all stages that I and the Government fully respect the social partnership arrangements and the agreements entered into, and I have the greatest respect for Mr. Begg. Having dealt with him in the past I know him to be very straight, fair and honest and I took careful note of what he said. I am aware that he has taken careful note of what I said also, which is that these reforms are important for the Government to consider and progress and I do not see any reason we cannot progress them in discussions with the union movement.

In so far as there are issues to do with security of employment, pensions and terms and conditions, I have no difficulty in dealing with all of those. We can negotiate them to the satisfaction of the people who work in CIE today. I do not envisage compulsory redundancies of any sort but I envisage reform along the lines I have laid out. Incidentally, I was pleased to see Deputy Rabbitte's speech to his conference in Killarney. The section of the speech did not get to be delivered for time reasons but it was reported in The Irish Times. He is quoted as saying that transport systems can no longer be run for the benefit only of transport workers and that even though they have a vital input, they must be run for the benefit of consumers. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte on that. I take that to mean that these reforms are in the interest of consumers and taxpayers and I look forward to pressing ahead with them in full consultation with the union movements as I prepare legislation to bring before this House.

The leader of the Labour Party made those comments when he was talking about the importance of putting the consumer at the forefront of public services, and that the consumers' concerns are paramount and not simply the concerns of transport workers. Experience has shown that in the vast majority of cases the most effective public transport system that can be provided is in the context of a publicly owned company. Again I refer to the experience in the UK. Will the Minister accept that part of the reason there has not been any kind of meeting of minds in this regard is that he has never explained exactly what he is trying to achieve. He appears to be hell-bent on competition for the sake of competition and he has not indicated to anybody how he believes the services might be improved by franchising 25% of the bus company in the Dublin area. Yesterday, Dublin Bus representatives appeared before the transport committee. Dublin Bus has done an outstanding job in recent years with modest increases in subvention. Will the Minister explain how he sees the transport system improving purely by bringing in private operators in the complete absence of any kind of regulation in this area?

Two issues arise. On the UK point, I will try to debunk that myth at some stage because it is constantly trotted out on the floor of the House. The reality is that London city, which is a franchise operation, has a regulator. They go out to tender and they franchise all the routes in London city.

When will we have a regulator?

I have the figures for the Deputy. Since that practice started, the number of people using buses in London has increased dramatically and the subsidy per travelling passenger has decreased dramatically. An area on which I agree with the Deputy, and I am not up for it, is that they made a fatal mistake in the UK in privatising the rail track. That was silly because the rail track is a strategic national asset and is better in State ownership. They made that mistake in the UK but if we look at the bus market in the UK, all the results are the same – the numbers of people travelling by bus grew dramatically and that means fewer cars.

As they are growing here. What about a regulator? Surely that is the first step.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Question No. 80.

We will appoint a regulator.

As soon as the legislation comes before the House.

This has been promised for years.

Yes. The first thing to do is to establish a regulator.

I think the promise is eight or nine months old.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair has called Question No. 80.

Many promises were made around that time.

The Deputy should look at this morning's headline. We are getting through them.

Barr
Roinn